August 30, 2016 Jacqueline Toemmes Genson, AICP Planning

Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. Ph. 239-947-1144 Fax. 239-947-0375 3800 Via Del Rey EB 0005151 LB 0005151 LC 26000266 Bonita Springs, FL 34134 www.gradyminor.com

August 30, 2016 Jacqueline Toemmes Genson, AICP Planning and Zoning Manager City of Bonita Springs Community Development 9220 Bonita Beach Road, Suite 109 Bonita Springs, FL 34135 RE: Pelican Landing CPD/RPD Amendment, PD15-23946-BOS Dear Ms. Genson: This correspondence is our formal response to sufficiency remand review letter #1, provided to us on July 11, 2016 (via email). Responses to staff comments have been provided in bold. The applicant has provided responses to the comments from the Village of Estero staff. These responses are offered as a courtesy and the applicant expects that City of Bonita staff will not require the applicant to satisfy non-City of Bonita Springs comments in order for the application to be deemed sufficient. Planning and Zoning 1. Application.

a. Part 5A. Please complete. Response: Part 5A has been completed, the revised application is included with this submittal.

b. Part 7. Please complete in accordance with the Lee County Land Development Code (LDC), Administrative code, and the Lee County Development of Regional Impact (DRI) Development Order for Pelican Landing.

Response: A traffic analysis has been provided in this resubmittal in compliance with the zoning TIS methodology approved in the Administrative Code. The Master Concept Plan is consistent with the requirements for Pelican Landing and all of the previously approved Master Concept Plans. Pelican Landing has been subject to the Final Plan Approval process for decades, which is an additional layer of review that allows the property owner and the local government to

Jacqueline Toemmes Genson, AICP RE: Pelican Landing CPD/RPD Amendment, PD15-23946-BOS August 30, 2016 Page 2 of 21 provide a tracking mechanism and to provide greater specificity at the development area within the RPD/CPD is ready to proceed. The property in this instance is a significant distance from property located outside of the Pelican Landing DRI.

c. Part 8. Any application material that did not receive a waiver previously is required or another waiver request must be submitted.

Response: Items 8 A – C and E – G are provided with this response. The applicant is not within a flow-way, nor adjacent to a navigable channel. Waivers from Items 8 D and H are enclosed.

d. Affidavit of Authorization and Disclosure of Interest forms. Part V, Exhibit I-B-4, and Exhibit I-F. Paul Erhardt is not listed as an officer or registered agent for Pelican Landing Golf Resort Ventures Limited Partnership with the Division of Corporations.

Response: Florida Department of State Division of Corporation documents are included with this submittal, which shows Paul Erhardt as Vice President of Pelican Landing Golf Resort Ventures, Inc., which is the General Partner of Pelican Landing Golf Resort Ventures Limited Partnership.

e. Request Statement and Demonstration of Compatibility. i. FDC Analysis.

1. Pages 1-2. It should be clarified that all development in the Pelican Landing Development of Regional Impact (DRI) is required to comply with the Hurricane Preparedness conditions in both the City and County DRI development orders. If this new development is not a part of the Pelican Landing Community Association, then WCI shall be required that this separate Property Owner Association (POA) be advised of these conditions.

Response: The hurricane preparedness section of the DRI DO indicates that the mitigation requirements for 4050 units have been addressed. The above statement is not correct, the applicant only has to comply with the City DRI as it is not at this moment under the jurisdiction of the County. WCI puts all purchasers on notice of the DRI DO . It is understood that an association must be formed that will conduct an educational seminar. It is also understood that prior to the issuance of a local development order a hurricane evacuation plan must be created. The applicant acknowledges that all development with in the DRI is required to comply with hurricane preparedness conditions of the DRI Development Orders.

2. Page 2. 9j-2.0257, Florida Administrative Code (FAC) was transferred to 73C-40.0257. Staff acknowledges that Southwest Florida has a Special Hurricane

Jacqueline Toemmes Genson, AICP RE: Pelican Landing CPD/RPD Amendment, PD15-23946-BOS August 30, 2016 Page 3 of 21

Preparedness District for Developments of Regional Impact based on the 1995 Hurricane Evacuation Study Update.

Response: The Pelican Landing DRI, and all the units within the DRI were reviewed and approved under this rule. The rule requires that the first finished floor of all residential units shall be elevated above the anticipated category three flood level. The development within Pelican Landing meets, and will continue to meet this requirement.

3. Page 4. a. It appears the Pelican Landing DRI is located in two Traffic Evacuation Zone

(TEZ). Please include TEZ 1600 and update accordingly. Response: The Analysis has been revised to note both Traffic Evacuation Zones.

b. Please explain how the occupancy rate and persons/unit calculation. Reference to comprehensive plan range for Outlying Suburban is incorrect.

Response: Please see attached revised report from Florida Disaster Consulting, LLC.

4. Page 5. a. Policy 105.1.5. A portion of this statement is inaccurate. The portion of the

parcel located in the Kersey Smoot RPD has been designated as a golf course since 1998. The portion of the parcel located within the Pelican Landing CPD/RPD RPD Area E only allowed for multi-family at a maximum height of 75’ above minimum flood elevation with no more than 6 habitable floors, but was rezoned in 2000 for incorporation into the golf course development.

Response: Regardless, no new units are proposed to be added to the Pelican Landing DRI. The currently permitted units within the Kersey Smoot RPD were also units redistributed from the overall DRI allocation of dwelling units. The City previously recognized that the shifting of units within the Pelican Landing DRI would not divest any rights to the units. The 2013 Annexation Agreement language Regarding Shifting Units:

“1.6 The location of high rises may shift or be adjusted but shifting or adjusting the

location does not divest the right to build the high rise buildings.”


“3.2 The parties acknowledge that the PROPERTY is part of a development subject to the Pelican Landing DRI, established by the adopted Pelican Landing DRI Development Order State DRI #1-9293-121, the Pelican Landing RPD/CPD Lee County Resolutions Z-94-014, Z-95-061, Z-97-073, and the Kersey-Smoot RPD Lee County Resolutions Z-07-031, Z-03-029, Z-07-031, which are incorporated by reference into this agreement. The CITY acknowledges Owner's right to develop the PROPERTY in a manner consistent with the existing approved DRI DO and zoning resolutions. The City further agrees that the City supports and will approve an application to provide for a development plan that will allow a portion of the existing approved units within the DRI to be clustered and constructed in up to four multi-family buildings with the permitted height of twenty (20) habitable floors over two (2) floors of parking. The multi-family buildings will be located within the areas currently approved for golf development. In the alternative the City further agrees that the City supports and will approve an application to provide for development of single-family, zero lot line, duplex, townhouse, and multi-family buildings up to one hundred twenty (120) feet in height over parking. The Owner has the discretion to determine the ultimate development program and the City agrees to the development of the four multi-family buildings up to twenty (20) habitable floors over two (2) floors of parking or the clustering of units in a number of multi-family buildings at a height less than 120 feet in height over parking as long as the buildings are generally consistent with the property development regulations set forth in the zoning resolutions delineated above. The units will not be located in areas currently subject to a conservation easement. The units may be allocated from any of the zoning resolutions identified above as long as the total number of units within the DRI are not exceeded.”

b. Policy 5.2.6. The reference to this policy is inaccurate. This policy is in reference

to redevelopment of existing multi-family residential development approved and developed prior to the adoption of the 1984 Lee Plan and is in excess of their density range. Please verify if the applicant is proposing that the first finished floor will be elevated above a category 3 storm surge and not category 5 as this policy requires.

Response: The applicant has revised the consistency analysis to remove discussion of Policy 5.2.6. The buildings will comply with FEMA and local building requirements for minimum finished floor elevations.

5. Please provide a copy of the most current Hurricane Plan that was submitted to Lee County Division of Public Safety.

Response:

Jacqueline Toemmes Genson, AICP RE: Pelican Landing CPD/RPD Amendment, PD15-23946-BOS August 30, 2016 Page 5 of 21 A copy of the 2016 Pelican Landing Management Plan for Storm Emergency is included with this response. Please note that the development will comply with Policy 110.1.3. and 110.1.4. These plans are required prior to the issuance of a local development order and not at the time of zoning.

6. Page 6. Policy 110.1.3. The statement directs staff to “see below.” Please explain.

Response: The statement is not necessary and has been deleted.

7. Map 1. Please provide a map legend. Response: The map with legend has been provided.

8. Map 3. Please provide a map legend. Response: The map legend for the inset map has been provided. 2. Lee Plan Consistency

a. Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Policy 5.1.2. Public comment at the February 3, 2016 meeting indicated that the Kersey Smoot RPD and Pelican Landing CPD/RPD RPD Area E was historically entitled with lower density and private recreational development. Staff acknowledges that the DRI development order lists conditions relative to Hurricane Preparedness as outlined in the 1994 DRI development order. However, this request would expose far more residents to hurricane hazards north of Coconut Road than what was originally contemplated when the companion DRI and rezonings were first approved (Pelican Landing CPD/RPD in 1994; Kersey Smoot RPD in 1998).

Response: The applicant does not have any information that supports the conclusion that “this request would expose far more residents to hurricane hazards.” The applicant would submit that the contention that more residents will be exposed to hurricane hazards is not correct. All units within the DRI have been elevated out of the category 3 level and will continue to be elevated above the category 3 level. The hurricane vulnerability zone is the area requiring evacuation in the event of a category three hurricane event. Since the first habitable floor of units that have been built and will be built will be above the category three level, there will be no increase in the number of units in a hurricane vulnerability zone. Furthermore all of the units in the 1994 DRI were evaluated for their impacts on hurricane evacuation and

Jacqueline Toemmes Genson, AICP RE: Pelican Landing CPD/RPD Amendment, PD15-23946-BOS August 30, 2016 Page 6 of 21 sheltering and mitigation for all units was provided. No additional units are proposed to be added to the DRI or RPD/CPD.

b. FLUE Policy 5.1.7. Please explain what community facilities will be available to all dwelling units and if it will be easily accessible via pedestrian and bicycle pathways.

c. FLUE Policy 5.1.10(c). Density across more than one future land use classification. This

policy was adopted by Lee County in 1990 and amended in 1992, which specified language regarding that the land be under single ownership at the time this policy was adopted and is contiguous. The Kersey Smoot property was acquired in 1998, which is after this policy was adopted. Please explain how this request to shift density from the Pelican Landing CPD/RPD is consistent with this policy.

Response: When Kersey Smoot was approved in 1998, units were reallocated from within the existing Pelican Landing DRI. Further, the Pelican Landing RPD/CPD contains a condition (19b), which limits the number of dwelling units in the Outlying Suburban Future Land Use category to 2,266 residential units. To date, there are 1,041 units constructed within the Outlying Suburban area of the Pelican Landing community. The shifting of potentially 400 units from elsewhere in the Outlying Suburban future land use category within the DRI to another location will not alter the limitation of 2,266 residential units permitted within the Outlying Suburban Future Land Use Category. The City agreed in the 2013 annexation agreement that an additional high rise could be built on what was at the time property located in the county. The annexation agreement provided that the location of the high rises may shift or be adjusted but shifting or adjusting the location does not divest the right to build the high rise buildings. The City agreed that the right to build the high rise buildings is vested and can be accomplished under the terms and conditions of the Pelican Landing RPD/CPD. The City has acknowledged and agreed that shifting can be accomplished. The county has historically allowed units to be shifted. The addition of land to the DRI has consistently lowered the density. 2013 Annexation Agreement Regarding Shifting:

“1.6 The location of high rises may shift or be adjusted but shifting or adjusting the location does not divest the right to build the high rise buildings.”

“3.2 The parties acknowledge that the PROPERTY is part of a development

subject to the Pelican Landing DRI, established by the adopted Pelican Landing DRI Development Order State DRI #1-9293-121, the Pelican Landing RPD/CPD Lee County Resolutions Z-94-014, Z-95-061, Z-97-073, and the Kersey-Smoot RPD Lee County Resolutions Z-07-031, Z-03-029, Z-07-031, which are incorporated by reference into this agreement. The CITY acknowledges Owner's right to develop the PROPERTY in a


manner consistent with the existing approved DRI DO and zoning resolutions. The City further agrees that the City supports and will approve an application to provide for a development plan that will allow a portion of the existing approved units within the DRI to be clustered and constructed in up to four multi-family buildings with the permitted height of twenty (20) habitable floors over two (2) floors of parking. The multi-family buildings will be located within the areas currently approved for golf development. In the alternative the City further agrees that the City supports and will approve an application to provide for development of single-family, zero lot line, duplex, townhouse, and multi-family buildings up to one hundred twenty (120) feet in height over parking. The Owner has the discretion to determine the ultimate development program and the City agrees to the development of the four multi-family buildings up to twenty (20) habitable floors over two (2) floors of parking or the clustering of units in a number of multi-family buildings at a height less than 120 feet in height over parking as long as the buildings are generally consistent with the property development regulations set forth in the zoning resolutions delineated above. The units will not be located in areas currently subject to a conservation easement. The units may be allocated from any of the zoning resolutions identified above as long as the total number of units within the DRI are not exceeded.”

d. FLUE Objective 19.7. Please submit the public information meeting summary report in

accordance with Lee Plan FLUE Policy 19.7.3 and LDC 33-54. Response: The meeting was held on June 27, 2016. A summary of the meeting is provided in this submittal package. 3. Lee County LDC

a. LDC 34-935(f)(1)e. Staff understands that the applicant is proposing to amend deviation 12, which is for this LDC section. Please demonstrate how the request to redevelop an existing golf course increases common open space for the purpose of preserving environmentally sensitive land, securing areas of native vegetation and wildlife habitat, or preserving historical, archaeological or scenic views.

Response: The applicant demonstrated at the time of the hearing that resulted in the adoption of Z-94-14 that additional open space, beyond the required open space, was provided. The Kersey Smoot property was not part of that consideration as the property was not part of Pelican Landing DRI at the time of the 1994 hearing. The golf course was not, and is not part of the common open space designated in the DRI DO. The property is designated as part of the recreational amenities. The property was not designated as open space because the applicant retained the right to adjust the golf course, as they now seek to do, in the instance that golf did not continue with the high level of play it once enjoyed. It should be noted that

Jacqueline Toemmes Genson, AICP RE: Pelican Landing CPD/RPD Amendment, PD15-23946-BOS August 30, 2016 Page 8 of 21 the property is developed so it is not “common open space.” Common open space is “open space that is physically accessible to all residents of the development.” The golf course is not common open space for the purpose of preserving environmentally sensitive land, securing areas of native vegetation or wildlife habitat. The applicant will address the provision of additional common open space as part of the deviation narrative.

b. The applicant is requesting to amend Z-94-14, deviation 12 to add area F1 and the ability for up to 4 more towers north of Coconut Road. Please provide a deviation request and justification. Please also provide the staff report and back up relative to the original request in 1994 from Lee County case 94-04-05-DRI-01.

Response: The approval of the Deviation was based on the demonstration that additional open space would be provided in Pelican Landing. The applicant will agree to establish a conservation easement on 100± acres in the area identified in the attached Proposed Conservation Easement Exhibit

c. LDC 34-373(a)(6). Please provide the master concept plan detail consistent with this section. The applicant may request a waiver if they wish to use Z-94-14 Condition 1 relative to the final plan approval process.

Response: The applicant has submitted the waiver request and wishes to continue to use the Final Plan Approval process.

d. LDC 34-378(b). Staff acknowledges that the applicant is requesting to use existing dwelling units that were approved in Z-94-14; however, this request entails new residential dwellings units on property that was developed and has current zoning entitlements as a golf course. Therefore, these residential units from Z-94-14 are not vested as to density or intensity.

Response: The staff is not correct, the units are vested. They are not new residential units. DRI Development Order Condition #14 reads:

14. The project will not be subject to down-zoning, unit density reduction, intensity reduction or prohibition of development until 2028. If the County clearly demonstrates that substantial changes have occurred in the conditions underlying the approval of the Development Order through public hearings on an amendment to the zoning and/or this DRI Development Order then a down-zoning, unit density reduction, or prohibition of development may occur. These changes would include, but would not be limited to, such factors as a finding that the Development Order was based on


substantially inaccurate information provided by the Developer, or that the change is clearly established by local government to be essential to the public health, safety and welfare. Lee County will reserve to this DRI until 2028, 300 acres of residential use allocation in each of the Urban Community and Outlying Suburban Future Land Use Categories (for a total of 600 acres) as established by Lee Plan Map 16, The Planning Communities Map and Table 1(b), known as the Planning Community Year 2030 Allocation. This reservation has the effect of reserving all of the acreage transferred from Gateway to Pelican Landing for the duration of the Development Order.

The applicant disagrees with staff’s assertion that the project is not vested. The project is clearly vested for development of all entitlements outlined in the DRI Development Order. The applicant has a right to rely on the approval of the development program that was approved. Further Final Plan approvals and Development Order approvals have been issued for the F Area of the Master Plan and the applicant would submit that substantial reliance on these approvals have resulted in the expenditure of over $100 million in improvements. The DRI DO in the county, and in the city includes language in the legal effect section which addresses WCI’s ability to develop all of their units. There is a paragraph that says, “The terms and conditions set out in this document constitute a basis upon which the developer and the County may rely in future actions necessary to implement fully the final development contemplated by this Resolution and Development Order.” The County DRI DO also provides; The project will not be subject to down-zoning, unit density reduction, intensity reduction or prohibition of development. The government has an affirmative obligation to demonstrate through a public hearing on an amendment to the zoning that “substantial changes have occurred in the conditions underlying the approval of the Development Order through public hearings”. The changes would have to be inaccurate information provided by the applicant in obtaining the original approval, or the change is “clearly established by local government to be essential to the public health, safety, and welfare.” The City adopted its first DRI DO on April 3rd. 2002. and the whereas clause indicated that the DRI is consistent with the adopted Lee Plan and the transitional Bonita Plan, and the proposed Bonita Springs comprehensive plan. The DRI DO approved 4,400 units. The Bonita DRI DO have the same language about down zoning, density reduction and the right to rely that the county DRI DO has. WCI entered into an annexation agreement with the City of Bonita Springs. The City issued a vested rights determination and acknowledged in the vested rights determination that WCI has been developing for 20 years. The determination incorporates all of the zoning, DRI

Jacqueline Toemmes Genson, AICP RE: Pelican Landing CPD/RPD Amendment, PD15-23946-BOS August 30, 2016 Page 10 of 21 Development Orders, variances, and final plan approvals and administrative approvals that were obtained prior to incorporation. The determination acknowledges the different zonings and included Kersey-Smoot RPD, and the Pelican Landing RPD/CPD. The determination says; “WCI and its successors in interest, due to their expenditures and reliance on the approvals below are vested to construct, retain, rebuild and develop certain buildings over 75 feet in height in the project commonly known as the Pelican Landing DRI, and it lists several zoning resolutions. The determination acknowledges that 4400 units are permitted. The determination does note that the number of units in the outlying suburban area are 2,266. The determination states; “The development of all of the as yet unbuilt areas cannot exceed 1,951 units, the number of units remaining in what was the Outlying Suburban future land use category. As of the date of the vested rights determination the city acknowledged that WCI had spent approximately 100 million dollars just in the Colony portion of the development. The City cannot now submit that the right to build all of the approved units is not vested. The annexation agreement entered into in 2013 submits that the shifting or adjustment of the location of high rise buildings does not divest the rights that have vested. The 2014 annexation agreement indicates that the units to be developed within this area can be allocated from any of the zoning resolutions identified as long as the total number of units in the DRI are not exceeded.

e. LDC 34-380(d). Please explain the maximum number of units redistributed and anticipated for this area. If it exceeds 500 units, a new and separate major planned development is required.

Response: The applicant has indicated that no more than 400 units will be shifted to the F1 Area of the project.

f. LDC 10-256. A sidewalk is identified on the north side of Coconut Road on the Lee Plan Map 3D-1 Bikeways/Walkways Facilities Plan-Planned Facilities. Sidewalk improvements may be required since the development is within ¼ mile of a county maintained collector roadway.

Response: Section 10-256 applies to “unincorporated bikeways/walkways facilities plan” and does not apply to the incorporated city of Bonita Springs. Section 10 applies at the time of local development order. The applicant is not currently seeking a local development order. There is no indication at this juncture that any portion of the property to be developed will be located within ¼ mile as measured along the principal perimeter street of an existing facility or Coconut Road. There is also no pedestrian generator such as a school, playground or

Jacqueline Toemmes Genson, AICP RE: Pelican Landing CPD/RPD Amendment, PD15-23946-BOS August 30, 2016 Page 11 of 21 shopping center within ¼ mile. There is a facility on the south side of Coconut Road that was developed by WCI. If a sidewalk is required it can only be required if there is sufficient right of way and only along the property to be developed. If any sidewalk is provided beyond the parcel seeking a development order the applicant is entitled to park or roads impact fee credits. 4. Kersey Smoot RPD

a. Z-07-031. Staff acknowledges that the Kersey Smoot RPD was approved with 362 units. Please provide the number of units built in Kersey Smoot to date. Please explain if the applicant is proposing to retain all 362 units within this planned development. If so, please demonstrate consistency with the Lee Plan for this reduced area.

b. Z-98-066, explain how this request affects condition k and m. c. Z-98-066, condition v and w. See the DRI comment relative to transportation below.

Response: The total number of units within the DRI, currently 3,912, was determined in the twelfth amendment to the DRI DO in Lee County to be located within the Urban Community, Outlying Suburban and Resource Protection Areas of the Lee Plan and the units were found to be “consistent with the Lee County Comprehensive Plan and Lee County’s land development code. These units do not include any of the units located in the Spring Creek West DRI portion of Pelican Landing. The determination of consistency with the comprehensive plan is not based on internal tracts, parcels, or individual zoning resolution, it is based on the DRI as a whole. Time-share units have been constructed within the Kersey Smoot RPD. The original Kersey Smoot RPD approved units were not based on the standard density allocation under the Lee Plan, but rather since units were being shifted internal to the DRI, Lee County staff found the application in compliance with the Lee Plan because no new density was being added to the DRI. The 204-acre Kersey Smoot project area was added to the DRI without a density increase to the DRI. Please see the excerpt from the Lee County staff report for the Kersey Smoot project Removal of the 20± acres from the Kersey Smoot RPD and moving to the Pelican Landing RPD/CPD portion of the Pelican Landing DRI will have no impact on Conditions K or M relating to the golf course. The developer remains obligated to meet these conditions as other golf holes will remain within the Kersey Smoot RPD. Please see the excerpt from the original Kersey-Smoot zoning case below;

“Pelican Landing Zoning History The proposed DRI amendment would add about 204 acres and 10 additional golf holes, but no additional dwelling units or commercial square feet to the approved DRI Development Order. A maximum of 362 previously approved residential dwellings, 150 previously approved dry boat storage slips, as well as a 19 hole golf course would be developed on the added 204 acres. Minor changes to the Land Use Acreage tabulations to


accommodate the 204 acres are proposed. Timeshare units were proposed as part of the 362 residential dwellings. In order to ensure compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood, a condition has been added to the Property Development Regulations to limit timeshare units as defined and regulated by F.S. Chapter 721 to multiple-family buildings consistent with LDC Section 34-714.”

5. Pelican Landing CPD/RPD

a. Z-94-14, Condition 15 and 16. See the DRI comment relative to transportation below. b. Z-94-14, Condition 19. Please provide the unit breakdown by development and Lee

County Future Land Use Classification to demonstrate consistency. Staff acknowledges in 2002, the City of Bonita Springs portions of the Pelican Landing CPD/RPD (prior to the 2014 annexations) were assigned the Moderate Density Mixed Use Planned Development classification; however, each final plan approval and/or local development order should have provided the unit breakdown consistent with this condition.

Response: Only the Outlying Suburban Future Land Use Category is affected with this application. The RPD/CPD contains a limitation of 2,266 units in this category. 1,041 units have been constructed to date.

c. Z-94-14, Condition 20. Please verify the current golf acreage that exists in this RPD/CPD and what will remain if this amendment is approved.

Response: The applicant is permitted to have golf as part of the recreation package. The applicant is not obligated to provide golf. Golf was not treated as open space as far as the DRI is concerned because the acreage wasn’t listed under open space, it is designated as golf. 6. Development of Regional Impact (DRI)

a. Please provide the most recent DRI Monitoring Report (include all exhibits, specifically Exhibit G) for both the City of Bonita Springs and Lee County portions of the DRI.

Response: The Monitoring Report is provided with this response.

b. Lee County DRI, Condition H4d. Based on the public comment from 2/3/2016, the county stated in an electronic correspondence that a higher factor should be used when applying it for peak season analysis for the biennial traffic monitoring report. Please address this concern accordingly.

Response:

Jacqueline Toemmes Genson, AICP RE: Pelican Landing CPD/RPD Amendment, PD15-23946-BOS August 30, 2016 Page 13 of 21 The applicant is in compliance with the DRI DO requirements for a traffic monitoring report. Condition II.H.4. identifies the entities to whom the traffic monitoring is to be provided. The report was designed in cooperation with Lee County DOT, FDOT, SWFRPC, and DCA now DEO “prior to the submittal of the first report” “The methodology of the traffic monitoring report may be revised if agreed upon by all parties.” The public comments from 2/3/2016 are not a part of those people who address the methodology for the traffic monitoring report. There is no agreement of all parties to change the methodology for the monitoring report. The applicant is in conformance with the approved methodology for monitoring reports. If there is an agreement of all parties at the time of the next traffic monitoring report the applicant will address the revised methodology. The condition goes on to submit that the requirements of the county concurrency management system must be met, the county has indicated that the level of service on Coconut Road is not failing.

c. Hurricane Preparedness. City of Bonita Springs ZO-12-02, Condition C10 acknowledged that Conditions C1 through C3 addressed the hurricane mitigation for the initial 4050 dwelling units. There is no companion condition in Lee County Resolution No. 13-08-06. Therefore, additional shelter and evacuation mitigation may be required, specifically in accordance with LDC 2.

Response: Resolution 13-08-06 incorporates by reference all of the DRI DO amendments listed in the whereas clauses. Several of those prior amendments specify the number of units. The revised document indicates that the hurricane shelter and evacuation impacts of the project at build out have been addressed. The language was amended for pithiness by the County Attorney’s office. The total number of units is still fully mitigated based on the express language in Resolution 13-08-06 as well as the language in prior amendments that were incorporated. 7. Miscellaneous.

a. Please find attached comments from the Village of Estero and Estero Fire. Please provide responses to those agency comments.

Response: Responses are provided below.

b. The City of Bonita Springs has retained David Theriaque for outside counsel for this project. Staff intends to ask Mr. Theriaque questions pertaining to this application, which may trigger additional comments relative to this zoning case and the companion DRI case, outside of this sufficiency review.

Response:

Jacqueline Toemmes Genson, AICP RE: Pelican Landing CPD/RPD Amendment, PD15-23946-BOS August 30, 2016 Page 14 of 21 Thank you for letting us know, pursuant to Chapter 119 please forward any comments, emails, texts, letters, or any form of documentation or recording from Mr. Theriaque regarding this application in a reasonable time and manner. Transportation Review

1. The resubmittal did not provide a revised Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) in accordance with

the Lee Plan and Lee County LDC. 2. The TIS methodology was submitted for input and review under separate cover on June 24,

2016. Please see comments below: a. For proposed internal capture, please identify the sites, land uses, locations and

proposed capture rate. Please be advised that any proposed internal capture trip exchange between complimentary uses within the Pelican Landing DRI that must use or cross an external roadway, including Coconut Road, will be considered an external trip for this study. All internal capture trips must stay on private property for the entirety of the trip.

b. Under Section 2) Roadway Analysis: Recommend dividing Coconut Road, between Spring Creek Rd. and US 41, into smaller segments, at North Commons Drive and at Walden Center Drive, if it is proposed that traffic will use North Commons Drive and Walden Center Drive as alternate routes to avoid using the US 41/Coconut Rd. intersection.

c. Extend segment on Pelican Colony Blvd. to N. Commons Drive. See Comment # 2. d. Under Sections 2) and 3), Traffic Data Sources: If 2016 peak season traffic counts are

not available, use 2015 peak season traffic counts and adjust for growth, or use 2016 non-peak season and adjust to peak season. If neither 2015 nor 2016 counts are available, collect new counts.

e. Under Section 3) Intersection Analysis: Intersection at Pelican Colony Blvd. and N. Commons Drive. See Comment # 2.

f. Under Section 4) Scenarios: Use only 2016 volumes for Existing Conditions analyses. For 2015 counts, adjust volumes to account for growth. This will provide consistency and help avoid misunderstandings.

g. Please clarify what is meant by: “Arterial analysis/LOS based on Synchro/SimTraffic may be performed”.

3. Staff acknowledges that a TIS analysis will be submitted for staff and interagency review at a later date.

Response: A TIS dated August 26, 2016 is provided with this sufficiency response which addresses each of the above comments. Environmental 1. There is one wetland area shown in the southern portion of the parcel on the Future Land

Use Map. After a site visit with Tim Durham of Passarella & Associates on January 26, 2016 we determined that this area (which were flooded at the time), is outside of the requested development footprint and would not be impacted.

Jacqueline Toemmes Genson, AICP RE: Pelican Landing CPD/RPD Amendment, PD15-23946-BOS August 30, 2016 Page 15 of 21 2. Since there were several wetland, conservation and setback lines on the west side of the

golf course, it was agreed that the vegetation line immediately west of the golf course would be considered the development line as this line is 50’ or greater to the east of the wetland line for the purposes of evaluating this request.

3. Lee LDC Sec.34-373. Application Requirements: (4) b. i-v Please Provide: Soils, FLUCCs Map, Habitats, Topo and Historic Flows for parcels A and B as specified below. (6) a. Please show: The location of all existing easements and conservation areas.

f. Please show: The location and acreage of indigenous areas. h. Please show: the amount of open space for the subject parcel(s) i. Please show: All proposed buffers along the perimeter of the subject property and between the individual uses.

4. Lee LDC Sec. 10-474. Management Plan: If a Management Plan does not already exist for the subject property, please provide one per LDC 10-474 (a) (1)-(3). Please modify accordingly for any changes based on this change of use from a golf course to residential development.

Response: Staff comments #1 and #2 are acknowledged. Please find attached to this sufficiency response the documents as requested. Village of Estero The Village of Estero is not a reviewing agency however, responses to the provided comments are shown in bold. 1. Part 2.D. A Certification of Title and Encumbrances was not found. Please provide. Response: A copy is provided with this submittal. 2. Part 3.E. A list of all of the Zoning Approvals applicable to the subject property was not found. Please provide Response: A list is included with this submittal packet. 3. Part 3.1. The subject property is located in the Estero Planning Community. Please provide a meeting summary document of the required public informational meeting. Please also refer to Village of Estero Ordinance No. 2015-01 for further details on the conduct of said meeting. Response: The required meeting was held June 27, 2016 and the summary is included with this submittal.

Jacqueline Toemmes Genson, AICP RE: Pelican Landing CPD/RPD Amendment, PD15-23946-BOS August 30, 2016 Page 16 of 21 4. Part 3.J. Since no approved waivers were submitted, all requirements of the application must be met. Response: The applicant has reviewed with staff and the necessary waivers have been provided. 5. Part 5. This section of the application was not completed. Please provide the requisite density calculations.

Jacqueline Toemmes Genson, AICP RE: Pelican Landing CPD/RPD Amendment, PD15-23946-BOS August 30, 2016 Page 17 of 21 Response: The applicant has proposed no increase in the previously approved number of dwelling units therefore density calculations are not applicable. 6. Part 6. If this section is not applicable, please indicate on the application. Response: The application has been revised to show this section as not applicable. 7. Part 7.B. Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) was not provided. Please provide a TIS which complies with the Lee County TIS Guidelines for Planned Development Zoning Applications as required in Lee County LDC Section 34-373(a)(7). A TIS methodology meeting would be in order. The TIS should focus on present and future Level of Service on Coconut Road and at the US- 1/Coconut Road intersection. Response: A methodology conference call was conducted and the agreed upon methodology was utilized in the provided TIS. 8. Part 7.C.I. The Master Concept Plan (MCP) provided with the application does not show and identify the information required by Lee County LDC Section 34-373(a)(6) drawn at a scale sufficient to adequately show and identify the required information. Please submit a MCP which complies with the Lee County LDC provisions detailed in Section 34-373(a)6)a. through Section 34-373(a)6)l which includes an open space design plan delineating the indigenous preserves and/or native tree preservation as required by Lee County LDC Section 10-415(b) Response: The applicant has provided a waiver request and will continue to utilize the Final Plan approval process. 9. Part 7.C.2. Please provide a schedule of uses keyed to the Master Concept Plan (see #8 above). Response: A schedule of uses is included with this submittal. 10. Part 7.C.3. If no deviations are requested, please indicate N/A. If deviations are requested, please provide a schedule of deviations and a written justification for each deviation keyed to the MCP with sample drawings illustrating how each deviation will enhance the achievement of the objectives of the planned development and not cause a detriment to public interests. Please see Lee County LDC Section 34-373(a)(9).

Jacqueline Toemmes Genson, AICP RE: Pelican Landing CPD/RPD Amendment, PD15-23946-BOS August 30, 2016 Page 18 of 21 Response: Only a modification to the location of a previously approved deviation is proposed. 11. Part 8. A, 8.B, 8.C., 8.E., 8.F., 8.G., and 8.H. These environmental application requirements were not specifically addressed in the form. Please respond to these requirements. Response: The requested materials are included in this submittal. 12. Part 9.B. and 9.C. These requirements were not addressed in the form; if not applicable, please indicate N/A. Response: The application form has been revised to note they are not applicable. The applicant also has a letter from BSU acknowledging that ample capacity exists in their system to accommodate the proposed amendment. 13. Part 10.A.1. A Conceptual Surface Water Management System description was provided but this does not meet the level of detail required by Lee County LDC Section 34-373(b)(1). Please submit in compliance with Section 34-373(b)( l ). Response: A revised description has been included with this submittal. 14. Part 10.A.2. Please provide a description of the proposed phasing plan unless the project is to be constructed in a single phase. See Lee County LDC Section 34-373(b)(3). Response: The project is proposed to be constructed in a single phase. 15. Part 10.A.3. Please provide a Protected Species Survey. See Lee County LDC Section 34-373(b)(2). Response: A Protected Species Survey has been conducted and the analysis is provided in the Listed Species Survey attached to this submittal. 16. Part 10.C. In the project narrative, the applicant states that The units are approved as vested units. Please provide all documentation showing that the units proposed for this development application are vested units for this property.

Jacqueline Toemmes Genson, AICP RE: Pelican Landing CPD/RPD Amendment, PD15-23946-BOS August 30, 2016 Page 19 of 21 Response: Please see the Vested Rights Determination, all DRI Development Orders in the City and the County, please see all annexation agreements regarding Pelican Landing, and please review Chapter 163 and Chapter 380, F.S. DRI Development Order Condition #14 reads:

14. The project will not be subject to down-zoning, unit density reduction, intensity reduction or prohibition of development until 2028. If the County clearly demonstrates that substantial changes have occurred in the conditions underlying the approval of the Development Order through public hearings on an amendment to the zoning and/or this DRI Development Order then a down-zoning, unit density reduction, or prohibition of development may occur. These changes would include, but would not be limited to, such factors as a finding that the Development Order was based on substantially inaccurate information provided by the Developer, or that the change is clearly established by local government to be essential to the public health, safety and welfare. Lee County will reserve to this DRI until 2028, 300 acres of residential use allocation in each of the Urban Community and Outlying Suburban Future Land Use Categories (for a total of 600 acres) as established by Lee Plan Map 16, The Planning Communities Map and Table 1(b), known as the Planning Community Year 2030 Allocation. This reservation has the effect of reserving all of the acreage transferred from Gateway to Pelican Landing for the duration of the Development Order.

The applicant disagrees with staff’s assertion that the project is not vested. The project is clearly vested for development of all entitlements outlined in the DRI Development Order. Further Final Plan approvals and Development Order approvals have been issued for the F1 Area of the Master Plan and the applicant would submit that substantial reliance on these approvals have resulted in the expenditure of over $100 million in improvements. The DRI DO in the county, and in the city includes language in the legal effect section which addresses WCI’s ability to develop all of their units. There is a paragraph that says, “The terms and conditions set out in this document constitute a basis upon which the developer and the County may rely in future actions necessary to implement fully the final development contemplated by this Resolution and Development Order.” The County DRI DO also provides; The project will not be subject to down-zoning, unit density reduction, intensity reduction or prohibition of development. The government has an affirmative obligation to demonstrate through a public hearing on an amendment to the zoning that “substantial changes have occurred in the conditions underlying the approval of the Development Order through public hearings”. The changes would have to be inaccurate information provided by the applicant in obtaining the original approval, or the change is

Jacqueline Toemmes Genson, AICP RE: Pelican Landing CPD/RPD Amendment, PD15-23946-BOS August 30, 2016 Page 20 of 21 “clearly established by local government to be essential to the public health, safety, and welfare.” The City adopted its first DRI DO on April 3rd. 2002. and the whereas clause indicated that the DRI is consistent with the adopted Lee Plan and the transitional Bonita Plan, and the proposed Bonita Springs comprehensive plan. The DRI DO approved 4,400 units. The Bonita DRI DO have the same language about down zoning, density reduction and the right to rely that the county DRI DO has. WCI entered into an annexation agreement. The City acknowledged the vested rights determination that WCI has relied upon and has been developing for 20 years. The determination incorporates all of the zoning, DRI Dos, variances, and final plan approvals and administrative approvals that had been obtained prior to incorporation. The determination acknowledges the different zonings and included Kersey-Smoot RPD, and the Pelican Landing RPD/CPD. The determination says; “WCI and its successors in interest, due to their expenditures and reliance on the approvals below are vested to construct, retain, rebuild and develop certain buildings over 75 feet in height in the project commonly known as the Pelican Landing DRI, and it lists several zoning resolutions. The determination acknowledges that 4400 units are permitted. The determination does note that the number of units in the outlying suburban area are 2,266. The determination states; “The development of all of the as yet unbuilt areas cannot exceed 1,951 units, the number of units remaining in what was the Outlying Suburban future land use category. As of the date of the vested rights determination the city acknowledged that WCI had spent approximately 100 million dollars just in the colony portion of the development. The 2014 annexation agreement indicates that the units to be developed within this area can be allocated from any of the zoning resolutions identified as long as the total number of units in the DRI are not exceeded. 17. Part 10.L. Please provide a written determination from Lee County Port Authority regarding the potential airport obstruction or hazard created by the development proposed. See Lee County LDC Section 34-1010(a). Response: Please see attached correspondence to the Port Authority regarding the Tall Structure Permit.

Jacqueline Toemmes Genson, AICP RE: Pelican Landing CPD/RPD Amendment, PD15-23946-BOS August 30, 2016 Page 21 of 21 Please contact either Neale Montgomery at 336-6235 or me if there are any questions. Sincerely,

D. Wayne Arnold, AICP Enclosures Cc: Pelican Landing Golf Resort Ventures LP Neale Montgomery

GradyMinor File

Documents

August 30, 2016 Jacqueline Toemmes Genson, AICP Planning