Loading...
CCPC Agenda 08/06/2015 COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA AUGUST 6, 2015 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 9:00 A.M., THURSDAY,AUGUST 6,2015, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER,THIRD FLOOR, 3299 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST,NAPLES,FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—July 2,2015 6. BCC REPORT-RECAPS 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PL20140002143/CPSS-2014-4: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance No. 89-05, as amended,the Collier County Growth Management Plan for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, specifically amending the Golden Gate Area Master Plan Element and Golden Gate Area Future Land Use Map and Map Series by adding the Southbrooke Office Subdistrict to the Estates-Commercial District to allow a maximum of 40,000 square feet of gross floor area for uses allowed in the C-1 Commercial Professional and General Office zoning district. The subject property is located on the south side of Immokalee Road east of Valewood Drive in Section 29, 1 Township 48 South, Range 26 East, consisting of 5.19 acres; and furthermore, recommending transmittal of the adopted amendment to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity; providing for severability and providing for an effective date. (Companion to PUDZ-PL20140002077) [Coordinator: Corby Schmidt, AICP,Principal Planner] B. PUDZ-PL20140002077: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,Florida amending Ordinance Number 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code which includes the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from an Estates (E) zoning district to a Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD)zoning district to allow up to 40,000 square feet of gross floor area of commercial development on a 5.19± acre parcel to be known as the Southbrooke CPUD, located on the south side of Immokalee Road,east of Valewood Drive in Section 29, Township 48 South,Range 26 East, Collier County,Florida; and by providing an effective date. (Companion to PL20140002143/ CPSS-2014-4) [Coordinator: Fred Reischl,AICP,Principal Planner] C. PUDA-PL20140000548: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance Number 2003-11, the East Gateway Planned Unit Development, by adding 250 residential dwelling units to be developed in addition to the commercial development on the commercial development area or as an alternative to industrial and business park development on the industrial business park development area; by changing the name of the planned unit development to the East Gateway Mixed Use Planned Unit Development; by adding Permitted Uses for residential development; by adding Development Standards for residential development; by adding Deviations; by revising the Master Plan; by adding Exhibit B and Exhibit C, Road Right-of-Way Cross Sections; by revising Developer Commitments for the PUD located on the north side of Davis Boulevard and west of CR 951 in Section 34, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida consisting of 37.5± acres; and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator: Fred Reischl,AICP,Principal Planner] D. PUDA-PL20140002461: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance Number 08-41, the First Assembly Ministries Education & Rehabilitation Campus MPUD, as amended, to remove two-family dwellings from permitted principal uses, and add detached and attached garages, and daycare services for children to permitted accessory uses in Tract G;to reduce the minimum floor area for multi-family dwelling units from 850 square feet to 750 square feet; to reduce the period that affordable-workforce dwelling units must be reserved for qualified renters from 60 days to 14 days; to remove the affordable-workforce housing phasing schedule; to remove the prohibition on one bedroom non-church-related dwelling units; to release developer commitments relating to transportation and affordable housing; and to revise the PUD Master Plan to relocate the existing access point near the southeast corner of the property to align with the entry for The Lord's Way RPUD to the south for the PUD property consisting of 69± acres located on the east side of Collier Blvd. (C.R. 951), approximately 1/2 mile north of Rattlesnake-Hammock Rd. (C.R. 864), in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida; and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach,AICP,RLA, Principal Planner] 10. OLD BUSINESS 11. NEW BUSINESS 12. PUBLIC COMMENT 13. ADJOURN CCPC Agenda/Ray Bellows/jmp 2 July 2, 2015 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples,Florida,July 2,2015 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: CHAIRWOMAN: Karen Homiak Stan Chrzanowski Diane Ebert Charlette Roman ABSENT: Mark Strain Brian Doyle ALSO PRESENT: Fred Reischl,Zoning Division Raymond V. Bellows,Planning Manager,Zoning Heidi Ashton-Cicko,County Attorney's Office Tom Eastman, School District Representative Page 1 of 51 July 2, 2015 PROCEEDINGS CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Good morning. Could you please take your seats. This is the July 2nd,2015, Collier County Planning Commission meeting. And could you all please stand,after I told you to sit down,for the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Diane,roll call,please. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. Good morning. This is a sparse roll call. Mr. Eastman? MR.EASTMAN: Here. Good morning. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Chrzanowski? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Here. Good morning. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ms.Ebert is here. Mr. Strain is absent. Ms. Homiak? CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And Mr.Doyle is absent. And,Ms.Roman? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Addenda to the agenda. We have a request for a continuance for 9C? MR.REISCHL: Thank you,Madam Chairman. 9C has requested a continuance to an indefinite date. They're going to do a redesign of the dock. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Okay. So we--is that right,Richard? MR.YOVANOVICH: Are you sure? CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: He has a confused look on his face. MR.YOVANOVICH: Good morning. For the record,Rich Yovanovich. I was recently retained to work on that project,and my understanding was it was for a two-week continuance. But could we hold off on how long the continuance will be while I--after this next hearing I can confirm how long the request is? CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Sure. MR.YOVANOVICH: That's why I had that puzzled look. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Sure. MR.REISCHL: Yeah. The email I got just requested a continuance. It didn't say till any date. So if you want to amend that,that's fine with us. MR.YOVANOVICH: Yes. The intention was,I believe,to continue for two weeks. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Till the 16th? MR.YOVANOVICH: To the 16th,assuming you guys have a meeting on the 16th. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Oh,yes,we do. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: We do? Do we have a meeting on the 16th? MR.REISCHL: Yes. MR.YOVANOVICH: That's my understanding. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: So you want to wait till that item,because of anybody that might be here to speak on it? MR.YOVANOVICH: Well,no. We would like the continuance,but I didn't like the indefinite nature of that. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Oh,okay. MR.YOVANOVICH: That was--I didn't want to misrepresent that it could be far off in the future. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Do we need a vote from this board to continue? MR.YOVANOVICH: We could always further continue in two weeks if it turns out we do want to go a longer period of time. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Could we have a-- Page 2 of 51 July 2, 2015 COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Yeah. I'll move to continue BD-PL20140002207 to our July 16th meeting. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'll second. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: All those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Planning Commission absences. Not too many of us here. We'll be--will any of you be gone on the 16th,or are you going to be in attendance? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'll be here. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Everybody? Okay. (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: And approval of the minutes,the May 21st. Anyone? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I'll move to approve. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'll second. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Second. All those in favor? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Okay. And the August 6th--I mean,not August. I'm sorry. I wrote this down. June 4th,2015,minutes. Are there any changes or corrections or-- COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I'll move to approve. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: All those in favor? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: BCC recaps. Ray, is there anything? MR.BELLOWS: Yes. On June 9th,the Board of County Commissioners approved the rezone for Argo Manatee. That was approved 5-0,but they had an additional condition that it was approved without the sidewalk deviation. Planning-- MR.REISCHL: Yeah. The sidewalk deviation on the western side of Manatee Road. The deviation only applied to the eastern side,the small,little cul-de-sac on Argo Manatee. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Oh,okay. MR.BELLOWS: They also heard and approved the PUD amendment for Vincentian. That was approved 5-0. Then on June 23rd,the Board of County Commissioners approved Lido Isles PUD rezone,and that was a vote of 4-1 with Commissioner Henning opposed. COMMISSIONER EBERT: On Lido Isles? MR.BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Thank you. Chairman's report. I don't have one. ***And no consent-agenda items, so that brings us right to 9A and B,which are companion items. So I think we could do those both at the same time,vote on them separately. Page 3 of 51 July 2, 2015 And--so that would be BD-PL20150000486,that's the Haldeman Creek docks,and the Special Treatment Development Permit, ST-PL20150000500.And we would also vote that as the EAC. So we'll first hear from the petitioner,then the staff,and then we'll have the-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Swearing in. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Yep. And I just want to let them know,then you can--the speakers that have registered,there's slips out in the hallway.You'll be speaking after we hear the reports. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Madam Chair,would you like to do ex parte disclosures before the swearing in? CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Yep. Oh,before the swearing in or after? MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Whatever you want to do. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Anybody wishing to speak on this item needs to stand and be sworn in by the court reporter now,please. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Disclosures. Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I spoke to Mr.Yovanovich about this project, and I kayaked the site,and I believe I might have--I sent a copy of the GPS track of what I did and a few of the photos to Mr.Yovanovich,but I got a bounce-back on my computer. So I don't know if he got them or not. MR.YOVANOVICH: I did not. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Not,okay. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. I spoke with staff,tons of staff,tons of county employees,Mr. Hall,I spoke with Davidson Engineering,I spoke with Nicole Johnson,the assessor's office,Bayfront homeowners,and God. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Okay. And I spoke with Mr.Yovanovich and had read all the emails and letters that I received. Charlette? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Yes. I spoke with staff,the emails from the community,I also spoke with Tim Hall from Turrell Hall&Associates,Nicole Johnson. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Okay. Rich? Yep. MR.YOVANOVICH: Good morning. For the record,Rich Yovanovich on behalf of the petitioner. With me today as my experts are Tim Hall with Turrell Hall&Associates;Jeff Rogers also with Turrell Hall &Associates; and Andrew Rath with Davidson Engineering. I think they've all been previously qualified as experts before the Planning Commission, so I just want to make sure that they are, in fact,tendered as experts,since we've been doing that lately as part of the process. COMMISSIONER EBERT: That's crazy. MR.YOVANOVICH: So I want to briefly go over the history of this project and discuss what we're here to do today. I've put on the visualizer the location of the property and the outline of the property that includes both the uplands project,which is a 64-unit multifamily project, as well as what is-- includes the area where the boat dock extension request is being heard. If the Planning Commission recalls,the original request was for 42 boat slips. I think the original request was for a total of 52 feet of extension and,ultimately,during the original presentation,that was reduced down to 45 feet. The vote was 2-2,which meant that the boat dock request failed. We had filed an appeal to the Board of County Commissioners to have the item heard by the Board of County Commissioners. The Board of County Commissioners then referred the matter back to the Hearing Examiner and for the Hearing Examiner to hold a fact-finding hearing.The Hearing Examiner held a fact-finding hearing and issued a report. In lieu of going to the Board of County Commissioners and saying we hereby revise our request to make the changes requested by or required by the Hearing Examiner in his report,we withdrew our Page 4 of 51 July 2, 2015 application. We redesigned the application and resubmitted the application addressing and incorporating all of the recommendations of the Hearing Examiner. Tim will take you through in much greater detail the actual petition but,essentially,what we did was we angled the boat slips,we removed the boat slips from the property that's in front of Windstar,and we reduced the boat slips down--the number of boat slips to 27 boat slips,and now the extension is for a total of 38 feet from the mean high-water line. Keep in mind,roughly 16 to 20 feet of that 38 feet is mangrove area that was printed--planted by the previous property owner. So,effectively,we're out into the waterway 18 to 20 to 22 feet depending on the widest parts into the waterway with no portion of the boat docks encroaching into the area that the mean high-water line is 4 feet or deeper at low tide mean high--low tide. The low tide is--we're never into any of the navigable waterway that will have a water depth of less than 4 feet with our boat docks. In fact,we'll be doing dredging to make sure that our own boat docks have the minimum depth that they need,as Tim will get into in greater detail. This is--the waterway is a little bit unique in that it's a drainage easement and a man-made waterway. It is not sovereign lands. And if you've looked at the DEP permits,the DEP acknowledged that this is not sovereign lands. In fact,the waterway is owned by my client. My client owns both sides of the waterway,as you can see on this--the overhead and outlined in red. So what we're simply requesting is to install boat docks on our own property. And we have the right to install boat docks on our own property. We are not, in any way, impacting navigability for people who are using our property to get access to other water bodies. So we find it a little ironic that people--some of the objectors,based upon their addresses on their letters,are coming across our property but don't want us to be able to put boat docks on our own property, leaving them a minimum of 60 feet in width of 4-foot-wide--or 4-foot-deep water during low tide. I also find it ironic that if you look at this aerial and you look at the platted subdivisions around here, the canals that their water--their property fronts are 60 feet in width. Now,assuming you put a boat up against a seawall,I would say that they probably have an effective waterway width to maneuver and pass back and forth of 40 feet or less on their own individual canals but somehow our providing a clear waterway for people to maneuver of 60 feet and greater is unsafe and not navigable for boats to maneuver. We have reduced the request,as I said,to 27 boat slips. We don't believe the number of boat slips is an issue because we have 64 multifamily units on the upland portion of the property,and the Land Development Code says we can have one boat slip per unit. We're only asking for 27 when we could be asking for 64. Also under the Manatee Protection Plan we could ask for 97 boat slips. That would also be reduced to the 64 because we can't exceed that. But we're well within our legal rights and legal requests. Because this is a quasi-judicial hearing,you're limited to the criteria in the boat dock extension section of your Land Development Code. You're also limited to making your decision based upon competent, substantial evidence,not emotion and not whether we're popular or unpopular in our request. You're limited to looking at those criteria. To be conservative and safe,I want to make sure that all of the documentation, including the petition and all supporting documentation,are part of your record. I believe you-all have that information as part of your record,but I want to make sure that that's introduced as evidence in your hearing today for purposes of the record so I don't have to have my experts come in here and restate verbatim the documents that you have in front of you. So I would request that that be made part of the record in case it's not already considered a part of the record. I will have Tim Hall take you through in detail our request and how we meet each of the criteria. Your staff has already reviewed the petition,and they have concluded that we meet all of the criteria under the Land Development Code. At the conclusion of our presentation,we'll answer any questions you may have. Of course you can interrupt us and ask questions at any time. But Tim has a pretty detailed presentation that will hopefully Page 5 of 51 July 2, 2015 answer any questions that you may have. And then we would request that since you are the final decision body on this particular matter,that you approve our requested boat dock extension as submitted to you-all. That's my brief introductory comments,and I'll have Tim Hall take you through the details,and then I'll have Jeff Rogers,who I don't know that you've ever heard him testify as a professional captain,talk about the navigability of the waterway after our boat docks are installed,and that would conclude our presentation unless you have any questions from a drainage issue standpoint;Mr.Rath can answer those. And I see Mr. Kurtz is in the room as well. One of the things,as you will see in the backup information that was presented to you,both Mr. Kurtz and a gentleman from the FDOT have reviewed the petition to confirm that what we're proposing will not interfere with the drainage easement over the property. That was one of the issues raised by the Hearing Examiner. And you have evidence in your backup that we will not be negatively impacting the drainage easement and the functioning of the drainage easement with our boat docks in place. So with that,I'll turn it over to Tim. MR.HALL: Good morning. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Good morning. MR.HALL: As Rich said,my name is Tim Hall.I'm a wildlife ecologist with Turrell Hall& Associates,and I'm going to walk you through the actual boat dock extension criteria to show how the project meets all of those. Feel free to ask questions at any time. I'll try to use the exhibits that were included with the application as well. The first criteria has to do with whether or not the number of docks being proposed is appropriate to the property. And in order to determine that,we look at several things,as Rich said. The Collier County code allows one slip per unit. The Manatee Protection Plan allows different configurations depending on whether or not the project is in a protected,a moderate,or a preferred location. In this case,given that the water depths in the canal are less than 4 feet where the docking facility is going in,it qualified as a moderate facility,which allows 10 slips per 100 feet of shoreline. And this property has so much shoreline that if you're looking at just the--just the shoreline along the creek itself,as Rich said, that would be 97 slips. The 64 units would allow 64 slips,and the proposal in front of you right now is for 27. So it's well under what would be allowed. In looking at the type of facility,because this is a multifamily residential project,the community docks--it's usually better for them to be all in one single place rather than spread out all over the property. It makes maintenance by the association,it makes the utilities and all of the infrastructure that goes with the docks easier,reduces the amount of impacts because you can do less boardwalks,and also it makes more sense to put them all in one location rather than spread them out across the entire property. So given all of that in the proposal that we have,the determination was that we did meet the first criteria. The second criteria is whether or not the property is so shallow that the types of vessels that are being described would be unable to launch or moor at mean low tide. In this case of this property,because of the mangrove shoreline and the mangrove fringe,the mean high-water line is within the mangrove. So the first 12 to 18 feet of that allowed 20 feet is vegetated. And then after that,there's still shallow water,which would make mooring difficult without the extension. So from that standpoint,the low water depths and the vegetation do lead towards the applicant pursuing this boat dock extension. So we meet that second criteria as well. And the other thing that I had put in the proposal is there's no boat dock that could be done. Because of the way that the mangrove shoreline is along that property,you couldn't do any boat dock,even a parallel moored boat dock without the extension,because most of that 20 feet is being taken up by the--by the mangroves. So even if you did the parallel dockage,you'd still have to go through the process for the BDE. The third criteria whether or not the dock facility will have an adverse impact on navigation.And it specifies within an adjacent marked or charted navigable channel. Now,the channel this far up into the creek is not--is not really marked,but there is a thread of navigation that most of the boats follow,and it's consistent with the deeper water depths within the channel. Page 6 of 51 July 2, 2015 So there were a couple of surveys done to find out where that deeper water depth was. The exhibit that you have in front of you right here,the shaded area was where the 4-foot or deeper water is located. And you can see it varies in width from 28 feet to a little over 70 feet,75 feet on the--28 feet on the western end of the property and 75 on the eastern end. And you can also see that the docks laid out on that do not encroach into that navigable area at all. They're actually right up to the edge of it. And the dredging that will be proposed with the project will actually extend that 4-foot contour up under the docks so the boats will be sitting in deeper water also. So given the survey information,the way that the docks have been laid out,the review that the project went through when it was--the previous iteration of this with the 42 slips actually went through the FDEP, South Florida Water Management District,and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers'reviews. All of those issued permits for the project,and none of them found that it would have any adverse impact on navigation. So given all of that information,we believe we meet the third criteria as well. The fourth criteria,whether or not the proposed facility protrudes more--or no more than 25 percent the width of the waterway. The waterway here is kind of riprapped or more natural shorelines on both sides. It's not seawalled,so the width of the waterway varies as you go from east to west. You can see on this exhibit we showed where the 25, 50,and 75 percent width of waterway lines would be,and the facility as we've proposed it does not protrude more than 25 percent of the width of the waterway. And the waterway width is not the open water area. It's from mean high-water line to mean high-water line,so you have to take into account the mangroves on both sides of there as well. So we meet the fourth criteria. And then the last primary criteria is whether the proposed location and design of the dock facility is such that the facility will not interfere with the use of any neighboring docks,and there really are no immediately neighboring docks on either side,but there is a facility that has obtained a BDE. It was permitted through DEP and the Corps of Engineers,but it has not been constructed on the opposite side of the waterway.This exhibit that I have up in front of you now shows where that facility is located. There's still 97 feet between the proposed docks and--the proposed docks for this project and the proposed dock for the other project. So there's still an ample portion of the waterway that will be open; 50 percent. You know,more than 50 percent of the existing waterway will be open to navigation. So as it's proposed,the facility does not impede the use of any neighboring docks,and we meet that last criteria as well for the primary criteria. When you get into the secondary criteria,the first one,whether or not there are special conditions not involving water depth related to the property or waterway which justify the proposed dimensions and the location of the dock facility.And in this case,the special condition is really the mangroves. When we went through permitting with the--all of the regulatory agencies,minimization of impacts to the mangroves was a priority. The facility as it's proposed does involve trimming some lateral branches to put in the access walkway,but the docks themselves do not impact any of the mangroves,and the trimming that will be done along those will keep the mangroves from growing over the dock so that they can stay accessible. Basically,the entire waterfront of this property from along the creek as well as down into the canal is a mangrove shoreline. A lot of that is a created mangrove shoreline. It was planted back in the mid'90s,but it was important to all of the regulatory agencies that impacts to any of that shoreline be minimized,and their recommendations were to put the docks out into the main creek where dredging had been done in the past where it could still be done periodically,and that met the minimization of impacts for those agencies. But the mangroves themselves are what--are what kind of dictate the extension,and so that's the special condition,and we do meet that for the secondary criteria. Next would be whether the proposed dock facility would allow reasonable,safe access to the vessel for loading,unloading,and routine maintenance without the use of excessive decking not directly related to these functions. The walkways originally were proposed to be 8 feet wide. After talking with staff and some of the agencies,the width of the access walkways were reduced down to 6 feet wide. Page 7 of 51 July 2, 2015 The finger piers that are the docks that actually run out that the boat sit against are 4 feet wide,which are the minimum dimensions for safe access. When you have people getting in and off the boats,it allows them room to stumble,if you will,without having to worry about going off the other side of the dock if it's too narrow. So we believe we do meet that criteria,that they're the minimum dimension to allow for the safe use of the docks. The third criteria isn't really applicable to this project because it relates to single-family docks. The fourth one is whether the proposed facility would have a major impact on the waterfront view of the neighboring waterfront property owners. The facilities should not have a major impact on the view of either property owner. And when you read that--when I read that and it says"either property owner,"to me that means the ones on either side of the project. In this case,the one side of the project is the Windstar golf course. There are no docks there. The other side of the project is the canal that goes down into the Lakeview area. The biggest impact is going to be a change for the people that are across the waterway where right now they're looking at a mangrove shoreline. When the project's done,they'll be looking at boats in front of a mangrove shoreline. And whether or not that is a major impact on view,I guess, is kind of subjective. But in relationship to the--to the either-side component of this criteria,we are not impacting the views on people on either side of the project,so we believe that we meet that criteria. The docks definitely do not block the view of the waterway itself from anybody. All of the property owners around the project still have the view of the waterway. Fifth,whether or not there are any seagrass beds located within 200 feet of the proposed dock facility. We did multiple--this project's been going on for so long we've done multiple submerged resource surveys in the waterway in front of and to each side of the dock facility out 2-or 300 feet,and in none of those have we ever encountered any seagrasses, so there are no seagrasses present. We meet that criteria. And then lastly is whether or not the proposed facility is subject to the Manatee Protection Plan requirements. Because its proposal is for more than nine slips,it is subject to the Manatee Protection Plan. And as I kind of went over with Primary Criteria No. 1,we qualify as a moderate facility and are very well under the allowances that would be granted for a moderate ranking. So based on the project,the review by staff,by the regulatory agencies,we do believe that we are compliant with all of the primary and secondary criteria necessary for the BDE,and we would,you know, appreciate your agreement with that,and I'm here to answer,you know,any questions that you might have. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Tim,I have a question for you. Mr.Reischl,could you please put up the picture of the--where the mangrove--the big blue one where they had to put the mangroves. And we had this last year,too,when this came in front of us. Where the rocks are rather than a seawall,is that the property owner's property behind there? MR.HALL: Well,I mean,in this case the property owner's property goes all the way across the waterway. COMMISSIONER EBERT: That's--yeah,that's not for us to debate only because that was given away in 1953 as an easement,which is fine. But I'm asking if that property out there is his property. MR.HALL: Yes,ma'am. COMMISSIONER EBERT: It is his property? So what you're telling me is the state forces you to put mangroves on your property? MR.HALL: I wouldn't--if you talk to the property owners,they would say yes;if you talk to the agencies,they would say that that was the option that the property owner took in order to meet the criteria necessary to get the permits. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ah. So there is--okay.Little stuff going on here. MR.HALL: I mean,when-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Because most people--I mean,I understand the mangroves. They're very nice. They--you know,they do their thing for the fish and everything else. Great habitat. But are you Page 8 of 51 July 2, 2015 telling me,then,all the way down and on both sides of this drainage easement that it is pure mangroves? MR.HALL: It's not pure mangroves. There was a lot of exotic infestation as well that is still there on the north side of the creek. The exotics on the south side of the creek have been removed as part of the development activities. But the berm that had been in place on this property back in the early'90s that was associated with past dredging activities of the canal and of the drainage easement were--there was a berm there,and part of the permits that they got in the early'90s,back at that time,was to remove that berm and create this mangrove planter shelf,and that was--that was to offset some filling of an inland lake and all that were associated with the development that was proposed at that time. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes,I do know. I do know. There's a gentleman here today that has lived there,he said, forever,and he remembers the lakes on top. But I was just wondering--so you're saying that the state really forces you to put these mangroves in,and then they don't want you to touch them afterwards? MR.HALL: Well,it-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. That's one thing.No,I'm going to be--try and be very calm and very set back today,because to me this is information overload,because Rich was not here last year. But we had this,then we had the HEX. But it was just a question I had. You know,do they force you to do this? It is your property. Absolutely. MR.HALL: I would have to say,no,they don't force you,but it's one of the options that you can take. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. MR.HALL: And in Collier County it's the most utilized option because Collier County does not have a mangrove mitigation bank. There's nowhere for people to go within the county to offset impacts to mangroves. The closest mangrove mitigation bank is actually in Little Pine Island. So for you to meet all of the criteria in the regulatory guidelines,which want the mitigation for impacts to be done within the same watershed,a lot of times your only option is to find someplace on your property where you can do that. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Well,I have also been down the Cocohatchee,and they have mangroves there,too. The other thing is you mentioned earlier dredging. How many times has this drainage easement been dredged? I know it was dredged in 2006. I have all that information how wide and everything. But you're saying it has been dredged several times before 2006. MR.HALL: I don't know that. I know it's been dredged at least three times;when it was originally done,it was dredged in part a little bit when this property was done back in the'90s,and then more recently when the county did the dredging of the entire waterway. I would assume that it could have been done more often than that,but those are the three times that I know of for sure. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. And being this is a 150-foot-wide drainage easement,I was lucky enough to have different residents take me down the drainage easement. Why does this 150 feet--I know in this portion they straightened it out.That was part of the thing. And why does it not run 150 feet all the way down? MR.HALL: I don't know the answer to that. I had nothing to do with-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well,it was just a question. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: That's not part of this.He doesn't really need to answer that. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well,I was just--well,because there is a 150-foot drainage easement supposedly for the drainage of our stormwater,why is it not,you know,all the way? That's the only question I have. MR.YOVANOVICH: First,I'm jumping in because I think those are legal questions. Those are not questions that are environmental questions. The drainage easement is not for the drainage of your stormwater. The purpose of that drainage easement is for the drainage of a state road department's stormwater. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I understand. Page 9 of 51 July 2, 2015 MR.YOVANOVICH: So I just want to make sure we're real clear. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I do understand that,Richard. MR.YOVANOVICH: I know,but I'm not sure that the record was clear. The record is,this is a state road department drainage easement for the drainage of roadway drainage not for the drainage of property owners who abut this road--this or any other roadway drainage. It's for a road drainage easement, and that's the purpose of the drainage easement. I just want the record to be really clear on that fact. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Anybody else have any questions? MS.ASHTON-CICKO: I do believe-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: That's all I have for now. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: I do need to correct that,though,because I do believe that the county has asserted jurisdiction over this easement,so there might be some implied easement that the county had. So I just want to put that on the record. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Thank you. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I have one thing. Tim,this may not be a question for you,but at some point the previous questions by Diane raised some questions in my mind about the history of this area,because it seems to me that the mangrove plantings might have been an effort to restore that shoreline after previous actions years prior. And it just raises that question with me. There's got to be some history here with this creek and the property owners along the creek that Diane's questioning really didn't quite flush out,and it's just raised some things in my mind. MR.HALL: Well,I can tell you that the--that where the docks and where the drainage easement is is not the original creek. This up here is the old original creek,and that's why--that's why the property ownership for this can be to the applicant because it wasn't submerged lands at the time of statehood. So while the state would claim jurisdictional over those portions of the old creek that are still there, this was dredged out of uplands,if you will,so it may not have been mangroves. And when they dug the drainage easement,as you said,it could have been in attempt to put some more appropriate habitat along that waterway to give the benefits to that waterway that--you know,that weren't there in association with the canal,if you will. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: That makes a little bit more sense with that piece of the puzzle. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Anyone else?Nothing? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Okay. You have the staff report--oh,Rich,do you have something else? MR.YOVANOVICH: I didn't want to get lost on--we focused so much on the boat dock extension. You also have the ST petition in the packet. You have all the backup information for that. Staff is recommending approval of that as well. If you need a more detailed presentation from Tim other than what's in the backup,I can have Tim do that. But I didn't want to lose focus on there's both petitions,and there's evidence in the record to support both staff recommendations on the petition. Thank you. COMMISSIONER EBERT: She brought that up at the beginning. MR.YOVANOVICH: I know,but I just want to make sure. MR.HALL: Yeah,I'm sorry. I kind of forgot about the ST application. The ST application involves the--really,the impacts to the mangroves. Part of--that went forward before. Originally there was some of the wetland impacts associated with the upland portion of the development,which were approved by the County Commissioners. And the impacts associated with the docks were eliminated from that at that time,so now the ST application going forward is for the impacts associated with those dock walkways through the mangroves,through the fringe. MR.YOVANOVICH: And then the last person I would like to have testify is Jeff Rogers. Well,I mean,I'll have him give you his credentials regarding navigation and address the navigation concerns. Page 10 of 51 July 2, 2015 MR.ROGERS: Good morning. As Rich stated,I'm Jeff Rogers. I work for Turrell Hall& Associates. I'm a biologist,project manager for them. I've been there for 10 years. I'm also a licensed captain by the U.S.Coast Guard. I've had my license for the past,I believe, 12 years. Born and raised here in Naples. I grew up playing in Royal Harbor canals. I've navigated up and down this channel numerous times on different size vessels ranging from 13 feet to 40 feet. It is a tight waterway;however,in this area it's probably the most open portion of the creek itself. Like I said,I've driven boats up and down it,passed numerous boats taking them to the marinas up there. I personally have a 36-foot boat, 11-foot beam,drive up and down it numerous times taking it to Gulf Shore's Marina in these tight canals. One thing for sure is the waterway along this creek is much wider than the canals in the Lakeview area. Once I make that turn going south,the waterway is extremely tight and,granted,the smaller boat size vessels in that area. With the proposed dock and the one across the waterway,we have approximately 97 feet remaining. That,in my mind and my experience,should be more than enough for the vessels that are currently being kept on this waterway and the vessels that do come and go to the marinas on the waterway for service. Most of the vessels are 13,like I said,to 40 feet,ranging beam size from 6 to probably 15,maybe 18 feet. So if two boats at 18 feet wide--that's approximately 40 feet wide,there's well over 30 feet of area that they can navigate around each other within the 4-foot contour of water. Vessels that don't--that draft more than 4 feet of water really aren't allowed up and down this creek, not allowed,but for safe navigation purposes,the captain should not bring the boats up and down at low tide. At low tide we do have 4 feet of water. So from my experience and from my expert side,this--these proposed docks on both sides leave plenty of room for navigation for the current use of vessels on the waterway as it is being utilized today. If you have any questions of navigation,I'd be happy to answer them. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Yes,I have a question. Looking at the location of the property and the proposed boat docks with the requested extension, what is the distance roughly,going east,I guess,to the open gulf,or what is west to the open gulf? MR.ROGERS: Past west of our property? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Correct. MR.ROGERS: I don't have the exact dimensions,but I know the waterway gets extremely tighter as you go west. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Okay. And I'm asking about the distance,roughly. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: The Naples Bay or the open gulf? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: To the open gulf. MR.ROGERS: I would say,you know,it's anywhere between--I'd say a quarter of a mile from our site to--you come south of Royal Harbor,basically you end up coming south between Windstar Docks and Royal Harbor,Tarpon Road,I believe it is,and you come out to Naples Bay right there. I would say it's probably about a quarter mile of navigation. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Okay. And you also mentioned that it narrows as well. MR.ROGERS: Yes,ma'am, extremely. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: And what would be the width of that waterway as it starts to neck down? MR.ROGERS: Well,the tightest place,off the top of my head,is right at the end of Sandpiper where there's a natural shoaling area,and the mangrove area comes out,and there's an existing boat dock right there. I would say, from my experience,I believe it's probably about--let's say 40 feet wide right there, if not tighter.There is a channel marker right as well identifying that shoal so boaters go around it,but it is extremely tight there versus our current waterway where we're proposing these docks. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Okay. I have another question for you. What's the speed in the waterway? MR.ROGERS: It's a minimum wake zone, so basically--it depends on what size vessel,but smaller boats could go a little bit faster because their wakes are smaller. But it's--for the most part,it's all Page 11 of 51 July 2, 2015 minimum speed,no wake zones. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Is it minimum speed or no wake? MR.ROGERS: I believe it's a minimum speed zone. I don't think it's classified as an actual no wake zone. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question for you,you or Tim. In the one photograph it shows that it's 28 feet. Is that where sediment has already been put in there? I mean,that's where the sediment has kind of--no,a little bit the other way. Yes. So sediment has kind of already been-- MR.HALL: I don't know if it was sediment or if that's an area where there was rock where they-- when they did the original dredging and they went through there and they just didn't dig that area down to minus 4 because there was rock there. It's just an area where the minus 4 water depths are narrower. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Well-- MR.HALL: And it could be--it could be sedimentation from material coming out of the creek in the canal,or it could just be rock that was never dredged. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I have a question. I was in a kayak for about an hour on Monday morning at 9 o'clock in this area. The only people I saw boating were three teenagers fishing coming out of that dead-end canal to your east with that lake on it. Nice area. Couple of nice tunnels in there. How much traffic is there on this waterway? I mean,I didn't see a soul boating. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: It's the middle of summer. MR.HALL: I don't live on the waterway. The people that live-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I know. I see everybody saying,oh,this is a crowded waterway,and here I am on a Monday morning,9 o'clock for an hour,and there's nobody. And I know they're all going to talk now,but I'm just curious. MR.HALL: I would not--I mean,if you compared it to,like,the Wiggins Pass boat ramp or the canal at the 951 boat ramp,this is--this is not a crowded or busy waterway in relationship to those areas which get,you know, 100 boats a day,you know,probably going through there. And in terms of this one,I don't live there. I don't see it every day,so I don't know. When we've done our submerged resource surveys,you know,they generally last two to,you know, four hours;we may have one or two boats that go past us. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. I know on roads you do traffic counts. It's easy to set up,but here I imagine you'd have to put somebody up on shore and have them count boats going by. Do they ever do such a thing? MR.HALL: They do on some projects,not--I mean,usually for little projects like this,no,but on --you know,a lot of times on boat ramps or areas that are expected to generate a really high volume of boat traffic,dry storage facilities,boat ramps,those kinds of things,you can do boat traffic studies to see. Sometimes it's how many boats; sometimes it's what size of boats there are that are actually using them on a daily basis. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: From the water it looks like a wide waterway,but-- MR.HALL: I mean,it's the widest portion of this waterway,you know,especially if you take into account all of the--you know,all of the narrow canals and all. But the bridge is a constricting point on the east side of the project,and then the shoal in the area that Jeff talked about to the west of the project down by sand piper is kind of the constricting part on the west side. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay,thanks. MR.YOVANOVICH: I'd like to also just--one of the criteria for a boat dock extension is not how many boats are on the waterway. We've had that issue raised on many boat dock extension applications. The neighbors come and they say,hey,this is a really busy waterway. Don't let any more boats on the waterway. The county has never adopted a level-of-service standard for its canals and its waterways. There's been discussion about it. For whatever reason,the Board has never directed staff to come up with a Page 12 of 51 July 2, 2015 level-of-service standard. The criteria talks about safety, and there's no question that the width of the water body where we're proposing to put our docks is safe for navigation. That's the standard,not that other people are using the waterway,but can they use it together with our boat docks in the location we're proposing the boat docks. Because there's always this,hey,we have a lot of boats in the area. That's not one of the review criteria,and that's been raised on many,many,many--and I see Ms.Ebert--I think you're agreeing with me. COMMISSIONER EBERT: We could say the same about roads. MR.YOVANOVICH: Right. But there is no--there is an adopted level-of-service standard for roads,but there is not for canals. So let's not get caught up on the standard are there a lot of boats here, because that's not one of the review criteria. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I have another question for Tim. Tim,in your comments you mentioned that if you would align the docks parallel to the shoreline, you would still need the extension,the boat dock extension. MR.HALL: Yes,ma'am. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I'd like to ask you if you could clarify that a bit for me,particularly if you would still dredge along the shoreline. MR.HALL: You would still have to dredge along the shoreline because the shoreline is shallow. And so to put boats there along the shoreline,you need to get it to the depth where the boats can safely moor. So it would entail the dredging,and it would entail--and I think what--we would still have to go through the boat dock extension process. I'd think the extension would be for less,but it wouldn't be for 18 feet. It might be for less,but it would still be a requirement of the project. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: But within the current code,in that area what I understand you to say is even with dredge along the shoreline,you couldn't put boat docks within that shoreline--along that shoreline within code? MR.HALL: Without a BDE,that's correct. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Okay. MR.HALL: Because if the boat is 10 feet wide and the mangrove fringe at its narrowest here, I think,was 12 feet--that's 22 feet,and then you have the dock itself in between there,so now you're at 27 feet --you'd still need a 7-foot BDE to do that. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Okay. Let me ask you,in relationship to the design of the docks being angular versus along the shoreline,are there the same number of pilings required? Because I think when we talked,roughly,this configuration is around 200 pilings,250 pilings. MR.HALL: It's about 250. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Does the number of pilings get reduced with a parallel structure along the shoreline? MR.HALL: Well,the number of docks gets reduced. The number of slips for the boats gets reduced,so then the pilings associated with those slips also gets reduced. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Anything else? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Staff report? MR.REISCHL: Thank you,Madam Chairman. Fred Reischl with the Zoning Division. Our analysis showed that the application meets all of the applicable criteria,and we're recommending approval subject to the four conditions in the staff report. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Okay. And then the SD,is that--is that Summer? Oh,sorry. I have to make you walk all the way up there. COMMISSIONER EBERT: She's still got three months to go. You've got to learn to waddle.Three months ago. MS.ARAQUE: Hi. Summer Araque for the record,and staff is recommending approval of the special treatment permit application in front of you. Do you have any questions? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes,I do. I believe when I talked to you the other day,you said Page 13 of 51 July 2, 2015 originally this was all Australian pine on this property. Is that-- MS.ARAQUE: I don't know if I would use the word"all,"but my understanding,if you look at an aerial,is it appeared as though that fringe--the mangrove fringe was Australian pine,but Tim may be able to tell us because he knows the history of the site much better. But that's what it appeared to be to me from the aerial. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Well,that--when we talked it was not--not good shoreline, okay.That's what I want to know,thanks. MS.ARAQUE: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Anybody else? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I have a question for Summer. Summer? MS.ARAQUE: Yes. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: You're recommending approval with the conditions,right,in your recommendation here? MS.ARAQUE: Correct,yes. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And I'll ask another question then. The ST overlay is,you're saying, for the mangroves or--Ray,this ST was from many years ago,is that correct,when they had--when they had STs? MR.REISCHL: ST was-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Special treatment. MR.REISCHL: Special treatment was initiated in 1974,and it's my--I didn't work here then. And it's my understanding that they were done from aerials,which is why they're rectangular and don't follow wetland lines and things like that. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. And we'll just leave it at that,because I understand those rules are going to change, so--okay,very good. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Anything else?Okay. Both the--yeah, I just want to make sure that everybody knows both the staff--from the staff report recommendation for the boat dock and the ST,that all the conditions that they asked for are in the resolutions. And we have public speakers now. MR.REISCHL: Karen Beatty? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: She just stepped out. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: She's not here. She just went out for a minute,okay. Can we have the next one? MR.REISCHL: Rick Maxfield? CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: I guess they both went out. MR.REISCHL: Oh,he says Enchanting Shores.He was here for C. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Oh,okay. MR.REISCHL: Sean Lux. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I would just like to say something before Sean comes up and starts speaking. Sean and Debbie are the ones who do the Honor Flights and take people to Washington. They just did another Honor Flight,and I would personally like to thank you,I believe along with all of us. You do such great work. Thank you both so much. (Applause.) MR.LUX: Thank you. Okay,good morning. My name is Sean Lux. I live at 2736 Riverview. And we're speaking opposed to this boat dock extension because--well,we use the waterway very frequently,and I can assure you it is never at 9 a.m.on a Monday morning,okay.We do work for a living. Most of the traffic you do see in the waterway is probably on Friday, Saturday, Sunday. Now,it is a very,very narrow waterway,as you saw in a previous picture. And I can't seem to find mine right now. Page 14 of 51 July 2, 2015 Now,the first gentleman that spoke,Mr.Turrell,he said he thought it was ironic that sitting on a 60-foot canal on Riverview that we could do--we would do a boat--a boat lift,okay. Now,the difference is,we put a boat lift in according to code,okay. We did not ask for an extension,okay. We--yes,we have a right to put a boat dock or boat lift in. Yes,that is the right by code; however,you do not have a right to do an extension,okay. An extension may be considered appropriate under certain circumstances,okay. Now,primary criteria. Of course,it may be considered appropriate. I don't think it says that it's a right if you can--if you can do it according to all the criteria. Now,one of the criteria is whether the water depth is so shallow that a vessel--a normal vessel cannot launch,okay. Yes,it is very shallow,and they stated they would need an extension to do so;however, they are dredging,okay. Now,they said they're going to dredge so they have four feet underneath all of the slips. So why would they not minimize the impact by doing the parallel docking? Okay. If they really had the intent of minimizing the impact to other boaters,they would do it in a parallel fashion,but they're trying to maximize revenue. Now,also,whether or not the proposed dock facility may have an adverse impact on navigation. Yes,the channel is barely wide enough for two decent-size boats to pass each other at a normal tide; however,at low tide it gets a lot tighter. And even though there may be room for two boats to pass,they are--they're not building a-- building static docks,okay. They're building docks that boats are going to navigate into and out of,okay. So a boat is going to basically pull out,stop in the middle of the channel,rotate,and then proceed out to the gulf. That's impacting the waterway. The static structure may not necessarily impact navigation. As soon as you put boats in there it does. And also,I'm very concerned about the manatee protection. What I have access to,which is not a lot,I see that the project is actually--would be a protected project where no more than one boat slip would be allowed for 100 feet. So we're talking,what, six,because they're actually looking at 600 feet of waterway, even--or shoreline even though you may own a considerably greater amount. It is less than four feet. They're certainly impacting the mangroves. They say they aren't. There's no way they cannot. The shoreline is mangroves. So I would really think someone needs to take a closer look at that. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Thank you. MR.REISCHL: I saw somebody re-enter the room. Is that Karen Beatty? CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Yes. MS.BEATTY: Thank you for this opportunity to speak. My name is Karen Beatty. I'm here as a citizen,however,I have served on the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle for eight years. I also am--have been an avid boater. I've lived on Haldeman Creek since 1984. I even owned a piece of commercial property with my former husband on Haldeman Creek. We have had every kind of boat you can imagine,even jet skis and houseboats. I can tell you boating on Haldeman Creek can be quite treacherous at times, especially when you have currents and winds and tides. We were lucky to even get into our boat slips at times with the tides being so low. Although I commend the developers for the changes they've made--they seem to be wanting to work in the direction of minimizing things--I don't think it's enough. I'm not going to go into all the details as to why I think this project shouldn't happen at all on Haldeman Creek. We have plenty of speakers here today that are going to detail that for you. In fact,we have Maurice Gutierrez who is the chairman of the board of the MSTU for the Gateway/Bayshore Triangle, and we have Roy Wilson who is the chairman of the board for the Haldeman Creek MSTU. So that's three of us that are board members that feel strongly against this project on Haldeman Creek. They will detail things for you that I'm not going to because it would be redundant. My reasons for being against this is the safety issues. We've been lucky to date to not have a storm surge. I wrote all of you and asked you to please read the article that was recently written and on the front page of Naples Daily News by CoreLogic. I mean--about CoreLogic's study regarding storm surges. It Page 15 of 51 July 2, 2015 doesn't take a hurricane to have a storm surge. A tropical storm can create one. Storm surges go down creeks and rivers. We don't need anything additional to be added to Haldeman Creek. If there's a storm surge,we don't need extra pilings; we don't need extra boats. We don't need anything. We've been lucky to date. I say put these boat docks out on the bay--Windstar has plenty of room for it--and give these residents a golf cart to go back and forth. Not only that,I have seen a major increase of manatees this year. I sent some of my photos to Kate Riley and Roy Wilson. And I don't know if they're going to show them to you today,but I've never seen so many manatees in my life. I honestly feel that the ranking is too low for the amount of manatees in this area and should be raised. Jeff Rogers mentioned that the current use--for the current use as it is now everything's fine.When you add 24 more boat slips,that's not current use. That's going to add 24 more boaters. Getting in and out of those boat slips is not going to be easy with certain winds. A lot of those boaters are going to be coming in at the end of the day after drinking. It's going to be--add a lot more treacherous activity on the creek. I recognize the developer has property rights;however,the citizens have the right to safety. If we have a storm surge,it's not just going to affect the people in Haldeman Creek; it's going to affect people miles around. Please listen carefully to the speakers today.I'm 100 percent against this project,and I agree with the citizens. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Thank you. MR.REISCHL: Next speaker is John Farquhar,followed by David Woodworth. MR.FARQUHAR: Good morning. My name is John Farquhar. I'm an attorney. I represent Windstar Master Association. My clients very strongly support this project.They're the ones who are actually most impacted by it. They're the ones that are closest to it. Many of them are boaters. And this is the widest part of this channel,so it is certainly an appropriate place to put docks that are not going to go below the standards.The standards have all been met. Your staff has indicated they're all met,and I can't see anything that's been raised that's a rational reason to not approve these in accordance with the guidelines that have been set. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Okay,thank you. MR.REISCHL: The next speaker is David Woodworth, followed by Roy Wilson. MR.WOODWORTH: Good morning. My name is David Woodworth. I live on Lakeview Drive. It goes into Haldeman Creek. I have a 24-foot boat,sailboat,and I can turn my boat within the length of the boat,and I can't even turn my boat in the canal that I live on,okay. I have to go between some docks to be able to turn around. My problem is that the developmental code is 20 feet. I had to live within--I could only have a 5-foot extension for a 200-foot dock; 5 foot out,20 foot long. They can build 60 docks or more,but they have to put them parallel and follow the code. They're allowed to trim the mangroves,okay,to put the dock in,you know. The other thing is when you put a dock in,what about the pilings that are associated with the dock? Are they going to put a piling 10 or 15 feet out beyond the dock? Are they going to put a 50-foot boat there? I think that that's--you have no control.Once you allow this to happen,they'll put 50-or 60-foot boats there. And who knows what they'll do,okay. You know,I think my--you know,like a 30-foot boat is probably a maximum,but there's no control. Once you let them put something in,you can't come back and say you can't do it. Who's going to--what about the extra pilings? They haven't talked about the pilings.They're only talking about the dock. If they go out 40--almost 40 feet into the canal from the property line,are they going to put another piling 10 feet or 15 feet out beyond the dock? And then when they pull out,you know,if somebody's--when I'm going down the canal right now,I almost stop when somebody else is coming down. So that's--basically I'm against any kind of--I think they need to live within the 20 foot that's in the Page 16 of 51 July 2, 2015 code. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Okay,thank you. MR.REISCHL: Next speaker is Roy Wilson,followed by Bob Messmer. MR.WILSON: Roy Wilson, 336 Pier C. I'm also chairman of the Haldeman Creek MSTU. I'll try to get to my prepared remarks,but before I start that I want to make some observations because of things that have been said already. Statements made this morning are sort of like you're limited to just looking at the criteria,and that's not true. First of all,when I read the criteria--and I'm not a lawyer so,you know,maybe we have differing views. When I read it,it says,here are the things that you have to consider in order to ask,ask for an extension. And on top of that,then there's one other criteria that says everything else,the Planning Commission seems appropriate. So don't be buffaloed by"this is plain and simple. We met the criteria." I'd also point out that the planning department approved this application before,and the Hearing Examiner said a number of things didn't meet the criteria. I think it puts you in a very difficult position,because sometimes this help you're getting is not agreed to 100 percent by people. Some of this reminds me of the discussions that I've been following related to the gas stations and committees having to deal with code issues that were written 20,30,40,50 years ago. You go back and forth on this. The--I've got a question not to be answered here,but it's an observation question. If you own property and you grant an easement,how do you then say I can do anything on that easement because I own the property that I gave away to become a waterway? It seems to me that that impacts the easement that you gave away which,incidentally,everybody's having a hard time finding out who manages it. As related to usage,I would--I would comment that,yeah,usage is in the evening before sunset. It's primarily Friday,plus--primarily Friday, Saturday,and Sunday,early morning and in the evening. That's your heavy volume. You were out there on a kayak,Commissioner.We are seeing more and more kayaks on the waterway and paddle boards,and I've also seen these people pull to the side and hold up as boats come by because there are a lot of narrow things. History of the creek. The creek was natural as explained and,yes,when they developed Route 41 and the government complex,they had to get drainage from north of 41 down. Now,the legal stuff,was this a roadway this,a roadway that,blah,blah,blah. The drainage for the creek comes from several developments north of 41,under 41,and then down the creek. At that time it was deemed that the creek was not wide enough to take that water flow and,therefore,they came and negotiated with the property owner in order to have a wider spance(sic). They didn't deal with the rest of the creek because they must have agreed or thought that that was okay. But there was a real bottleneck there,and that's how it was created. The reason--the reason that the mangroves and the riprap are out there is because the property owner at the time wanted more land. Now they're dealing with the fact that the high-water mark is behind it. But the reason to do that is they wanted more land. By putting the riprap out there--and you could see from the picture that was shown earlier--they created a lot of land that they're now putting buildings on. So now as time goes on,well,let's go back and let's do something else. Parallel design. I would take--I would take exception. Although it wasn't specifically answered by the engineer,parallel docks compared to the docks that are in the plan would take a substantially--well, would take a lot less pilings than to build the docks that are planned.That's clear and simple,because you would--essentially would be docking up against your walkway. So look at your picture,and everything that goes north of that basically is eliminated as far as impact on the creek. I've not heard a statement real clear,but I'd like a real clear statement in the record that the new plan meets all,all the HEX recommendations should it move forward. Two observations also from a practical standpoint of where we live. At one time--I live at Naples Page 17 of 51 July 2, 2015 Land Yacht Harbor. We have cement seawalls. Since I have lived there,water on a storm surge has been above those seawalls. Secondly,I would make a comment that at one time we went to the county--now,again,I don't have an official record on this because a lot of things happen. You ask the county,they say you can't do it, and you drop it. But we wanted to put safety ladders on the ends of the piers on Haldeman Creek,and we were told you cannot put anything on the Haldeman Creek side. You can't put docks there,you can't even put your safety ladders there. By observation,the--the docks in the commercial area that are east of where this development is are,for all essential purposes,at the dead-end of a canal--of the canal. Yes,there are docks on the east side of Bayshore,but those,very lightly used,have to be very small boats that can get under that bridge, so that commercial end up there--and they've been used as an example of,oh,there's docks on Haldeman Creek. That's basically at a dead-end from a practical standpoint. I'll go through real quickly the information I sent all of you via email and try to just--it highlights from there--so I don't take too much time. I believe the dock extension should only be considered after it's determined that the developer could be allowed to place docks of any type on a waterway that was created through an easement,therefore,taking back the full easement. I mentioned the--I don't think it's wise to do it,encumber the creek with hundreds of pilings and decking. I think this would be further exasperated if the plan allows boat owners to add boat lifts,because all those boat lifts--I shouldn't say"all those." Several of the boat lifts would probably require additional pilings of some type. To me it's inconceivable to think that docking boats there is not going to have any effect on water flow. You know,when you start using"any effect,"you know,it's impossible to think that you're going to put 27 boats there and all these docks and it's not going to have any effect. The current application includes letters from county officials. But I looked at the wording of those, and they're of subjective opinions. "I don't believe," "I don't think." In the HEX report,if I recall,he made a specific recommendation to get some types of studies done to take care of getting past subjective opinions,and that's not been done. Let's see. Should any docks move forward? I think some of the things need to be memorialized, including specific language that formalizes that the docks are only to be used,rented,or owned by residents of Haldeman Landing. That would be covered if there was a statement on the record that all of the HEX recommendations would be abided by. We don't have any testimony on the impact of sediment transport on the waterway based on this and the dredging. We've never heard any rationale as to why the original plan to create a basin instead of the docks was not followed. Now, from a logical standpoint,you and I can agree,well,heck,do I want to put up two buildings,or do I want to cut a basin in? Keep in mind back at the time when the agreement was to put--and I should say the time frame,because I can't specifically say what came before another.But people had looked at plans early on that had a boat basin being cut in. Now,subsequent to that,then they're putting riprap,and tilled in land behind it. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: You're going to have to finish up. MR.WILSON: Okay. As related to the mangroves,I did note that it was testimony that would only be lateral trimming. And I think I'll finish up with that instead of going through the rest of the specifics that you've probably read about. I'm opposed to this mainly because there's still a lot of unanswered questions,and I think I tried to raise those questions to you today. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Thank you. Yeah,we'll just do one more speaker,and then we'll take a break,I guess. MR.REISCHL: Okay. Bob Messmer. Page 18 of 51 July 2, 2015 MR.MESSMER: Good morning. My name is Bob Messmer,a property owner and boater on the canal just north of this development. Thank you,Commissioners, for considering the concerns of the several hundred property owners and boaters that will be negatively impacted should this petition be granted. You have in your packet my letter to Mr.Reischl,hence,I will not repeat those concerns;however,I would like to emphasize a couple very important ones. This development is now one of several associations within Windstar.Windstar has two existing piers and docks on the east side of Naples Bay several hundred feet east of the marked channel in Naples Bay. The developer does not--excuse me. The developer does,indeed,have a right to have boat docks associated with the condominiums under construction;however,Haldeman Creek is not the location for them. He can expand one or both of the two existing docks in order to accommodate even more than the 27 he is requesting. There is more than ample room available. Six hundred thirteen feet of docks and boats strung along Haldeman Creek will destroy our beautiful creek. Lastly and most importantly,docks directly protruding into a marked channel is patently not safe. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Thank you. We'll take a 15-minute break. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Would everybody please sit down. The next speaker? MR.REISCHL: The next speaker is Mike Heiser, followed by Maurice Gutierrez. MR.HEISER: Mike Heiser. I've lived on Haldeman Creek for 40 years,so that kind of makes me an expert on Haldeman Creek. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Can you bring that down or speak a little louder. Thank you. MR.HEISER: Anyhow,I've been on Haldeman Creek for 40 years,go up and down at least two to three times a week. I've gone up every creek,canal,little tributaries where all the Calusas used to make it. So this has been here for years and years. This wasn't just all manmade,just to make that very clear. Now,my issue here today is nobody has talked about public safety,and the public safety issue comes from the thing we fear the most,which is hurricanes. We have a hurricane come off the Gulf of Mexico and sit out there for three days and dump 30 to 50 inches of water,we're going to literally have millions and millions of gallons of water coming from 951,down Rattlesnake Hammock,Airport Road. Windstar's going to be 13 feet under water, so you better hope that you don't put this blockade to keep this water going out of Haldeman Creek,and this is what it is,a stormwater creek. So if you take and put all these docks out there,all these pilings and 27 boats--the canal is fairly shallow;the creek is fairly shallow on the southeast part of it. And as all that water,those millions of gallons of water come down the creek,it accelerates the speed. And during Donna it actually went over the bridge on Kelly Road,now called Bayshore. And when it--when this all comes down there,all this trash,all these trees,all these logs,all these parts of houses from this hurricane being there for three days,it's all going to come down that creek,because all that water from all that area has to go down Haldeman Creek. And when it gets down there, it's going to hit a 38-foot dam that you're going to let them make that's 600 feet long. And all these boats,there's no way any bilge could keep that water from not sinking those boats. So now you not only have 3-or 400 piling,you have all this wood down there,and you have all these boats in the water. Now,there's no place for the water to go. And all of you people that live in the--that work in the county,if you don't have a submarine and a boat,you're not going to be able to get to work because there's going to be 10 foot of water right there in that parking lot. So it's very important for public safety that you turn this project down,because there's a lot of old people like me that live in the Glades,in Lakewood,and some of those old-folks homes,and if they can't get on top of those roofs because you put this blockade from the water flowing out of Haldeman--out into the ocean,you're going to have a lot of dead bodies. So if you vote yes for this today,then you're probably going to have a lot of bodies floating down the Page 19 of 51 July 2, 2015 canal. If you vote no against it,then you're going to save some lives. So it's a real simple thing. Do you want to save lives or lose lives? It's just that simple.It's a public safety problem,and you cannot repute it. You cannot make it better. You can't say it's not going to be a problem because you're going to go 38 feet out in the middle of a canal--a creek that was made for stormwater running--and get this water out of here. That's why they opened it up;they opened this up to get this water flowing. And if you keep it from flowing--and all you people from Windstar,you're not going to have 8 or 9 feet of water; you're going to have 13 or 14 feet of water. So you better start thinking about if that creek gets jammed up,you're going to be under water. You probably won't even have a roof to get on top of. So think about this just a little bit before you decide you want to do these things,because it's public safety,and you cannot repute it. It's a very dangerous situation. So just remember the--this lady that said this,and her name was Nancy Reagan, "Just say no." COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Can I ask a question? MR.HEISER: Sure. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: All the boats that are upstream of Bayshore Drive-- MR.HEISER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: --won't they get driven into the Bayshore Drive bridge and form a big damn there and flood everybody upstream? MR.HEISER: Well,all the boats that come out of--upstream from it? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah,and that will stop the water from going downstream, so this whole area will kind of stay down. MR.HEISER: Well,if all those boats come through--if the water flows over the top of the bridge that's there now,a lot of those boats will come out. And most of them will just get busted up or sunk. I mean,is that what you're asking? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: No. I'm asking,won't the Bayshore Drive bridge form a bigger damn than any of these docks will? MR.HEISER: Oh,no. I don't think so. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: No? Okay. MR.HEISER: Because--the reason why I'm saying that is-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'm just curious. MR.HEISER: --because before when Donna went through,it just overflowed it and it went underneath it. So when all the parts that came down through there would end up catching on all this--well, it's going to be about equal,probably. Because if you put something 38 feet out into a 90-foot-wide strip,you're taking almost half the flow of the water,and especially if things start building up. And the more it builds up,the wider it gets and the higher it gets. So as that builds up with all the trash and debris--I don't know if you guys have ever seen what a hurricane does. I've been through five of them. I'm telling you,they're devastating. If they put lifts up there, what's going to happen is when you have wind blowing for three or four days and all this water,it's all going to start crushing. And once the aluminum starts going,it just goes down. And all those boats are going to be sunk on the bottom,or they're going to tell them you can't have the boats on the lift. Most of them say you can't have boats on a lift when the hurricane comes. You have to put them in the water. So then you have 30 or 40,you know,inches of rain falling,and they fill up with water. They're going to go down. Because if a boat weighs 15,000 pounds that's on a lift,when you fill it full of water,it weighs 50,000 pounds. And those lifts won't hold 50,000 pounds. It's going to(indicating)right to the bottom,end of story. But to answer your story--answer your question,they're probably both pretty much equal.Because I think what will happen is with all that water rushing down there,it's going to undermine that bridge,probably break the bottom part of it out,and then the water's going to flow through,and then it's going to start catching on it,and it's probably going to bust all these docks up,and they're going to try to flow out. And then you're going to have the bottleneck where that water goes,you know,narrower on the S curve. Page 20 of 51 July 2, 2015 COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: On the concrete piers that that bridge sits on,you think they're going to get washed out by the storm? MR.HEISER: I wouldn't doubt it. They've been there for a long time. Oh,by the way,in 40 years, this creek has never,ever once been dredged except for the last time it was. And I've lived on it for 40 years, and it hasn't happened. A little bit of Royal Harbor was dredged,and then they found that the S curve was full of rocks,and they couldn't get down far enough to make it any deeper anyhow. So--any other questions, I'd be more than glad to answer. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: No. That's okay. Thank you. Next speaker. MR.REISCHL: Next speaker Maurice Gutierrez,followed by Kate Riley. MR.GUTIERREZ: Good morning,all. Good morning,Commissioners. My name is,for the record,Maurice Gutierrez. I'm a property owner and have lived on the creek since 1978. You know,the creek is a community. It has been built out in developers'terms, since the day I moved there,because you have the occasional home being built. In the'80s, Sandpiper Bay Club sprung up 13 buildings,about 155 units and,miraculously,they have a 600-foot parallel dock.They don't have any T docks. They don't have any extended angles. They have a parallel dock. Now,you say,well,that's a really low percentage based on 155 units,but look at the good part of it. Right now in the MSL(sic)listing there's a unit for sale,and that unit lists the fact that it owns two slips. So you're not constrained to a 20-footer. You can have a 35-,40-footer. So the parallel dock has given Sandpiper Bay Club owners the advantage of enlarging the docking by purchasing more square footage of dock. That's something that won't ever occur if this variance is passed because then you're going to be limited to one slip,one size; one size fits all. The only other nonresidential single-family home development is the mobile home park,Harmony Shores. And,coincidentally,Harmony Shores also shares a 600-foot seawall. Now,let me show you a picture of that,if I may. And please note that the protruding docks come from a concrete seawall,not an extended walkway,so they're about 15 foot out. You know,pretty shallow up there,obviously,and not a lot of boats. So the concern of a hurricane washing boats out through Bayshore is pretty minimal because the majority of the impact--the majority of the boat owners live west of Bayshore Drive. Let me throw you a number. Gulf Shores is a subdivision,PUD; it has 150 homes. But along with that we have Gulf Shore's Marina that is permitted for 150 dry dock boats. Now,you include Demere Landing,which is a subdivision across from the commercial district,you include Land Yacht Harbor,and you include the number of boats on Sandpiper Bay Club,and that will be approximately 450 boats. So as a total usable boat navigable area--that would be on any one day--if everybody were to go out on Saturday,that's what we're looking at for what you would call concurrency on the creek. This is Haldeman Landing,the last developable piece of property on the creek,and isn't it interesting, there isn't one dock on the main creek between the east side of their development and Naples Bay,not one. Not a ladder,not a piling. I'm a homeowner,and I've been told no by zoning,so I'm sure people have tried but they've been discouraged or maybe don't have the finances to hire an attorney to ask for a variance because of the potential that you may lose,and that's the potential we're dealing with here. But let's talk a little bit about the ramifications of this project if approved the way it is proposed. A parallel dock is minimal impact,allows for multiple size vessels. They're going to dredge it,so you're going to have depth. And I've got a picture here of Sandpiper Bay's 600-foot parallel dock. You know,there's something nostalgic about a boat floating,sitting on a dock,tied off. It's not objectionable unless it's sunk. We have code issues that would resolve that issue. But that's not what you get when you put T docks in. Because the ramifications of allowing the dock to be built then opens up for the Page 21 of 51 July 2, 2015 property owner who buys that dock to say,you know,I have a right to put in a lift because,by God,there's other lifts on the creek. So we're going to go with lifts on these individual docks owned by individual owners. And a boat that floats,again,is very nice to see,very appealing,but a boat that is on a lift doesn't share that characteristic. This is a picture of only 10 boats in front of Windstar which has over a thousand foot or more between the back of that boat and the neighbor called Royal Harbor. If I were to live in Royal Harbor,I must have been asleep if this was passed,because I don't see how that got ever built. But you go 27 docks with 27 owners that want 27 lifts,and you no longer have a nice,600-foot(sic) nostalgic boat tied to a dock. You have an elevated,open boat parking garage. Now,it was mentioned that--there was some special conditions associated with that the criteria doesn't really deal with,and one of them is precisely visual impact. There are two visual impacts associated with the creek;those who live directly across from its development--and those who use the creek. Because,you see,as a waterfront property owner,you don't look at the waterway as a waterway. You look at it as a travelway,kind of like the road out in front of your house. You know,Kelly Road is not what Bayshore is today because it has been improved. The creek,as it stands,you cannot improve on nature. That's why environmentalists try to preserve what you have. But the minute you put 27 boats up in the air as an open boat parking garage,it's going to impact my road as I go out that creek. Look at it this way: In your own subdivision there's a lot, somebody buys it,and they want to put in an elevated parking garage that's not covered for their six cars in the front yard. How far is that going to go? So the relative comparison as far as visual impact is obvious. A 600-foot dock with side dock boats is not offensive,B, should be allowed by any waterfront property owner without any restriction,and it would ensure that this parking garage would not eventually exist and take away from the beauty of the creek. When you're dealing with boats,and as Mr. Heiser said,hurricanes,the boats will be removed from those docks. Now,every dock will have a lift with cables,four sets of cables per slip. That's 108 cables swinging in the air.Obviously the engineers will attest during stormwater issues those docks are going to be submerged. What are those cables going to do swinging in the air but catch debris? All of those issues are ramifications of allowing this type of dock system to be built. We don't object to the docks. I've got a dock in my backyard. The point here is the unintended consequences that will manifest themselves by the owners having the right to improve their dock,and the benefit that will be received is not in the residences that are currently there but obviously the owners that don't have to worry about bottom growth as we do that don't have lifts,but that is part of living on the water. Windstar has Southpointe Yacht Club--the word"yacht club"does not depict little docks like this-- as well as,earlier mentioned,two other docking facilities. It was stated that Windstar's the most impacted with this project. Yeah,positively impacted. Because the negativity of this project stems from the traffic on Lakeview Drive and Gulf Shore Subdivision, which is a PUD. It was never meant or plotted to be this way,but here we are today. So I'm asking to reduce the design of the docks to make it more environmentally friendly.Parallel docks will give the property owner proper rights to what they claim they want to build more than likely without any requests for variances other than potentially allowing for an extension from the shoreline to allow the boats to float. Docks parallel to the shore will not impact flow regardless of the number of pilings because the flow is in the center. Your edges today accumulate debris. That's obvious by the cleanups that are done on Haldeman Creek annually,everything from tree limbs to you know what floats down the creek. The residences,combined with the Sheriffs Office and the MSTU,sponsor a cleanup for that reason. We care about the street called Haldeman Creek. Haldeman Creek is the Bayshore of Naples waterways. There are no other areas like our home-owned working family neighborhood. Just take a look on the bay. How many single-story homes do you see left in Aqualane Shores and Port Royal or even Royal Harbor? So our little community,as its shown by the people that have come out, Page 22 of 51 July 2, 2015 taken the time to discuss this issue without legal expertise or knowledge that was way above our heads,are concerned that the impact is going to be far more negative than the benefit that anybody's going to receive on this project other than this particular development. The side docks,as I mentioned, low impact,visual as well as environmental. And the whole issue of catching debris on outflow during hurricanes is pretty much a moot point. The dredging that is going to occur in these docks,if allowed,is interesting because when the county dredged our whole subdivision and the creek,they were very specific about dredging the center to not allow any existing riprap or seawall structures to be impacted by falling in because it's dredged too close to the edge. So the fact they're going to dredge this to allow boats in there is going to be constrained by how close they get to the riprap--because that is what they have is riprap rock there right now,not a seawall,as in the Harmony Shores picture--or the reality of the commercial district that the docks protrude directly into the creek from an existing concrete seawall,not from an extended pier as is being proposed. So the protrusion into the creek is further than what we'll be seeing in the commercial district. Solely by math,it will be sticking out a bit further. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Are you going to fmish up-- MR.GUTIERREZ: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: --in a moment,please? MR.GUTIERREZ: Please consider the fact that we don't want an elevated,unenclosed boat parking garage on the creek. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Thank you. MR.REISCHL: The next speaker is Kate Riley followed by Jeanie VanArsdale. MS.RILEY: My name is Kate Riley,and I live directly across the proposed docks. One of the things that I did want to point out is that when the attorney spoke and Tim spoke,they said that they implemented all of the recommendations that the Hearing Examiner had put in place,and that's not true. They--the Hearing Examiner, first of all,recommended 24 boats and that they not start for 107 feet from the east side of the property from the east,and they have their boats butted right up to the east side. So that's not true. Okay. Secondly,I have some pictures.Picture No. 1 is--Haldeman Creek is--of course,we--I'm going to whiz through because a lot of people have spoke about what I was going to speak about. But it was originally built as a drainage ditch for a strawberry farm. And also a year ago in this very room I asked the question where in Collier County is there a thousand-foot boat dock,and I gave you a visual of the Naples Pier. Today the petitioner is requesting a 613-foot-long boat dock. So it takes you right there (indicating). So they now have two-thirds of the pier. This is my boat dock. Again,I have a boat lift on a finger canal across--right across from the proposed docks. I am a boater. I--and this--Haldeman Creek was dredged in 2006. I also had my boat dock dredged at that time,but the silt comes back. So I,for years,have had to be a planned boater. And,fortunately,I have a small wooden dock that I can--if it's low tide or even mid to low tide,I put my boat at the dock on the mooring whips,and I wait until I'm going to go boating,or if I come in after sunset and I can't get into my lift,then I have the opportunity of putting my boat at my dock until the tide comes back up. Sometimes it's the next day. I don't know what they're going to do across the way because when the buyers of those boat docks, you know,put their bow into the front of their boats and they are in the muck,what are they going to do? They don't have an extra dock to park their boat until the tide comes up. Now,this is after dredging. Silt comes back in. It just does. It has even in the middle of the creek. It just comes back in. So the fear is is that now their boats are going to be hanging out--because the only place they have to park them is at the tail end of their dock or at the--more out into the canal. So I don't know if you can see that right there. It's very dark in this picture,but that's all mud. I wasn't just showing you my boat dock just to show you my boat. It's all mud underneath.There's no water. That boat's not going anywhere. Page 23 of 51 July 2, 2015 So the other thing is we have been told that if they are hanging out from their boat docks,that,you know,it will be a code enforcement issue and that--but who's going to police that? I mean,the developer is already not following the Collier County rules. I've personally been on the phone with Mr.Charles Cook twice on a weekend about,you know, working on Sundays,working 6:30 in the morning. So he and I kind of have this personal relationship now, but it's always in a way that I'm having to call him,because I live right across the way,to--with a complaint. So who--why would we think--and I said this to him,why would we think that the boat docks are going to be any different? So something I want to bring up--because I do live right on the creek and right where the proposed docks are planned to be,I want to talk about wildlife. There's a lot of wildlife on Haldeman Creek. This dolphin is a very familiar friend of Haldeman Creek. They're around often. Sometimes I think they're lost because they're back so far,but they are--they just--they're--sometimes there's two or three of them. This is right along the shore,right--actually right where the boat docks are going to--are proposed to be,this great blue heron just strutting along,and that's how low it gets when it's low tide. The manatee--like Karen Beatty said in her presentation,there's been an abundance of manatees, especially this summer. Yesterday I was talking to Bob Messmer on the phone,we were talking about this meeting,and I said,let me call you right back. There's four manatees out--right out in the canal right now. I thought I could get a picture of all four of them,but I couldn't,so... This particular manatee last year--a year ago when we were in this very same room,the petitioner put buoys out for the residents so that they would be able to see how far boat docks are going to be coming out. That particular buoy has really moved in,but anyway,the moral of the story is is look where the manatee is now. He happened to stroll by just as they put those white buoys out. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. That sign says"idle speed,no wake." Is that whole area in there idle speed,no wake? MS.RILEY: It is. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. MS.RILEY: It's not? They just changed those signs since that--that sign. So what is it now,Roy? MR.WILSON: It's minimum wake. MS.RILEY: Oh,okay. MR.WILSON: Slow speed. Slow speed,minimum wake. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Okay. You can't speak-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: So where's the sign from? MS.RILEY: They just changed the sign probably about three months ago. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Oh,okay. MR.WILSON: Roy Wilson. Florida Fish and Wildlife came up and changed all the signs. MS.RILEY: And I just wanted to show this picture,because it is--whoops,it's upside down-- because it really is--a lot of photos that we see are always at high tide. This is a typical low tide. This isn't real low tide. This is a typical low tide,what that property looks like at low tide. So butting boats up on that --anyway... The other thing I wanted to point out is that while looking over material,the material presented by the petitioner in preparing for this morning,I read an email from the Florida Department of Transportation where the district drainage engineer stated in regard to Haldeman Creek,we cannot find any documentation that suggests current responsibility for this easement. So who is responsible for the impact of the dredging? I believe that Mr. Strain attempted to get these answers in a conversation that I had with him,but a governing responsibility has not been determined. There is a problem here with this creek and other creeks and waterways in Collier County. In the last 60 days there's been two storm-surge articles in the Naples Daily News--I know that this has been brought up--regarding concerns of Naples Bay and Haldeman Creek in particular. How much more can the creeks and waterways in Collier County be impacted before its too late? Page 24 of 51 July 2, 2015 Currently there are no boat dock extensions on Haldeman Creek that have been built. And to keep the natural flow of water,that is how it should stay. In conclusion,the developer continues to point out their application meets that requirement--meets the required criteria in the Land Development Code. That may be true. They may have met the criteria to apply,but it doesn't mean that it must be granted. Today I make an appeal to this board to not grant this proposed dock extension. Thank you for listening. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Thank you. MR.REISCHL: Next speaker is Jeanie VanArsdale,followed by the last speaker,Mitch Johnson. MS.VanARSDALE: Hi. Jeanie VanArsdale. I live in East Naples. Thank you for letting me speak with you today. I want to begin with a quote from my 93-year-old mother. When I talked to her about this project she said,where else would this project be proposed but in East Naples? Why is it okay to visually and environmentally alter a beautiful creek just because it's in East Naples?Why not let East Naples grow responsibly? Let us recover from this bad economy. Don't destroy our--don't destroy our beauty with big ideas. The petitioner has requested an 18-foot extension beyond the 20 feet allowed. If you do the math,20 plus 18 is 38. That's almost a 200 percent increase,something not granted to any of the individuals,and it's on a narrow creek. It's quite a bold move of the developers to request that. I was curious to know if I--in taking my figures,I reduced everything by a third from their original proposal. So instead of 810 cubic yards needed to be dredged,I did the math and said it's 530,but I don't know what a cubic yard is,so I looked it up on the Internet. I understand what a gallon is. And if you take 530 cubic yards,what you're talking about is 106,000 gallons of silt and sand and material taken out of the creek. And then,afterwards,250 pilings driven hydraulically without even having a 3D model,which was suggested,created to see the impact of this. If you have a dock that's 613 feet long,what you're talking about is two football fields. The overwater structure will be 5,000 feet. That's 70 feet by 70 feet of sunlit area that's now shade,and that doesn't even count what the boat shading will do. Why should the developer be able to do this?Is it because they have engineers? Is it because they have lawyers that they can consult and write this in a way that's appealing to a panel? It's time to say no. What we as citizens have is our experience on the creek,an imagination of what can happen,and a copy machine. That's what we have. I question the scale of the drawings that were presented because many of them look so pretty.There's gray water,gray boats. And as Maurice pointed out,this is not the way it's going to look. If we were to blow up this picture and really show it visually,we would show where the lifts are going to be. We would show people washing their boats with a soapy runoff. We would see people cleaning fish at a fish bait station. We would imagine the vibrations going into the water every time a boat lift goes up or down. We would illuminate the water on 613 feet for the docks at night,not having a strong uplight but still illuminating all the docks. We would show oil being added to outboards,possible spills,gasoline being poured into small outboards,possible spillage. We would see people coming and scraping barnacles off the bottom their boats, and one of my biggest concerns is we would have to see riprap repair. Because Kate showed that picture at low tide. That's the bottom of the riprap. And if they're going to be dredging at that corner,what is going to hold this from not just crumbling into Haldeman Creek? If you have 613 feet of dock and you have approximately 20 feet of mangrove as a buffer between housing,what it ends up looking--what it's going to end up looking like is a lot the way the construction looks like right now,while its unintended,because they've been asked to shut down. It's going to look like a giant bird perch.This--the project has been described as a man-altered canal. No kidding. It is a man-altered canal. It is a man-dredged canal which continually wants to fill in with silt. It is a shallow canal,we admit that. Ask any boater. But let's not alter it anymore by adding 613 feet of docks. Page 25 of 51 July 2, 2015 They say no boat will extend beyond the outer piling. Look at Google Earth. Approximately 30 percent of all boats in Naples extend beyond the pilings. There is a math problem here when there's 30 percent of boats go beyond the piling,and we say none are going to go beyond the piling here. They talk about the mangrove fringe. It's no fringe. It's 18 to 40 feet of thick mangrove.What is the preservation plan? Because it already appears that it's very thin near the new construction. A boat is not a car. It doesn't have brakes,it drifts,and it blows around. Pulling into an angled parking space at Winn's Market is often tricky. Pulling into an angled dock on Haldeman Creek will be much more difficult,and you don't even need a license to operate a boat. It is July 2nd. Tomorrow begins a big holiday weekend. It is difficult to draw an opposition public together on a workday,before a holiday,with short notice,in July. Haldeman Landing knows this,and now they're going to be coming back in two weeks. The community gets tired. We don't have the lawyers. We don't have the engineers. Here is the latest news headline--and I'm wrapping up--from the Washington Post. A flesh-eating bacterial infection thrives in the Gulf of Mexico,headline. ABC News says the same.AccuWeather,go read it. They're saying the same.USA Today. I was in Boston. It's in the Boston papers. So the word is,stop. Put an end to adding pollution and disruption to our shorelines and waters. Allow science and scientists to catch up and find out what's going on with our waters. We are at a critical tipping point. The criteria have not been met. This proposal is not appropriate.The water's too shallow,it will have an adverse affect on navigation,it is visually objectionable,it is unsafe,and the wildlife will be affected. Thank you very much. MR.REISCHL: Your last speaker is Mitch Johnson. MR.JOHNSON: Hello. I'm Mitch Johnson. I'm a property manager with Windstar on Naples Bay but also a resident of Collier County. Thanks for listening to all this. I know you've been through this a couple times already. But just real briefly I wanted to mention that,as you know,the Hearing Examiner did review all this, come back to the owner of the property with specific recommendations,which we do feel have been met,and reduced the total docks,went from the T docks to the angled docks,which probably weren't preferred,but the owner has adhered to these further restrictions. The county has these restrictions based on environmental impacts on safety. The owner has returned with what we feel is a reasonable request in accordance with those criteria. Additional compromise by the owner will likely not satisfy all owners of Lakeview anyhow--versus parallel docks or lifts or no lifts. Some of these are view-related items that can be subjective,and not all parties would probably ever agree on in the first place. Windstar is also affected by possible impacts and have voted in favor of the Regatta Landing project and the respects to the boat dock extension concessions that the county has asked for and that the owner has met. Like those that also own along the creek,Windstar on Naples Bay owners are also responsible, charitable,civic-minded residents. It's in their nature at Windstar to keep their property in first-class conditions and keep their property values high. Maintenance dredging would undoubtedly be done should water levels be shown to drop or that boats cannot fit into these angled slips. But I do appreciate your time today in listening to everyone's comments,and we ask for an approval based on the recommendation of your professional staff and the engineering facts you have before you. And I thank you. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Thank you. Is that it,or was there another-- MR.REISCHL: That was your final registered speaker. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Is there anybody-- COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Nonregistered? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah,is there any nonregistered-- CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Well,they all were sworn in. Is there anybody else that wanted to Page 26 of 51 July 2, 2015 speak,or no,they all-- MR.YOVANOVICH: Mr.Chairman(sic),can I--before I get started on my rebuttal,can I ask for a five-minute break to discuss a couple of comments with my client? CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Sure. MR.YOVANOVICH: Thank you. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Good. Thank you. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Can you please sit down and start the meeting,please. I just have one thing. For anybody that--if anybody's still here that spoke and put anything on the visualizer,the pictures,they need to be given to--copies to the court reporter to be part of the public record. Thank you. MR.YOVANOVICH: Thank you. I don't think my rebuttal will be very long because I'm going to really focus my comments on what the common theme was,in my opinion;if we have a hurricane,this particular dock structure is going to result in extensive damage to all the properties around it and somehow is going to be the cause of severe property destruction by the approval of these boat docks,and that's the public health,safety,and welfare issue I heard from the residents. I started the meeting with my comments regarding if we meet the criteria we are entitled to the boat dock extension. I don't retreat from that position. There's a boat dock extension process in the code. There are specific criteria,and if we meet them we have the property right to get the approval. With that being said,there have been--there has been no competent substantial evidence contrary to our petition. There have been people with opinions,and they're entitled to have opinions,but they're not competent to give those opinions.They're not engineers. Who are the competent people to review this petition for drainage and will the easement continue to flow and drain properly as designed? I can't make that statement. I'm a lawyer. I don't have a PE. A PE can make that statement who's specifically trained in water management. Who's reviewed this on behalf of Collier County? Jerry Kurtz. Jerry Kurtz is a water management expert,and he has those magic initials after his name. He is a professional engineer and has been doing this for more than 20 years. I think it's around 27 years. I've dealt with Jerry for a long time at the county. He hasn't always-- COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Could you zoom out? It's cutting off some of it. MR.YOVANOVICH: Okay. This is all in your packet. It's part of our-- COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Yeah. I've already read it,but I might want to refresh my memory. Thank you. MR.YOVANOVICH: Okay. I just--I just want you to know that one of the concerns the Hearing Examiner had was has the county looked at this and determined if this will negatively impact the purpose of that drainage easement that was conveyed to the state department, State Road Department of Florida in 1953. And also in your packet is a copy of the easement. The purpose of that easement was to create a drainage easement for what is now Bayshore Drive. So you have to look at what was the intent of that drainage easement. Now,I'm going to bring--I'm going to bring Andrew Rath up,who's our professional engineer on this project. He has gone back and researched the plans for the dredge that was associated with this 1953 easement,and those plans were prepared in 1950. So these plans were prepared,and the state went out and acquired an easement to implement the drainage improvements that the state wanted to make. And Andrew will come up,and he will testify that everything we're proposing to do is outside of the area where the dredge was going to occur for this drainage easement. So we have a professional engineer and Jerry Kurtz who has testified that the easement will function fine as proposed to be constructed. You also have a gentleman named Carlton Spirio from the state DOT who Mr. Strain testified--talked to prior to the fact finding,and he had--based upon the questions asked to him,had given Mr. Strain some direction on what needed to occur to analyze it. Mr. Spirio,also in your backup information,issued his opinion,and it was based upon his review of Page 27 of 51 July 2, 2015 the construction plans that we're proposing to do. He also has those magic initials at the end of his name, professional engineer. He has said that the easement will function properly after we build the improvements. Now,either the county or the state has the easement rights. They've both opined it will function properly after the docks are constructed. I can testify to legal matters. There's a drainage easement on the property. It's a nonexclusive drainage easement. What does that mean? Mr.Eastman knows. It means that I've retained all of the rights to use that same piece of property burdened by that easement provided I don't do anything that is inconsistent with the use of that property. That means I can't interfere with the drainage. Two professional engineers,one from the state and one from the county,have confirmed I will not do anything to interfere with the functioning of that easement. I emphasize those two individuals because I'm going to ask Mr.Rath to come up here. Now,I know people think that since he works for the applicant he's somehow not going to give his true professional opinion. That is not the case. He's a professional engineer. And he's going to give you his analysis as to that in his review of the plans,and then I'll move on to a few other closing comments. MR.RATH: Hello. Andrew Rath with Davidson Engineering,professional engineer licensed in the State of Florida. I would just like to bring a couple exhibits forth here through some research that we conducted with the state. These are the original plans for the construction of State Road 858 at the time with the associated drainage canal that went with it.You can see the date down in the corner,around 1950. And then next I'd like to show this. You see the highlighted area here? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Could we zoom out,please,so we get the whole piece there. No,not that far. So we can read it,Fred. MR.RATH: This shows a typical section for the drainage channel. You'll notice that the drainage easement's 150 feet wide. You'll see the 75s on either side of the center above. You'll also see that the bottom of the channel has two 40-foot dimensions on it depicting that we've got an 80-foot channel bottom. All this is occurring centered within a 150-foot easement. A similar analogy is if you had 100-foot right-of-way,you know,you may have a roadway in the center that's only 50 feet wide,and you've got shoulders and swales along the side with utilities in them to support the road and to convey stormwater, things like that. But as you work your way-- COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Could I ask a question? MR.RATH: Sure. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: On the right and left sides of that,this is the cutaway of what-- MR.RATH: Correct. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: --what was done. I can't read here. And I see you've written over the sides where we've got the slope into the waterway,what we're actually doing there. And I see mangroves, then I see some writing. Can you explain that? MR.RATH: The original text on the plans there,those were the spoils from digging the actual ditch. They set them up there to kind of drain them out,and so then they could move them or spread out the spoils afterwards so it wasn't a slurry mess type thing,and they tried to show to leave 10 feet of access on either side at the time. So as you can see,there's basically 70 feet left over. When you take the 150 feet minus the 80 feet, you've got 70 feet left over. If you split it on either side,you have 35 feet on either side until you hit the bottom of the channel. Today we are requesting--one more point. The edge of the drainage easement that you'll see all the way to the extreme right lines up with mean high water,which we can see on our survey. I can show that to you in a moment. But they basically line up with each other. And today we're asking for a boat dock extension of 38 feet from mean high water. So you can see that as you extend from the edge of the drainage easement all the way out 38 feet,we barely touch into the bottom of the drainage channel. And there are many places where the actual drainage easement--the mean Page 28 of 51 July 2, 2015 high water is behind the drainage easement, so we're not even--we don't even get out to touch the bottom of the channel. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Well,what he's showing you is the 1950s plan,correct? MR.RATH: Correct. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: You're the applicant's representative,correct? MR.RATH: Correct. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: So they're showing what was initially done. Now,this is not attached or referenced in the deed to the state, so it's not the only configuration that can be there. This is just how it was initially done,you know,almost 70 years ago. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: As a plan. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: As a plan. This is not binding. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Thank you. MR.RATH: This was the plan that was provided by the state,the design for the drainage channel. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: And from what you're saying, from the 1950s. MR.RATH: Correct. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Correct. It's not binding on the state. It can--the canal can be changed, and the county's probably changed it in their drawings as well,but this is not binding. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Andrew,I have a question for you. Was this dredged in the'50s? MR.RATH: How was it constructed? I'm sure it was-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: No. I asked you if it was dredged in the'50s. Because you're showing 80,and the 2006 dredge shows only 40. MR.RATH: This is showing what the design bottom was at the time we applied. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. But they--you weren't even born in the'50s, so you don't know whether it was dredged or not? MR.RATH: I can tell you that when you look at the design side slopes of the channel-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: I under--that I understand. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Stop,please. Let him finish. MR.RATH: The side slopes of the channel were at one-and-a-half to one slope,which is very unstable,especially in a waterway. And you could imagine that they slough off into the channel if it's not stable. So you would see a different condition out there today than what the design was.And,obviously,as dredging occurred in 2006,it would change to a further degree. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Is there any reason to believe that this wasn't dredged to that cross-section? MR.RATH: I don't think there's any reason to believe that. It was constructed in a different-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: So it was an approved drawing,and it was-- MR.RATH: Correct. This was the approved drawing. It was implemented. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: --finaled out,and you can assume that this is how it was built when it was built. MR.RATH: Correct. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Is there a plan view in here anywhere? MR.RATH: Yes,I've got a plan view I can show you here. Let me just show you this quickly for reference of the plan view. I'm just trying to show you a spot on the survey. As you work your way down the creek,it delineates the various different drainage easements that make up the drainage channel there,and you can see that there's a crook almost where--an angle in the drainage easement where it changes. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Could you point,please,so-- MR.RATH: Right there. So that straight line kind of curved--angles a little bit there. I mean,you can use that as a point of reference when we look at the plan view from the 1950s. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Before you go on,I--can you go back to the last drawing? What are we looking at,and what did you point out? What was its significance,please? MR.RATH: Just pointing out a point of reference. So when we look at a plan view from the 1950s, Page 29 of 51 July 2, 2015 it's-- COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Okay. It's the point. MR.RATH: --a little bit difficult to tell where you are,so I'm using a point of reference.It's right here,and it's almost an elbow. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Okay. Thank you. MR.REISCHL: And this is oriented differently. North is to the right side on this one. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: And we could just turn the drawing and orient them the same,but go ahead.All right. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Makes a difference. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Now you can't read the writing. Okay. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: They could zoom in. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'm joking. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: But that's what the zoom is for. MR.RATH: But we're just simply showing you a point of reference there. When we look at the plan view here,they have the drainage easements laid out in the plan view,and you can see the elbow,the crook here. And from today's survey,I can measure back; 400 feet is where our west property line lies,and so I use that as a reference to tie us to the property. This is a plan view and a profile of the drainage ditch here. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: On the left side,what is that snaky--looks like an old ditch, an old creek. MR.RATH: That is the original creek that's shown on the plan view there. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: That's how small it was? MR.RATH: Yes. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And then it kind of widens up? But they didn't show the rest of it. MR.RATH: As it continues on? No,I don't see much more than that. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. MR.RATH: But the area was surveyed at the time,so I think the creek was,you know,taken by a surveyor. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Andrew,can I say something? From what I'm gathering from the history of this--and I have looked at a lot of the history--you are correct that the little portion is where the original creek came from,that there wasn't all this other in there. And that's why they have the property underneath; is that correct? The original was from the-- MR.YOVANOVICH: The reason we own the land-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: I understand why you own the land,because you had some of the property across. Richard,that's not what I'm arguing. This little portion down here was the original creek. There really wasn't much up the other way,up to Bayshore? MR.YOVANOVICH: Well,I can't tell you on Bayshore. I thought you went the other direction. MR.HALL: Yeah. I think the creek did continue on but to the north of where the easement is. So if you--if you look at the old--the property line that you see-- MR.RATH: Follows the creek. MR.HALL: It faded out. But it follows where that old creek boundary was. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Sure. MR.HALL: So this easement went across it,which is why the applicant still owns,you know,both sides of that as well as the underlying area. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Which really makes sense. But that's what--when that little bitty thing came down in there,that's where I was looking at this. Okay. But who dredged the creek in the'50s if you said it was an 80-foot bottom? Do we have the Page 30 of 51 July 2, 2015 MR.RATH: I can't tell you who the contractor was. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Is there any way we can find out who-- MR.RATH: I could tell you that it was a state project so--I mean,it was funded by the state and, you know,the state calculated what the drainage needs were to drain out the areas that it was intended to drain,and they designed the drainage channel,an open channel flow,and that included an 80-foot-wide bottom with one-and-a-half to one side slopes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Because what I'm hearing is this was never dredged until 2006, and I will go into my explanation later. MR.RATH: It was excavated. MR.YOVANOVICH: It was originally constructed. So if you want to call that a dredge,then that was the first dredge,and then the second--as I understand it from the gentleman who's been living there for 40-something years,the other dredge occurred in'06. But there was the original construction of the waterway,the drainage easement,and then a dredge in about 2006. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Thank you. MR.YOVANOVICH: All right. So from a--from what was the purpose of the easement when it was originally constructed,it was a drainage easement to drain some roads. It wasn't to drain acres and acres and acres of property that went along or may have been near the roadway. But be that as it may,there's been a review by environmental agencies that we have to get permits from, state and federal,that have reviewed and approved this from a public,health,safety,welfare perspective. It's been reviewed by the county, including the county stormwater engineer,it's been reviewed by the state,including a PE from the state,and all have said that that drainage easement will function properly with these docks. So there--the gentleman who says this has not been analyzed from a health,safety,and welfare perspective is not correct. It has been analyzed from a public health,safety,and welfare analysis. And the pilings will operate fine,and the drainage will operate fine with the--the drainage easement will operate fine with all of those improvements in their place. I have no response to the flesh-eating bacteria comment. I don't know how these docks in any way impact that issue. I really don't have a comment to what happens if Hurricane Donna comes again and sits over the top of Naples for three days. I don't think we design and permit construction in Collier County for those types of events. I venture to say that if that happens,we're going to have bigger problems than what this dock may or may not do. But I also want to just quickly show you some live pictures of what's out there today without us. That's how people operate their docks out in that area right now. They're not respecting the required distance that they're supposed to do. I venture to say that things are a little bit more sophisticated today,and I am fairly certain that if our docks or our boats were to go beyond the permitted amount,there'll be calls to code enforcement,and code enforcement will be out there,and they will deal with it like they will do with anything else. There are more eyes watching this project,I'm sure,than many other projects in Collier County. I think Mr. Chrzanowski was bringing up the point about a bridge,and I think that that bridge is your real chokepoint for flow. If Hurricane Donna does come or hurricane whoever--we'll call it Hurricane Diane. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Diane,yeah. MR.YOVANOVICH: So in case she gets to me first--I think that that's where the real chokepoint's going to be. I think everything's going to flow past just fine. We have met the criteria. The competent substantial evidence shows that we've met the criteria,and we are requesting approval of the boat docks as we have modified them in response to both neighbor comments as well as the Hearing Examiner comments. We think we are entitled to more but we have compromised and reduced our request,and hopefully the Planning Commission will agree and vote to approve our boat dock extension. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: And this was redone according to--the boat docks are at a 45-degree Page 31 of 51 July 2, 2015 angle because of the Hearing Examiner's recommendation; is that right? MR.YOVANOVICH: Correct. We originally requested perpendicular,and he believed it would be better to have them at a 45-degree angle,which we have implemented. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Okay. And one of--and part of that condition that he had in there also said that the docks would not exceed a limit of a 20-foot extension over the maximum 20-foot allowed, total protrusion not to exceed 40 feet. I'm just--I mean,because you're well below--you're below that. I'm just trying to make that point. MR.YOVANOVICH: Right. And it turns out with the angle-- CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: You're doing what-- MR.YOVANOVICH: --we don't even need-- CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: --he's asked you to do-- MR.YOVANOVICH: --as much as-- CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: --what was asked here? MR.YOVANOVICH: Correct. With the turning of the angle,we're even less than what we had suggested. I don't remember him saying a specific number. He just said angle it. COMMISSIONER EBERT: He also had a 30-degree in there,I believe,kind of showing. MR.YOVANOVICH: Thirty feet,I believe he had. COMMISSIONER EBERT: He did have a 30-degree angle. MR.YOVANOVICH: I think he had a 30-foot boat,and we've reduced the size of the vessels as well. COMMISSIONER EBERT: No. He had a 30-degree angle in there in one of them. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Forty-five. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I understand the 45,but he showed different angles. I think there was even a steeper one at 30. MR.YOVANOVICH: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I have some questions if you're through. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I want a clarification,please,Rich,on this particular property in its relationship to Windstar. MR.YOVANOVICH: Okay. Happy to do that. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Understood. Regatta Landing was mentioned; other boat docks at Windstar were mentioned. If you could clarify that,I'd appreciate it. MR.YOVANOVICH: A couple of things. This property is not within the Windstar PUD,okay. It is separate and distinct from the Windstar PUD,which means,if you noticed the conditions,we can only sell to people who are owners of this project.This project is not within the Windstar PUD;therefore,Windstar residents can't buy docks. We are not--we are,however--they have the ability as an association to annex land in for purposes of being members of the master association and the like. They've annexed us in for that purpose because we now have an access point in through the Windstar development. You know,we believe that's beneficial for the value of our land,and they believed it was beneficial from their perspective as well. So we're members of the master association,but we're not within the Windstar PUD. So that's why you've heard it referred to as they are separate. From a zoning standpoint,they are separate. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: As part of the association umbrella that this development comes under,would they have access to those additional docks within Windstar? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. MR.YOVANOVICH: I don't know the answer to that because I was not involved in that. John,do you know the answer? You're their lawyer. Why don't you--I'd prefer for John to answer that,if that's okay. MR.FARQUHAR: They would be under the rules and restrictions of the master association as well, Page 32 of 51 July 2, 2015 but the other owners in Windstar,except for the 64 homeowners in the new project,would not have the right to use these docks as it's presently-- COMMISSIONER ROMAN: So say that again. I'm not sure I followed you. MR.FARQUHAR: The master association for Windstar would have some governance rights over the entire project because this project is within the master association,but the residents of Windstar would not have the right to use these 64 docks.Only the 64 homeowners will have the right to use--I'm sorry. The 27 docks could only be used by the 64 homeowners in the Regatta Landing project. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: My question was just the opposite,the reverse,the reverse of that. MR.FARQUHAR: I don't 100 percent know whether they could use the other existing docks in Windstar at all. MR.YOVANOVICH: We've got the right guy. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Okay. We've got somebody else. Thank you. I appreciate it. MR.JOHNSON: Again,as the association manager for five years,there are--there's one pier dock onto Naples Bay. That has only the right for one boat to moor there,which is a master association maintained boat. No other owner within Windstar can put a boat there even temporarily. The other--a photo,actually,we saw at one point of some boats on lifts are exclusive to the owners of a neighborhood called Admiral's Watch,and so those also cannot be used by any other Windstar owner or the owners of Regatta Landing. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Okay. Thank you. MR.JOHNSON: And also there's the Southpointe Marina,but that is a recreational association,and that can be used by outside owners. It's 72 slips there. And so,theoretically,a Regatta Landing owner could purchase a slip there. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Okay. And there's 72 there? MR.JOHNSON: Correct. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Okay,thank you. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Heidi,would this be-- MR.JOHNSON: Yeah. They're not all available,by the way. Most of those are sold.Actually, they're all owned. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: But the marina is 72 slips large? MR.JOHNSON: Correct. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Would this be where you would want to bring up that change that you MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah. I just wanted to read into the record the resolution,some changes for clarification. It does need to reflect that the total protrusion is of 24 to 38 feet in accordance with the site plan and cross-sections that are attached,because the protrusion is 38 at its greatest. In the other areas it's,I believe,24 and 33. So that just needs to be corrected on the proposed resolution. And then I guess I would want from Fred clarification on his recommendation,and especially in light of what they just said,on Condition No.4,that the boat slips shall be owned and used by residents of Haldeman's Landings multifamily development and then it says or"its property owners association." The master association is the only existing association at this time. So do you want to keep that language which could allow the residents of Windstar,through the association,to use these docks,or is it just going to be Haldeman Landing?That's my question. MR.REISCHL: And my--Heidi and I had spoke about this,and Tim gave us the information that there was no HOA currently for Haldeman's Landing.But my intent when I wrote this condition was to have it limited to the 64 units of Haldeman's Landing. So I--if there's more clear wording,I'd be happy to change it. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Well,I don't know. I'm ready to discuss that. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: So would we remove the--would we remove the property owners association,or is that a different-- MR.YOVANOVICH: Okay. What's going to happen is the condominium,okay. And you don't Page 33 of 51 July 2, 2015 record the condominium documents until the units are built and ready to close,okay. So there will be a condominium association for this community. The intent is only owners of condominium units can own the docks,or the condominium association itself can own it on behalf of the unit owners. So however you want to clarify that,that Windstar,because it's a master association,could somehow get its nose under the tent,that is not the intent and not what we believe Fred's intent,that we had to be the 64 unit owners associated with that property. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: So then how about if we just put"or the property owners association for the 64 upland units"; is that acceptable? MR.YOVANOVICH: If we put property or condominium association. COMMISSIONER EBERT: HOA. MR.YOVANOVICH: Well,a condo association's different than an HOA. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Well,do you want to put both so you have flexibility-- MR.YOVANOVICH: That's fine; that's fine. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: --or do you want condominium? Okay. So we'll put"property owners association or condominium association for the 64 upland units." MR.YOVANOVICH: That's fine. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Is that okay? MR.YOVANOVICH: That's fine. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: All right. Thank you. MR.REISCHL: And that's agreeable to us,too. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. To be honest with you,we've kind of closed the public hearing, but I've held back,so your Hurricane Diana's going to hit you now. I don't want to disappoint. We dealt with this last year. I'm a very passionate person,and I wish somebody'd tell my husband that. But-- CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: We haven't closed the public hearing because-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: He's watching. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Charlette wasn't done, so... COMMISSIONER EBERT: Wasn't done. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Heidi jumped in first. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Anyway,there are other options to this. And to be honest with you, because it was last year,I went to see Andrew. I have done so many different things. It's not that I don't want boat docks there. But in 2006 when this was dredged,Mr.Antaranian,I believe,was the owner of this.He took the-- it was agreed--I have stuff from the county that shows that he took the sludge put up on there,and he actually bought some of it to fill in the lakes at the top and many other things there. He also knew at the time that this was a drainage easement. And when he was going to put his 137 units up there,which was completely a different site plan,he had the basin. So this person can change their site plan and put in a basin if they would like. It is not in the drainage easement. And that's where the 51 came from. And that was done in 2006. And at the time Mr.Brooker was the one leading the neighborhood association where they had it,and that's where they came up with the Windstar people,and there was going to be 34 to 51 in there. And he--things have changed,like you say. Access will continue to be provided through Windstar Marina entrance,although it will be resident entrance only from Lakeshore Drive. The applicant envisions approximately 34 to 51 wet boat slips provided along Haldeman Creek. Windstar residents will have the first option to buy a lesser of 20 percent. That's why I'm saying things have changed. The reason it changed at the last one is when we were here a year ago,I obtained the agreement between Windstar and this developer. And it isn't even this developer. It was Centerline who paid to belong to the master association. I also have another plan that was by Lakeview,and this was before,and it was when 21 lots were going to be there. I'll give this to you. Page 34 of 51 July 2, 2015 It says,when you consider waterfront lot,don't forget the importance of a protected harbor and dockage that will not be affected by the wake of boat traffic. So when it was 21,they were planning on putting their boat docks along the side here. For the people who didn't have that,they were going to put them in their little circle of the lake,and out on the Haldeman Creek there was only six property owners, so that's where they were going to put their six boats or,as you say, if it were single-family,they could have two,but it would be out on the creek. So there are--there are other things that they can do. As far as Windstar Marina,that came up last year,too,Rich. I'm sorry you weren't involved last year in this. It was just-- MR.YOVANOVICH: I read it. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I know. I know you would. MR.YOVANOVICH: I know what happened. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And as far as Windstar is concerned,the marina, Southpointe Marina, it says you don't need to be a resident of Windstar to own a slip. I had several that I was going to give to the commissioners last year before you pulled it.They knew about this. You don't have to be a resident there. As far as Admiral's Watch,that was done through the city because that is the City of Naples. That was--there are eight,supposedly,boat docks there for their 16 units, so that was also held just for those residents there. As far as this person doing advertising,it's completely different. There's two that I have. If you want,you can put it on there. They show preconstruction. He's showing the docks at Admiral's Watch. That's not--so to me,that's a little different. It's almost like false advertising and yet he does belong to the Windstar Master Association. Here's another thing I'd like to read to you.For the grand opening,introducing Regatta Landings in Windstar on Naples Bay. And,Richard,I do understand the difference of"in"and"next to",because we've dealt with this before where it's--they don't cover the doughnut hole. If it is--if they want to be completely in Windstar, Windstar has to do a PUD amendment. But here's what it says on this. Community amenities. A private gated enclave of only 64 upscale coach homes, 18-hole Tom Fazio golf course,private beach and marina, state-of-the-art fitness center,and waterfront dining overlooking Naples Bay. They really are in Windstar. And I understand how it goes,because I do know the difference between--it's just legalese. So they really are. The difference is,last year when I got this agreement or saw this agreement,I'm sorry,Mr.Hall didn't even know anything about it. When you sell to the outside,you're supposed to have like a C3--you have to have a commercial. And if you're going to sell to outside people,that's commercial. That's why this was put in there that it can be only for the people of--well,it was Haldeman's Landing,then --anyway,Regatta now. And Admiral's Watch is the same way. It is supposedly only for their people. I went and got the information from the city. Collier County did not permit that one. The city permitted that one,and they were very worried because of that,and they almost didn't even do it for that because they said you have a marina over there. And I believe on that marina--and you're right,you have 72 deepwater slips. There are no lifts allowed there. I believe there is also 10,correct me if I'm wrong,for the residents that actually live on Admiral's--I mean,on the island there. Haldeman originally asked for 42. You know when you take the hole,the hole-filled doughnut,that would have been 132 boat slips for the people. It doesn't even need to be the people that live there. Two would be restricted,but the Southpointe is not,and that would be 132. You have now brought it down to 27,although we haven't really done the 107 feet that Mr. Strain--Commissioner Strain had said. You didn't go quite that far. But that's 117 that would end up there now. MR.YOVANOVICH: One hundred seventeen? COMMISSIONER EBERT: One hundred seventeen boat slips if this were approved for the 27 beyond there. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Well,could you get--is there a point to-- Page 35 of 51 July 2, 2015 COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah,there--Karen? CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Could you get to it so-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Karen? Karen? This is my time. I am speaking also. I'm speaking because there are other things here that do come into play. And,Richard,when you said that these people are not witnesses,so in other words,they can't--they can say what they want but they can't testify because they're not witnesses? MR.YOVANOVICH: I didn't say that. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well,it was in that light. The other thing is,I'm going to ask--or I'm going to read to you and then ask Mr.Kurtz to also come up. There's--this is where the rising sea levels came. Part of it was where east--and this was from Mr. Kurtz,that East Naples might not be the place most people think--that they think of rising sea levels,but that's what Jerry Kurtz sees. On the north side of U.S.41,not far from Walmart,a weir that controls flows into Haldeman Creek and eventually Naples Bay is one of four aging weirs that sit on the county's front line. He attended a day-long seminar at Florida Gulf Coast. I'm just taking parts of this. I will give this to the recorder(sic). Mr.Kurtz,the county stormwater planner,listened to speakers at Thursday's summit and thought about those weirs. Besides one on Haldeman Creek,there's also Henderson Creek in East Naples,the Gordon River,and the Cocohatchee. Each weir is at the tail end of the county's drainage system,the last point where the county controls how water flows to and from a rising sea. We realize we have got to pay attention,Kurtz says. We're interested. We are concerned. CoreLogic did this,and they said storm surges are measured walls of water that are formed from tropical storms--doesn't need to be a hurricane--and they go up creeks,rivers,and stream subtracting the normal high tide from observation tide. Other one I'm going to read for you,if you want to just show this. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Are we missing somebody? MR.YOVANOVICH: Charlette just,I think,went that way. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: The bathroom. They can hear in there. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Because we don't have a quorum at the moment. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: She can hear in the bathroom. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Oh,you can hear in the bathroom? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: There's a speaker in there;I can vouch for that. I heard everything loud and clear. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Scary. COMMISSIONER EBERT: It is. In Collier County--this is from the surge,the one--I'm just going to read from the paper here,and not all of it. MR.REISCHL: Did you want me to zero in on the graphic or-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: No. I think people can kind of see it. In Collier County,surges topped 11 feet during Hurricane Donna in 1960 and damaged and destroyed more than 1,500 homes. Charley had a six-and-a-half-foot surge at North Captiva Island and smashed about half of the homes. Jeffrey said Southwest Florida is particularly susceptible to storm surges,even from relatively mild Hurricane 1 forces because it is flat. He also said it's important that residents--Jeffrey said it is important residents understand that the biggest risk from storm surge flooding isn't just property damage. Storm surges are life threatening,he said. So know your evacuation routes and protect yourselves,your lives. I had a conversation with--Mr.Kurtz was one of the people that I had talked to this week,and I asked how many drainage easements we have.Mr.Kurtz,if you could come up. MR.KURTZ: Good afternoon. Page 36 of 51 July 2, 2015 COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. Good afternoon,Jerry. Are we replacing the weirs? When are they going to be replaced? Because I noticed that you said they needed to be replaced. MR.KURTZ: We're looking at replacing--planning to replace two,possibly three or four over the next four or five years. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Which is the oldest? MR.KURTZ: I'm not sure,Commissioner,which is the oldest weir,but we've got these three or four targeted based on age as well as functional obsolescence. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. And I--and are the weirs only on drainage easements? Is that --is that the only place the weirs are? MR.KURTZ: Weirs are typically placed in drainage easements,yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Not even thinking about it,I live on a drainage easement because I live on the Cocohatchee. I cannot put a boat in there because I would have to go through several weirs,which I can't get through. The last one for Cocohatchee is down by North Naples Hospital,NCH,and then from there it flows out and under 41,I believe,and goes down to Wiggins Pass,correct? MR.KURTZ: Yes. I'm familiar,yep. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. And this one--your last weir,I believe you said,was at the Walmart store over here on 41. That's your last one? MR.KURTZ: Yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. So as far as the county is--on stormwater. We're talking stormwater. So that's the last the county can do for stormwater. And you said there's nothing we can do,so we really don't care about anything after stormwater,which is true to a certain extent. Haldeman at least has an MSTU,so--and it was forced on them in 2006 from Commissioner Coyle because he said this was a stormwater project. I have information from him. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Jerry,why do you put in weirs? To let water go or to hold water back? MR.KURTZ: Is that a trick question, Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Why do you put in a the weir,to let water go or to hold water back? MR.KURTZ: Weirs are put in to hold water back and to control the rate of-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Why do we hold water back? MR.KURTZ: We hold water back to preserve the resource,the freshwater resource; a number of reasons. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. So you don't want the water to go out too fast? MR.KURTZ: Right. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And you're going to replace these weirs because? Functional obsolescence. There's better ways to do it. MR.KURTZ: Yes. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Thank you, Stan,because I know you're a water man. I'm just going to read a little bit from the dredging from where Commissioner Coyle had this,Jerry. And being it's an easement,I always--you know,it is different from regular water. He had a little--there was tension,it says,between the city and the county. But I'll just read,the county's--the Council's divided vote came after a heated discussion in which council members debated whether it was a dredging project-- CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Hang on a second here. MR.YOVANOVICH: Mr.Chair(sic),I just--I think you guys need to take a five-minute break. I just--I had a conversation with the county attorney. I've got some concerns about what's happening right now in the process,so I request a five-minute break. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: We're way off track here,I think. Page 37 of 51 July 2, 2015 COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well,when was I supposed to bring this up? I was going to let everybody else speak. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: About the docks? This is about docks? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. This is about the docks. This has to do with the drainage easement in the docks. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Well,is there a question? MR.YOVANOVICH: The way you're supposed to bring that up is through testimony from experts, not from testimony from the-- MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Madam Chair,are we taking a five-minute break? CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Sure. Let's take a five-minute break. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Yeah,Heidi's going to be just a second. Okay. Can we get--I know that-- COMMISSIONER ROMAN: We're just waiting for Heidi to come back in. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Yeah. COMMISSIONER EBERT: We have to wait for her to come back. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Yeah. Okay. I know that before all this,Charlette got cut off from her questions,and I have one, so-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah,I will finish up. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: So you need to stick to the criteria here that we have in front of us. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: We'll just continue our break then until Heidi comes in. COMMISSIONER EBERT: If Fred could show those. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Richard said that they meet the criteria,and on the primary criteria on this,which is a requirement even to ask for a boat dock extension. I have their appeal here from which Mr.Hall had,and I just want to let you know from last time,which was my opinion--and Richard wasn't here. Primary Condition No. 1 I disagreed with last time. You have fixed that. But I wasn't the only one to disagree. Mr. Strain also did where it was-- MR.YOVANOVICH: Mr. Strain wasn't here. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Mr. Strain wasn't here,though. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. In his HEX hearing he disagreed with that also,and that was the location in the upland zoning. And I'm only going to read the ones that I disagreed with or--Mr.Doyle did at the time,too. Primary Condition No.2 I disagreed with and it was-- CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: We're not talking--you're talking about the last time? MR.YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: It appealed. MR.YOVANOVICH: I'm trying to be patient here. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: We need to talk--we need to focus on what we have in front of us today and the criteria from today,not the last meeting. COMMISSIONER EBERT: This was the--this was the appeal. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: It's not the same. MR.YOVANOVICH: This project is dramatically different than the project you heard before that we did appeal. You need to look at the criteria today and apply the project today. And I object at this point to anything that's coming in that is unrelated to the project before you today. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah. It might be helpful if you look at the staff report and use the criteria in the staff report. COMMISSIONER EBERT: It's the same--it's the same criteria in the staff report. MR.YOVANOVICH: It's a different project. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: And are you--are you desiring at this time then to put on the record what you--what criteria you agree with and disagree with based on the record before you today? Page 38 of 51 July 2, 2015 COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well,I can do it for today,too. It's the same criteria. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: We're only talking about today. If that's from the last meeting,we're not talking about that. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. That's fine. It's just the same wording,different place. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Different-- MR.YOVANOVICH: Different project. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Different project,different petition. Everything's different. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Go ahead and ask your questions. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Did you have--Charlette needed-- COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Did you have something to show? COMMISSIONER EBERT: No,I'll wait. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: She's not on the right thing here. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Okay. All right. This is the first time I'm hearing a boat dock extension request for Haldeman's Creek. I wasn't here the last time. I have a couple questions. One,do you know,Rich,if Haldeman Creek is part of the Naples Bay restoration project,you know,to clean up the water? Maybe Tim knows that. MR.HALL: I don't know the answer to that. I would assume that as a tributary that it's part of the considerations,but whether it's actually included in that footprint for the grant money and so forth,I don't know. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Do you know if any water-quality testing is being conducted in Haldeman's creek? MR.HALL: I know that the city is conducting some down at the mouth. I don't know if the county's conducting any at the weir or not. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Does anybody know the answer to that question from the county staff? (No response.) COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Okay. All right. I had a discussion reference Exhibit 5 with Tim on the phone,and one of my concerns--if we could put Exhibit 5 up. MR.YOVANOVICH: Is that the right exhibit? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Yes,it is. Yes,it is.Thank you. We talked about the mangroves. Will any of the mangroves be removed in order to construct these boat docks? MR.HALL: The only removal is going to be in association with the four access walkways. And these three,there are currently kind of holes through the fringe and all where we think we can get those through without any removal. This dock right here is the one that would entail the removal of a couple of mangroves to actually get out. And when I say"removal,"we're not planning on going in and ripping any mangroves out,but they will be cut to a point where they may not survive. So we count those as impacted just as if we had removed them. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Yeah. One of the things that I was concerned about was that walkway that is at the furthest east point because of the impact with the special treatment area and,of course, to those mangroves. Also,it looked like we had a long space between the docks from the west. There were 11 boats between the two entrances,and then,you know,we put three entrances,you know,closely together. So that one on the east,I was concerned about that,and I was concerned about those boats as well. And I had asked about what the impact would be to maybe putting parallel docks; impact to the project meaning how many docks--how many boat slips or boats could be impacted. And I think your estimate, Tim,was it would result probably in 20 docks if it was parallel versus 27 that's being requested in this application,roughly. MR.HALL: Less than 20. It would be about probably closer to 18,depending on,again,the--what the final lengths of every boat is. If somebody has a 16-foot boat,they may be able to fit a couple of those in Page 39 of 51 July 2, 2015 versus if every one is the 25 feet,then you'd be at 18. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I understand. Thank you. MR.REISCHL: Commissioner,we--through the magic of television,we got an answer to your previous question from Bill Lorenz. We take one water quality sample upstream and two downstream monthly. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: And did he say what the quality results are? COMMISSIONER EBERT: No. MR.BELLOWS: You just asked him. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: He's watching. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: So we discussed that eastern edge of these--this boat dock configuration that was one of my concerns. The other thing is the number of pilings concerns me. If we're going to do this configuration,there's about 250 pilings that would result. To me,more likely than not,those 250 pilings would have some affect on the flow and the sediment transport in the creek versus fewer pilings. Would that be a reasonable expectation? MR.HALL: Well,I mean-- MR.YOVANOVICH: Hold on. He's not an engineer. So I think that's more of an engineering-related question. And I really--what I want to do at this point is focus on Mr.Kurtz,as much as he doesn't want me to. He's the county's engineer,and he's opined that the project that we're proposing with the piers will be okay for the flow of the drainage. If we're going to have to do maintenance dredging,which we probably will around our docks,you know,we'll do that.That will be our responsibility to do that. So this has been reviewed by other engineers.And if you want to bring Mr.Kurtz up on that,I think its better than asking Tim who's-- COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Well,it's just--Rich,you know,the engineer can come up and answer it.But if you have 250 pilings having an impact on the waterway and you have fewer than 250 pilings in the waterway,it's most likely that fewer pilings will have less of an impact. MR.YOVANOVICH: Well,I mean,I would think that that--even me as a dumb lawyer understands that. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Okay. That's all I was saying. MR.YOVANOVICH: So,I mean--but I'm not sure that that goes--and I don't know where you're going, so I'm not trying to interrupt you. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Well,I'm trying to--you know,when I had a discussion with Tim,I was more in favor of a parallel type of structure. And when I looked at the eastern edge where I focused in, even if this other proposed dock layout-- MR.YOVANOVICH: How far east? That's what I'm not sure. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: East. I'm talking about--if you could point to that third walkway and probably those first six boats. That's what I'm looking at. That was my biggest concern with the impact to the special treatment area and those mangroves. Now,my further question to Tim was,if you use the whole length that you're proposing today but did parallel docks instead of 45-degree docks,what would be the number of boats that you think that you could fit in there and what would be the impact to the project? Because I understand that you'd still need a boat dock extension from what he said,but it would be-- MR.YOVANOVICH: Financially not feasible. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: It would be less feet that you'd be impacting the waterway. MR.HALL: But in terms of the mangrove impacts and the shoreline impacts,it would be exactly the same-- COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Correct. MR.HALL: --as what we're proposing now. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: It would be,in my view,less impact on the waterway and less impact in the intensity of the number of boats that are being introduced to the Haldeman's Creek area,and there's Page 40 of 51 July 2, 2015 other things,but to the mangroves I would agree with you. MR.HALL: Yeah. The mangroves would be there and,you know,I mean,the county already has the Manatee Protection Plan which outlines,you know,where boats should go. And according to the plan, the number that's being proposed on this site is consistent with the county's plan. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: And that's just one aspect,the Manatee Protection Plan,and that was discussed. MR.HALL: In terms of boat numbers,in terms of the flow,it's already been,you know,testified that the flow is not being adversely affected. I mean,the boats are going in. The dredging that's being done in association with that increases the depths so you have more space for the water to flow through. Yes,the pilings are going in,but the space taken up by those pilings is much,much less than what's being dug out as part of the dredging. So with the project,there's more room for water to flow through there than there is right now in its existing condition. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: But with the sediment transport,when you dredge it's--you know, it's going to move around,and it's going to re-silt. MR.HALL: I would go back to,the people that have been living on the canal said it hasn't been dredged since 2006,and before that they don't know when it was dredged. If sediment transport was that big of an issue in there,you know,you've got 56 years worth of open waterway before a dredging is done. That's a lot better than a lot of the other waterways in the county,a lot better. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: What--how do you plan to address the lighting on those docks? Are there any special provisions that you've considered for lighting on those docks? MR.HALL: One of the Hearing Examiner's recommendations was to go with a dark-sky lighting program,which is shielded lights downward facing so you don't get any reflection up into it,and the applicants have agreed to abide by those standards. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: For now I'll pass to someone else. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Oh. I was just going to ask about the lighting, so-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Tim? CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Just as long as it was--so it's just--the dock is going to be lit? MR.HALL: There will be,like, safety lights on the dock itself-- CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Foot path safety. MR.HALL: Yeah,right. So it's a,you know-- CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Twelve foot-candle lighting the walkway? MR.HALL: Right. And it would be up to the--you know,to the management of the docks,but I would anticipate that the majority of them that may be on during dusk and dawn when people are leaving or coming wouldn't be run all night. That would be just,you know,an operations issue where at a certain time frame,the majority of them go off and you just have the safety--enough out there for security and safety. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: And we'd have to probably add a condition if we considered that. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I believe that was from the HEX,so we'd have to pull that in. I don't know. Would we,because-- COMMISSIONER ROMAN: But some of this--we're looking at what's in front of us,I think-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well,yeah. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: --and what's in front of us is what we're looking at,not all these other hearings before us,and I think that's confusing this issue. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Tim,could you answer a question for me. If you do put a parallel dock in,how far beyond the 20-foot boat dock extension would you have to come out? MR.HALL: In estimating that where I was looking at,it would be about 10 feet probably. So you'd be looking at somewhere between an 8-and 10-foot extension for,you know, 30 feet instead of the 38 that's being requested. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Thank you. That was the question that I had called you about before to ask you also. MR.HALL: Right. Page 41 of 51 July 2, 2015 COMMISSIONER EBERT: And I believe I also had called and asked you about the finger canal. I call them finger canals. They're just the 50-foot-wide ones. Because there's a lake area in the back there,too, and there's a wall. Can you tell me approximately how many boats they could get back there? It's just another option, but it was a question. MR.HALL: The way it sits right now we can't put any in there because the conservation easements that were put on the property for the uplands-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Would have to be modified? MR.HALL: Well,if it could be,because there was--there were impacts to some of that shoreline to some of the edge of that lake for the--for the road going through it. And the reason--if you notice that conservation easement includes the open water portion of that as well,which is not usual even though it's conservation easements,because the agencies did not want docks put in there. So they wanted to make sure that they had that covered,and they couldn't come in later and propose to put docks on the outside of an easement or put walkways out through there and all. That's why that whole area's done. So,you know,it's neither here or there. The way the property exists right now,we can't put--we can't put any in there because of the existing permits that are in place. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. MR.HALL: And that--those permits are what are guiding the construction that's ongoing right now. It's not like this is a completely blank slate right now. There is a development project under construction. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I know. MR.HALL: So making changes to it,you know,is much more difficult. COMMISSIONER EBERT: You are correct. There has been so many owners on this property,it's unbelievable. You are right. Thank you. Fred,I have a question for you. I asked you if you would please check. Could you please tell me how many boat dock extensions have been built in this drainage easement. MR.REISCHL: I found zero on the zoning map. COMMISSIONER EBERT: That's correct,there are no boat dock extensions in the drainage easement. MR.HALL: That's not true. There's none built. Okay,yeah,there's none built,but there have been some issued. There has been one issued. COMMISSIONER EBERT: There has been one issued,but that one,I believe,is going to take care of itself,and we won't even go into that. It's issued. It's not built. There are no boat dock extensions in this drainage easement creek. As far as the commercial,they come out right from their property. No boat dock extensions. That's why I asked staff if they would please check that. So there are none. MR.HALL: If you-- MR.REISCHL: Just that one that was permitted but not built. That's the only one I found. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Correct. And the one who--where that was permitted,that owner has gone bankrupt, so... MR.HALL: The authorization--if somebody takes over the property,though,the authorization is still valid. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah. MR.HALL: It doesn't go away. COMMISSIONER EBERT: We won't even go there. MR.HALL: But if you look at that waterway in terms of what's available for people to build on the creek,you know,there are--there are very few landowners or lots actually on the creek to the--to the west of this project. The entire southern shoreline is under the Windstar conservation easement. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes,I know. MR.HALL: So there's not going to be anything that happens there. There's six of the mobile homes that have-- Page 42 of 51 July 2, 2015 COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Could you please point.Could you please point,Tim,when you were talking about those various areas? Thank you. MR.HALL: Okay. So the proposed project is here. If you look at the rest of the way down the waterway,okay,there's a single property owner,which is Windstar. There will be no boats there.You have six of these residences that are on the creek. You have a single owner of this property here,which is--it's tied to but separate from these right now,and then you have the residences down off of Sandpiper and all. There are docks along the creek on these residences. I understand that's the City of Naples and not Collier County,but there are docks on the creek there. The City of Naples doesn't have a BDE process,so there are no docks there. If you go north of the property,I believe there's 14 properties to the--I'm sorry,up is north to me in a lot of the cases. But to the east,I believe there's 14 properties. Ten of those properties have docks on the creek. The only four that don't are four of these residences here. Two of the residences do have structures on the creek. There is one dock that's--that has a boat there,and then there's another smaller dock that sticks out from one of those. So everybody keeps saying,well,there's no docks on these--on the creek. That's not entirely the case. COMMISSIONER EBERT: That's not what I said.I said there are no dock extensions. MR.HALL: Well--and then it's whether the docks are there with or without an extension,they're still sticking out that distance into the creek. So,you know,it's not--it's not on me to say whether they should or they should not have them,but the extension of those docks into the creeks is the same or more than what's being proposed on this project. You know,in different locations and the amount of the creek left for navigation is more constricted in those areas where those docks are than where these docks are. So in terms of navigation and,you know,movement through the creek and the size of the docks in conjunction with what else is out there,they are consistent with other projects and other things that are there. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Okay. You are agreeing to the dark-sky standards for lighting,so we could add that to a condition of approval? MR.HALL: Yes,ma'am. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Thank you. Okay. Anybody else? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I do have a question,Rich. Did you want to go over the--you wanted us to go on the primary conditions and not from last time,from this time? CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: That would be when you vote. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. MR.YOVANOVICH: That is the law,and I would like--and I would like you to apply the standards to the project in front of you today and based upon the evidence in the record today that we presented or the public presented and what staff presented,not what any individual Planning Commissioner may have presented,because the only evidence that can be in the record is what I put in the record and what my opponents put in the record and what staff puts in the record. That's the evidence you're to consider and apply the criteria to. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay,when it comes to that vote. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Okay. I guess we're--are you--I guess we're ready to vote on this. I'm going to just--this is for the boat dock extension for Haldeman Creek. There's--Heidi had to--wanted to change on Page 1 the 24 to 33 feet-- COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Let me get to that. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: --of the ordinance--or resolution. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: What are you reading from? MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah. Actually,it's going to replace the"38"to"24 to 38." COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Where are we? MS.ASHTON-CICKO: It was the change that I read into the resolution earlier. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Correct,Heidi,but I wanted to follow along where--I'm seeing 38 on Page 43 of 51 July 2, 2015 my resolution,if I've got the right copy. That's where I'm concerned. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. So on the resolution,six lines down on the caption,it says"for a total protrusion of 38 feet,"that will be"for a total protrusion of 24 to 38 feet,"and then that same change would be approximately four lines down to your last paragraph where,again,it says"to allow for a total protrusion of 38 feet."Instead that will read"of 24 to 38 feet into the waterway as shown on the proposed site plan attached as Exhibit B,"and that site plan will include the plan that's attached as well as the three cross-sections that are in your package. The three cross-sections were omitted from the Exhibit B. Those show the cross-sections of A,B,and C,which will be attached. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Okay. And then also on the conditions of approval,the-- COMMISSIONER ROMAN: You've got to be on the mike. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Oh,I'm sorry. I'm in the wrong place here. And No.4 under the conditions of approval there will be the language for condo association,64 units. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: So it will say where--in Condition 4 it said"or its property owners association." It will say"or the property owners association/condominium association for the 64 upland units." CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Okay. And then we'll add in No. 5 to apply dark-sky standards for lighting the dock facilities. MR.YOVANOVICH: We agree to that,yes. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Okay. And that's the only things I had to change. So we're looking for a motion to approve as recommended by the staff. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have one other quick question. Tim,maybe you can answer this. Where you have the boats at the very end,that was the narrowest part,supposedly only like 134 feet across. Is that 107 feet before the perpendicular boats start? Because that was a recommendation,but,you're right,we're not going in front of that. MR.HALL: It was a recommendation when the boat lengths were proposed to be 30 feet long.The --you know,with the original--this was part of back--going to the original proposal where all of the boats were 25 and 30 feet long. The longer boats on the perpendicular finger piers extended past the 25 percent width of waterway area. So Mark wanted to make sure we did not constrain--I'm sorry. Mr. Strain,the Hearing Examiner, wanted to make sure that we didn't constrain that waterway,you know,more than necessary,but by going to or agreeing to go to the smaller vessels,we're still able to stay within that 25 percent width of waterway. And we left the--to answer your question,no,it's not 107 feet. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. MR.HALL: Bottom line,it's not,but it's not because his concern there had to do with the width of the waterway and the corner coming out of the canal. Because we've gone to smaller vessels right there and all,the conditions that he wanted to have in place are still there with this plan. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. The other things,is that not a conservation easement on that corner also? MR.HALL: The conservation easement goes--is behind the docks,and the conservation easement that's in place all around that corner allows for the access walkways and the dock use as part of that easement. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Because I thought that was conservation easement there also. MR.HALL: It's a passive-use easement which allows for uses such as this. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: And that was my concern with that corner and also that walkway and its impact on the mangroves. And this is a question for Heidi. Do we need a condition on the limitation of size of the vessels that would be parked in these docks since that was something that was raised? MS.ASHTON-CICKO: That's up to your determination. MR.YOVANOVICH: It's on the site plan. MR.REISCHL: It's self-limiting in that it's--any part of the vessel cannot protrude farther than the Page 44 of 51 July 2, 2015 farthest piling. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: However,in reality,I've seen a lot of vessels protruding past their docks. MR.BELLOWS: But then they would be in violation of the-- COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Yes, gotcha. I gotcha. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So what is--what do you anticipate? Were you figuring 25-foot boats? MR.HALL: We're figuring 25-foot length overall,which includes anything that sticks out in front and anything that sticks out the back, so-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. MR.HALL: So if you have a-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah. MR.HALL: --motor out the back,you know,like-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: So it'd really be like a 21-foot? MR.HALL: In the 21-to 22-foot for most vessels,yes,and then with the motor on the back. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Thank you,Tim. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Okay. With all the things I just said before-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I make a motion we approve boat dock extension Petition BDE-PL20150000487 with the stipulations as enumerated by the acting chairman and staff recommendations. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Is there a second?Well,I'll second it. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Aye. Opposed,like sign? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And the reason for it--I will state my reasons,Richard. I believe-- MR.YOVANOVICH: Let me ask a question,though. Ms.Roman,you had asked a question about the eastern portion. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Yes. MR.YOVANOVICH: Is that still the issue? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: That's the issue with that last crossover,especially with its impact on its special treatment. MR.YOVANOVICH: If we were to--I'll point.If we were to remove that pier and made it parallel to the access point,in other words,it would be parallel,we'd remove that one finger pier,would that address your concern? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: That would address one of them. The other concern is that walkway through those mangroves that has the highest level of impact on that special treatment area. MR.YOVANOVICH: And that's a fire department related issue, so I don't-- COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Explain. Can you explain? Because it seems like we had such a wide gap between the first set of boats by the kayak.Okay. We've got to get oriented. Okay. Can you turn it the other way,if you don't mind, so I can orient it. Thank you. MR.RATH: I can--this kind of shows you the presently proposed docks with the upland development. And I guess in first speaking,you'll see that there's the-- COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Can you zoom in a little bit for him,Fred. Thank you. MR.RATH: I guess we were talking about the gap here between where you see the clubhouse and-- sorry. There's the first access point here and then another one over here. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Right. MR.RATH: We used to have another access there,but we took it out as a concession so there was Page 45 of 51 July 2, 2015 less impact to the mangroves. So that's where that gap kind of came from. And as you work your way down,you'll see that the access points kind of line up in between the buildings. As you make your way down the road,you'll see that there's a--what looks like a hammerhead here, is what we call it,but it's a fire truck turnaround. So there's a stabilized grass paver area so that the fire department can turn around when they get to the end of the road. East Naples Fire Department has reviewed this plan and approved the layout of the land as well as with the access to the docks. So it gives the fire department access to the east end of the docks. So if there were a fire out here,they're not trying to access a boat all the way at the end from the center of the docks. It gives them a lot better access to that arm out there. The docks will be fire protected so there will be dry standpipes that come out to the roadways here. And so they'll have one here and one here.The further design of that sprinkler system still needs to happen with the building permit of the dock. But that--this provides access to the east end of the dock for the fire department. And I believe,Tim,this has all been reviewed and approved by the state as far as impact. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: We already have a vote,so at this point the only thing left is to put on the record everything that occurred. After the vote is really-- MR.YOVANOVICH: Or there can be an alternative motion. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Yeah. MR.YOVANOVICH: There could be-- MS.ASHTON-CICKO: We already had a vote. MR.YOVANOVICH: But there could be an alternative motion. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: It was 2-2, so-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: We already had a vote. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: --at this point they have to put on the record their reason for denial. MR.YOVANOVICH: I disagree. There could be an alternative motion that would be for approval. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: But they already voted,so they'd have to reconsider. COMMISSIONER EBERT: We already voted. MR.YOVANOVICH: No,there will be another motion. She can bring another motion that says I would approve with the following conditions. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: We voted,but it didn't pass. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I've seen multiple motions. COMMISSIONER EBERT: You're right; it didn't pass. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Well,it failed for lack of-- CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: So there could be another-- MR.YOVANOVICH: There could be another motion that says we would approve it-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I've seen multiple motions on many hearings. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Are you going to reconsider-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: If one motion doesn't pass,you just make another motion. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Well,he met some--he asked me a question. I answered it. The applicant has known that that east end has always been a concern,and he was just,I thought,trying to make a proposal to-- MR.YOVANOVICH: I was. I was trying to address that concern because,you know,until we-- MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Well,you closed the--you closed the discussion;you've closed the hearing.You're on the vote. COMMISSIONER EBERT: We did. We are on the vote. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Do you want to reopen--are you going to reopen it,and she's going to retract her vote? MR.YOVANOVICH: She can propose an alternative motion. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: The vote was 2-2. COMMISSIONER EBERT: The vote was 2-2 like last time. Page 46 of 51 July 2, 2015 MR.YOVANOVICH: I understand that. COMMISSIONER EBERT: This can be appealed-- CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: There can be another motion. COMMISSIONER EBERT: --by either you or by the residents; is that correct? MR.YOVANOVICH: Ms.Ebert,I can also have another planning commissioner say I would--I bring a motion to approve with the following conditions. Just because a motion fails doesn't mean another planning commissioner can't say I move to approve if you address the following conditions.And that's what Ms.Roman and I are in the process of doing. She had a concern about the east. The only way I know how to respond to that is when she votes. I didn't know whether I had satisfied that answer. Apparently I had not in our explanation,so she's now saying,what I understand,is take away that one pier that's at an angle,and she also had a concern about the access,which my engineer is now addressing why we still would need that access point regardless. And we would probably need that access point even if every dock was parallel,let alone just that portion of the dock. Hopefully that is a good enough explanation for why we need that access. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Well,that's at least new information that I didn't have before. MR.YOVANOVICH: Right. And I appreciate that. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: And I'd like a clarification,if the engineer can come back up. MR.RATH: Sure. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Because you kind of touched on it briefly,and I want to focus on the east end. MR.RATH: Okay. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Now,what I'm seeing there is an area that looks like pavers. Is that what you're referring to when you say that's where the fire engine--its turnaround? MR.RATH: Yeah. This is a combination of--we've got a regular asphalt road here,and the fire departments have certain approved geometry,if you will, for-- COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Right. I just want you to focus on that area and explain it to me. MR.RATH: Yeah. This little area we had planned on being a grass paver type system where it's stabilized base;it can support a fire truck.But it's something you would think of as--instead of seeing a sea of asphalt,we've shown it as grass pavers. So you've got a combination of,you know,concrete and-- COMMISSIONER ROMAN: But that's required by the fire department? MR.RATH: Correct. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Okay. Now,that's for the fire truck. And what I'm hearing you say, and please correct me if I'm wrong,is that the fire department then requires access down that walkway for the boats. MR.RATH: We've reviewed this site plan as well as the access points to the dock with East Naples Fire Department,and they were in agreement that the site plan works in conjunction with the access to the docks. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Right. MR.RATH: So they felt comfortable with having access to fight fires on the docks with the access points that we had shown them. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Okay. But my question was specifically that one on the east end,and I thought that you said that that was needed to get down to that right corner. MR.RATH: Yes. This gives them the closest access. They can bring a truck all the way down here,basically park in that hammerhead,and they can--it's the closest access they have to that east end of the dock,instead of coming from all the way at this point and trying to,you know,drag a hose and fight a fire that's all the way down here on the dock. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Okay. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Well,they have distance criteria that they have to be within for the length of the hoses. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: I need a five-minute recess,please. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Page 47 of 51 July 2, 2015 (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Heidi,would you please inform us of how we can proceed? MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Sure. Before another motion would be taken,we need a motion for reconsideration from the dissenting group,but whichever way you want to proceed. Charlette can ask a few more questions if she needs to before that motion would be made. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: To reconsider? MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Correct. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I think that this new information with the fire truck and the fire plan is important information that I know I didn't have before. That walkway was my biggest concern. I understand that there is a diagram that Tim has that shows the mangrove impact. MR.YOVANOVICH: Can I make a suggestion? I think I would feel more comfortable if we did the motion to reconsider and that this become part of the record,and then,you know,you could still always vote the same way you did before. We can do the motion to reconsider while--so we can get this--and re-open the public hearing. And, frankly,if you want the public to respond to that,I'd be fine with that,too,but whatever--I think that would be better to get this all in so-- COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Yeah. I was just going by what Heidi recommended,and so I started my questions. But I can make a motion. Heidi,your guidance here. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: That's fine with me. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Okay. I make a motion to reconsider. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: I'll second. All those in favor,signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Opposed? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Okay. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Okay. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: It's 3-1. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: So now we're okay. Okay. All right,Tim. MR.HALL: Okay. This is the exhibit from the ST package. And in looking at the walkway in question here to the east,what's in blue and shaded in blue right here has already been approved by the BCC. The ST line runs right along where my thumb is and right along that blue line. That's the ST boundary. So these mangroves that are over here and all are not within the ST boundary. The impacts that I had talked about in terms of potentially killing mangroves are in that little square right there between what's already been approved to be impacted and then out to the face of the dock. So there's two or three mangroves in there.That would be within this little square area.That's where the impacts are. The face of the dock runs on the outside edge of the mangrove,so it's not running through them. And then the other thing that I think Charlette was unaware of was all of this land on the north side, which currently has Australian pines and Brazilian pepper and all,is all being restored and enhanced as part of this,and that was part of the mitigation to offset those impacts that were associated with these walkways and with the upland development. I didn't realize you weren't aware that that was what was happening over there,but that's an enhancement and restoration program. Part of the berm associated with the old dredging and all is still in place,and that's going to be scraped down and replanted with mangroves. The exotic vegetation that's out there is going to be removed, and any areas that are bigger than about a--probably a hundred square feet or so will be planted with Page 48 of 51 July 2, 2015 appropriate vegetation for the area. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: And that remains in a conservation easement,that side of the property? MR.HALL: Yes. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Yeah. When we talked and I had my concern about that walkway, that didn't come up, so that's good information for me. Thank you. MR.HALL: Thank you. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: All right. I don't have any further questions. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: So the boat docks--the boat docks at the end are-- COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Are going to be--if we can move that photo,Rich,if you want to get that on the record. MR.YOVANOVICH: So the answer is that one to the far-- MR.REISCHL: East. MR.YOVANOVICH: Are you sure? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: The pier. MR.YOVANOVICH: That one right there. MR.HALL: That one on my fmger? MR.YOVANOVICH: That goes away,right? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: That goes away. MR.YOVANOVICH: That goes away. And then the remainder would be as-is,as I understand it. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. So the finger pier between A and B on the chart will be-- MR.YOVANOVICH: It would become parallel. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: --removed,so it will be a parallel. MR.YOVANOVICH: It would be a parallel. MR.HALL: It would be a parallel slip. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: So there will be two boats parallel,correct? MR.HALL: Yes,ma'am. MR.YOVANOVICH: Well,yeah. We'd still be-- CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Will it be two or three? MR.YOVANOVICH: We'd still be capped at the 27,but it may ultimately result at 26 or whatever in that area. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah. I just meant the A and B that are shown on the picture would then become parallel in addition-- MR.YOVANOVICH: Correct. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: --to the other B if you can fit it. MR.HALL: Correct. MR.YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Okay. So the finger pier is removed,that last one-- MR.YOVANOVICH: Yeah,that one fmger pier would go away. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: --or the end one,okay. MR.YOVANOVICH: Are we good? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: So I would like to amend my motion to include the concession made to Charlette's analysis. Is that good enough,or do I have to repeat everything? CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Is that all right? MS.ASHTON-CICKO: I think that's clear. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I'll second. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: All those in favor,signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Aye. Page 49 of 51 July 2, 2015 COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Opposed? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Okay. MR.YOVANOVICH: Thank you. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And we--wait. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah,the ST. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: We have the ST. COMMISSIONER EBERT: You have to ask me why I opposed it. Isn't--aren't you going to ask me why? MR.YOVANOVICH: It doesn't matter because we won 3-1. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Then let me tell you,audience,neighbors,you can appeal this vote to the B--so that it goes-- CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Okay. We're going to go on to vote on the ST. COMMISSIONER EBERT: --in front of the BCC. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. I'll make a motion to approve the special treatment area, ST-PL20150000500;motion to approve. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: We can put the motion out,then I can ask. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: With all the stipulations as previously outlined and with anything that may have-- COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I had one thing. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: --occurred per Charlette's stipulations. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Okay. And is there a second? I'll second it. Discussion? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Discussion. There was one thing that I was wondering if we could look at including as a requirement here if it wasn't included,and I didn't see it,but,Tim,correct me if I'm wrong. I'd like to see some manatee educational signs put on the walkways as they're going down to the boat docks. Are those required? MR.HALL: Those are required in the state permits for the docks. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Okay,great. Then I'm okay. I'm ready. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Okay. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Opposed,like sign? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Okay. MR.YOVANOVICH: Now thank you. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Okay. So there's no old business,no new business. So motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I'll move to adjourn. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Second by? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I second. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: All in favor? CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: All in favor? Yeah. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. Page 50 of 51 July 2, 2015 There being no further business for the good of the County,the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 1:26 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION KAREN HOMIAK,ACTING CHAIRWOMAN ATTEST DWIGHT E.BROCK,CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on ,as presented or as corrected . TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE,INC., BY TERRI LEWIS,COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. Page 51 of 51 AGENDA ITEM 9-D Co er County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING SERVICES DIVISION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: AUGUST 6, 2015 SUBJECT: PETITION PUDA-PL20140002461, FIRST ASSEMBLY MINISTRIES EDUCATION & REHABILITATION CAMPUS MPUD (MIXED-USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT) (COMPANION ITEM TO ESP HOUSING AGREEMENT) PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT: Owner: Contract Purchaser: Mr. Fred W. Mundie,Jr. Mr. David Torres, Manager Marco Vision and Stewardship Trust Lord's Way Apartments, LLC 12336 Tamiami Trail East#C301 7742 Alico Road Naples,FL 34113 Fort Myers, FL 33912 Agents: Mr. Robert J. Muihere, FAICP Mr.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 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner requests that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider amending Ordinance Number 08-41, the First Assembly Ministries Education & Rehabilitation Campus MPUD, as amended, to remove two-family dwellings from permitted principal uses, and add detached and attached garages, and daycare services for children to permitted accessory uses in Tract G; to reduce the minimum floor area for multi-family dwelling units from 850 square feet to 750 square feet; to remove the prohibition on one bedroom non-church-related dwelling units; to release developer commitments relating to transportation and affordable housing; and to revise the PUD Master Plan to relocate the existing access point near the southeast corner of the property to align with the entry for The Lord's Way RPUD to the south and to remove provisions relating to affordable housing which will be moved to a new Affordable Housing Agreement that will be a companion to this PUDA. First Assembly Ministries Education&Rehabilitation Campus MPUD,PUDA-PL20140002461 July 27,2015 Page 1 of 15 51 'w1 vi o � IP_ :,..iii iii VWIfA I`BhlllAM lLW. �a 1 2 ° i �: ,EN 0 ° q : 1 11 la IN ii 0 1� 1 q 1 11 ill" 1 1 i °5i LqI gi Q/ ; i 8j' 1.# 1 i© COWER BOl1LEVNm cR.Y51 , —. > b '— � io M 0 0 sir ii" 11117 11 t4 il ii g L gi 1 11 ji i D s 1 1 i Z r � o m ° V w c v y Rorroxue r N I 2 a i1 1 i 1_1 i 4 r� r ti C l ` COLLIER BOULEVARD (C.R.951) OWL oww. 1111•1111111111101111111111111:1111011111011111 ...... N L� a / E D ii'1�i"'1'1i�i�iii�`iii1i ii:ii1 ii�ii'iii'iii?`ii1i'iii'i'i i'i i O O A i iiiiiiiiii::'i iiiE!!i i aiii`-ii:i:iii: iiiii ni i?i• i D p i>iiiiiieii`>iiiil?ii!ii iiiiiiiii is Z ` t s `7 ii . 1:iiiii••.i 9i?ii'i ii;1 i:Fiii ii Eii i;iii:ii_iiii ii. G ::iii ;iii:Hi:;iiiiiiii:;;ii . ii : iiiii'iiiiiii'i':iiiiii iii i a e v D T1 I'i"` `'i''`<l''f " ">"'iiiiiiii'ii�eiiiii •" V I 'is€iii=isiiisiE is€ i iisiiiii i iiii : c D A I :i.:,ii:!!!! ii: ii:::i i:::iis::i:i:i::isi i:i:i •••iiK ... `i: iiii!iilii!•,•.•.•••.,i••• •.,• 5 < -D-1 -i WM ID* v O Z C ` r 1 a1QZ� 865,0� S3)IVl YQN3I VH 'a� 1 " '<�o .Qf1dW, DNINOZ $a 6 Fy w ¢41 E m. mm� rig H � � Fi ----H.- , axzbi�'m � Q 0 LA. II I j 1 1 1 az 1 ,, 1, I V348 gl (f) z� z «71 I izlz I z - 12 4 1 1 \ 1-L JF9) U 2J' E— P4 34 es, 13V�J_L J 0 U ir2 z i o Q O 605 1— �/ No w F I—F.<m� m I — II 1 ► 13 ` I . O 1 = k 4 J�>1 y > 1:> 11,r.�1 s��{>Al H Ig`�Ypz o_ `�/ �1 0 W Q =p 3�//7/X/(� - 'JOi%\ N 11 1141-' g 1 �NM�ss o ' ct J t` t� 11,/ o e a -_ t - J jI-II';:II'IItrilli[I•51:7-I'I =1;g rni « -� LIg�.�� 11, - i-- -2:)i ''''., = i'z 1 1li3oY ts9 7e {[[s O �� I ' - `+sca�rcvi/ ,....=„7„.....,......_ ____,L.2., _ !si� e� - �� I gf WNdNNd�� \, Cep II ?�W Q�a��6d��'i`+f pprr,, ' I\,,,,,,7I / 1� a I ra g i Z `/,J—) I 1t O AVA A-1 l'dJ 3 P 13 1 1 Xa N O Q in @ ,q�'��-- / 9NOItlVtl�. .+0350dONd 8 1 R 1 ow AVM-Jo-imam'Yd! t3 1 Fzz0y ,_�l+PYYb b_ 42: •S�A C f SN � a1nWVd SSY1n W90d011d I I I lq�1 � ��1 F— I.� a`` h I G20NW J ,i (!(Z VI Q Q - _ LJ ,,�N T aI 2 m 1 ' I I ! I.,..„.........,_.... ....,.. .... ___,....... ,:........,,........., Q Ii�i ` 1 Q 4 m m }i 1 k is �• -'•' 1 1 w w$..� 2 1 0. I Y ,' , 1� I 10y oYS W I kOriiiittigt;gE54A*.iltpA 1 LL i.• ¢N IJO( 1 _ I O < GK F V Q �/ '� I ilk , I V1 ' * • ` _ 0 :,,.,..:':,;:::::::::::::.:. :0,-: ::::.'.4:J.,:-.-:-:':',7'::'7.':-.--AL,..-4. I: :.....:_.4 -,:i'r,''..---... 1-•'-:,..=,:•- •'-'''''' 1, ----"::•'-•-•:-.1.1::'•.'1. '•--r'.— I 1 -...--.•-.,•-:::',:'-',0, 1 1 1 . 411/11 1 CO 2 N _f _.® - lf� I I IF Z el$gg3 � I-d r:jg,,:j.ili....;4t-:5-2,F.#:::;:g,. .4:::..:,:::::::::ZR:!.::.::.,,E:f.':.;.mif.,:::': --Q ` ,r = 2! am-I N 1 IZU 1 cn +- - - .. h I .._...--+•+� __ o Ili _.__..� - L- 6 'el'o N om 1 � sa • ywW 1K Q —...—.--"_ l r o o 55 • Proposed Master Plan 1 t a i i Illii 11 ■cta); 11 I i g IX 4 11 ,-is g a p 11111 1 VP Its t I il 11' r,...— _,.....,. , _ _ f_.___,.,_..,r.-.. -_,--- -,........lii .1 • i 8 I .111P• . --- 2"-. .‘1 gl I ha 1 e-v--- .., . .•:, 1 I I ' i , I 'P 1( ; _ il i l ill i 1 11 ■ tn il : i 1 -1 : I . iii I i i ti i 1 ,D, 1.DVILL , >,. 1 -1.1, . 1 i U \ . ... lig 1 'Of I •• 1 1 Q ,■I 1 I 0 i Pglin,1 1 *; .. . i . •.1 010:6i1:1: > I Pati ,1 1 \ '..,„. kr. it ...,. ..- .,,_._ , ,.. 0 . , .!-.- .11, , Li i 1 „,,-„,-,-,--- , I — gi—o g , 11 If liMil! ...:._....- -..-__L _ ..., , i ig 1 - . i ! '; c4 0 h I ■_, • , 1 ii -II V v,l':-.,.,,.:;,,, lv;". . ,J; ..r.,.....7. • -.:0 ,-..m.,..7,..,..:...,-..pm 61; ill I -. ..,614. . '*-..- ' . -4N--_-_+ 1:-..=-... "...-Mg-'...;z::-. 1 .... _, ....... 4.,,....e.,- ..... ......------,....-,..............c.... ".. 4 I 1 < § g i :1, ..."-'.; a %I R.2 1 Aat - catonotd a 1.D 1 ht., ,„:;,:=1,z,;., i .111 ,, .1 a 1 >- IK i". RI. I 1 --- 1 ih 6 ... „ 4,.,.. ,.., : ... - :. A i 1 , . 4 , e. 11 I ' • • . • 1 . ...„ ) 11 • , .• , 1 I :I 1 1:•/, I. — I . I li ■1 ra M i...• 1 11 lq 1 .:•-•.,;•81- ....•„•••••••t •"„ • ., 0 a I. •7.'::?.1. ::.• •''' '50,' .. 6. .9 lii 41 -' .\4 I i iiii 1 11.:. :: '.;....I:. '•.::::, : -:;: lit i E .: .. ::• ..• ..„ . ....: : ::,..... .. _ :. ..... ,,. ., ,.., „... ., 4,..1 1 , , , r d "11 i lip ..:. .: ,:i. ..t.. • ... 1 IR 1., 'li 1 bt ! 4 I .:. ii 2 1 1 1 • . •,•• . r o I V ilill d 3 3'301.1.14 1 NM 1 ' •c.^.. i , • z' ,' ',' V:, ... • NI , PI L li •-::'', 4, ■•• 1.': ii ;I'..., .44111, ,•1,-.Titik.„ .. ,. , • str , tt lel II 1 11 I 1 1 i I.1 rioid i , ..,f-'-'" '-'!,,...,..,.....f- • 3 . 4 . IV' r iiddl 1 i • If i f, 71. 40.1. 40 ..f, '1 iiSt: I r _....., if 11 0000; i 1 1 il---1 AA , .1 . 1. I l .1 .a... .yz , • ••- . • . 1 c.".. "'.--. - - ' ' ' ' 1 a 1 "ftweZ,•11:87.••••••■r-TC:trXrIt."Igr-1.• - '.. a: III ! 1 11 ',li BP4 I I 1 - LS6 11"3 di -----.--- -- _- _ - - ___ - - _ _ .- - .. ._ aarasrm-arwitron-o-a...rw-arvemq-ee =s-vr .....,-.-12miwpwarmffierff, ih -....._. .......... .,..._.--... - _______....... ....- 1-..-,...I-WO V....T..•••.%•••■•■111NAMNIMINO1. 1 I 1 Current Master Plan ' i i GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The 69± acre subject property is located on the east side of Collier Blvd. (CR 951), approximately 1/2 mile north of Rattlesnake-Hammock Road. (CR 864), at the northeast corner of Collier Boulevard (CR 951) and The Lord's Way in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County,Florida. (Please see the Location Map on the previous pages.) PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The petitioner is requesting an amendment to the First Assembly Ministries Education & Rehabilitation Campus MPUD, which was approved by Ordinance Number 08-41, on July 22, 2008. (Please see Attachment B: Ordinance Number 08-41.) The MPUD is presently approved for a mixture of multi-family residential units, community facilities and church-related uses in a campus-type setting, including: 296 multi-family units, a 2200 seat church auditorium, 200 seat chapel, 300 student school (K-12), 300 child/adult care facility, 249 bed care unit facility, recreational vehicle parking, an outdoor recreational area, and accessory uses. Only a portion of the land uses permitted by the subject MPUD have been developed. The petitioner is requesting modifications to Tract G only, which affects 23.6± acres of the 68.78± acre MPUD as well as the Affordable Housing Commitments. The Petitioner proposes the following revisions to the PUD to: • Reduce minimum unit sizes from 850 square feet to 750 square feet(Exhibit B); • Add Daycare Services for children to permitted accessory uses in Tract G; • Clarify that the 147 affordable-workforce housing units are for Essential Service Personnel (ESP) in Collier County(Exhibit F); • Revise the Affordable Housing GMP Commitments section of the PUD (Exhibit F) to be silent with regard to the time periods that dwelling units will be reserved for persons providing essential services. These time limits have been reduced from 60 days to 14 days and are included in the ESP Housing Agreement and the agreement is referenced in the PUD; • Remove language regarding phasing of the units, (these phases no longer apply) (Exhibit F); • Remove the prohibition on one bedroom units(Exhibit F); • Remove a commitment regarding the demolition of mobile homes, as this has been completed; • Remove a transportation commitment tying phasing of the project to completion of improvements to Davis Blvd., as these improvements have been made (Exhibit F); • Revise Exhibit C, MPUD Master Plan,to align the westernmost access to the property with the access to the Lords Way RPUD; to remove the "pool &cabana area"; and to add a note stating that the location and acreage of lakes(Tract D)are preliminary; • Remove all references to "two-family" dwelling units, as the project as proposed only includes multi-family uses; First Assembly Ministries Education&Rehabilitation Campus MPUD,PUDA-PL20140002461 July 27,2015 F Page 5 of 15 • Clarify that detached garages are allowed accessory structures and that development standards that apply to carports also apply to detached garages (Exhibit B); and • Add a list of amenities and construction elements for the residential development (Exhibit F). SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: undeveloped land with an(A) Agricultural zoning designation and undeveloped residential portion of the Hacienda Lakes MPUD with a density of.88 dwelling units per acre East: Swamp Buggy Grounds, and the recently approved residential and public services portion of the Hacienda Lakes MPUD with a density of.88 dwelling units per acre South: The Lord's Way right-of—way, then undeveloped land with an (A) Agricultural zoning designation and The Lord's Way 30 Acre RPUD with a density of 2.5 dwelling units per acre West: 100-foot wide Henderson Creek Canal right-of-way,then Collier Boulevard(CR 951)and Naples Lake Country Club,with a density of 1.56 dwelling units per acre ,p ht 1,-, Subject Site r, , � h It. r { 1 r' 9TH t ' 4!"..t N ,� ,� �� ill , � is i I . I t s ' 5�.4`.1 •. ..,;',17'''1.14:' ` v t � ,„-1.e r. it t- [ I ' 1pa: ' �0 f i ----* y� h f.i , 4 ! #4 y d ti � ' 1 i � � a ' "k �4 : ... .1"" 1-- J I,I< , sif- . T./ to k. , 4, '.Yk 4sicy wc>•C V^ Dos la&WAY '!1!A9���'�-"T��'. ..... �� f ei ,. , at �1 ' l 4 � F t, ' i.c 2R.. . AERIAL PHOTO First Assembly Ministries Education&Rehabilitation Campus MPUD,PUDA-PL20140002461 July 27,2015 Page 6 of 15 GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN(GMP) CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element (FLUE): Please refer to the attached Consistency Review Memorandum dated April 24,2015 and updated on July 21,2015. Transportation Element: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petitioner's application and has determined that the adjacent roadway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate this PUD Amendment within the 5-year planning period and found it consistent with the applicable policies of the transportation element. Based on the above analysis, Comprehensive Planning staff finds the proposed rezone consistent with the Future Land Use Element(FLUE)of the Growth Management Plan(GMP). ANALYSIS: Staff completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition including the criteria upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in LDC Subsection 10.02.13 B.S., Planning Commission Recommendation (commonly referred to as the "PUD Findings"), and 1 Subsection 10.02.08 F., Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission Report (referred to as "Rezone Findings"), which establish the legal bases to support the CCPC's recommendation. The CCPC uses these same criteria as the basis for their recommendation to the BCC, who in turn use the criteria to support their action on the rezoning request. An evaluation relative to these subsections is discussed below, under the heading "Zoning and Land Development Review Analysis."In addition, staff offers the following analyses: Environmental Review: Environmental Planning staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD document to address environmental concerns and has found that there are no revisions to the environmental components of the PUD. Transportation Review: Transportation Division staff has reviewed the petition request,the PUD document and Master Plan for right-of-way and access issues and is recommending approval. Utility Review: Utilities Department Staff has reviewed this petition and recommends approval. Zoning and Land Development Review: As previously stated, the proposed revisions affect Tract G, the residential tract of the subject PUD and the Affordable Housing GMP Commitments. The development standards contained in Exhibit B of the PUD document have been modified to reduce the minimum floor area from 850 square feet to 750 square feet and the two-family structures have been removed. The minimum principal structure setback from internal paved vehicular use areas has been modified to exclude attached and detached garages. Detached garages have also been added to the development standard distance from a principal structure. This should have little impact on the surrounding neighborhood. The maximum building height of 52-foot zoned and 56 feet actual remains unchanged. The previously approved PUD Boundary setbacks of 35 feet plus one foot for each foot of building height over 35 feet also remains the same. However, the Master Plan for the subject Tract G has First Assembly Ministries Education&Rehabilitation Campus MPUD,PUDA-PL20140002461 July 27,2015 Page 7 of 15 changed. The previously approved Master Plan showed an approximately 60-foot wide parking area and a reduced 10-foot wide Type D Landscape Buffer (from 20 feet through a deviation) adjacent to the southern boundary. The proposed Master Plan does not show a parking area along the southern boundary. In addition, Footnote number 1 has been added to the Development Standards Table reducing the PUD setback along The Lord's Way from "35 feet plus one foot for each foot of building height over 35 feet" to 10 feet should The Lord's Way require up to 55 feet for a right-of-way taking. (Please note: LDC Section 9.03.07 C.2 is applicable to front yards post development.) Staff is concerned by the incompatibility created by a permitted 56-foot height, 4-story multi- family building that is located within 10 feet of The Lord's Way right-of-way, a public road that connects to the 2,262+acre Hacienda Lakes MPUD and to the future Benfield Road. Furthermore, the incompatibility is exacerbated by the reduction of a required 20-foot wide landscape buffer to a 10-foot width. A recently submitted SDP Master Plan and related documents depict a 4-story multi-family building 10 feet from the southern boundary. (Please see Attachment H: SDP (Site Development Plan)Related Documents.) Staff has made recommendations that: 1. The minimum setback for principal structures from the southern MPUD boundary shall be measured from the future right-of-way line (and added as a clarifying footnote to Exhibit B Table I) ; 2. The Type D Landscape Buffer along The Lord's Way shall be restored to the minimum code prescribed 20-foot width on Tract G. (This will require the deletion of Deviation number 1 from Ordinance number 08-41). As previously stated, the transportation commitment tying phasing of the project to completion of improvements to Davis Boulevard has been removed, as these improvements have been made. The petitioner has added commitments related to the number of one-bedroom units (20% of the total number of units),the number of garages, amenities and construction elements. As illustrated in the aerial photograph located on page 6 of the staff report, the surrounding zoning discussion of this staff report, and the Master Plan, the site is adjacent to residential and agricultural uses to the north, east, south and west. The proposed residential land use should be compatible with the neighborhood with the exception of the Swamp Buggy Grounds. To address the noise issues related to the Swamp Buggy Grounds, the petitioner has added a disclosure commitment to Exhibit F of the PUD document. Several of the Affordable Housing criteria has been removed from the subject PUD document and relocated to an ESP Housing Agreement. The previously approved 147 affordable-workforce and market rate housing units are proposed to be available per the companion ESP Housing Agreement. The period of time that the units will be reserved for ESP is proposed to change from 60 days to 2 weeks and is reflected in the ESP Housing Agreement. No additional deviations are being sought as part of this PUD amendment petition. Letters of support of this land use petition have been received. (Please see Attachment.) First Assembly Ministries Education&Rehabilitation Campus MPUD,PUDA-PL20140002461 July 27,2015 Page 8 of 15 REZONE FINDINGS: LDC Subsection 10.02.08 F. states, "When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and recommendations to the planning commission to the Board of County Commissioners...shall show that the planning commission has studied and considered proposed change in relation to the following when applicable." Additionally, Section 10.02.13 of the Collier County LDC requires the Planning Commission to make findings as to the PUD Master Plans' compliance with the additional criteria as also noted below: Rezone findings are designated as RZ and PUD findings are designated as PUD. (Staff's responses to these criteria are provided in non-bold font): 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies and future land use map and the elements of the GMP. The proposed development is in compliance with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP) for Collier County and all other relevant goals, objectives and policies of the GMP. 2. The existing land use pattern. This amendment will not affect the existing land use pattern. The existing land use pattern will remain the same. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. Not applicable. The district boundary is existing and established. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. The district boundaries are logically drawn as discussed in Items 2 and 3 above. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary. The proposed change is not necessary,per se; but it is being requested in compliance with the LDC provisions to seek such changes because the petitioner wishes to modify the development standards for Tract G and to modify the Affordable Housing Commitments. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. As previously stated,the maximum zoned building height is 52 feet and 56 feet actual height. The previously approved PUD Boundary setbacks of 35 feet plus one foot for each foot of building height over 35 feet remains the same. However, the Master Plan for the subject Tract G has changed. The previously approved Master Plan showed an approximately 60-foot wide parking area and a reduced 10-foot wide Type D Landscape Buffer (from 20 feet through a deviation) adjacent to the southern boundary. The proposed Master Plan does not show the parking area First Assembly Ministries Education&Rehabilitation Campus MPUD,PUDA-PL20140002461 July 27,2015 1 Page 9 of 15 1 [(Ef $F { along the southern boundary. Furthermore, a recently submitted SDP Master Plan depicts a multi- family building 10 feet from the southern boundary. Staff is concerned about the potential negative impact of a 4-story, 56-foot building located 10 feet from a right-of-way that is an ingress and egress route to the Hacienda Lakes MPUD/DRI. Staff has made recommendations that: 1. The minimum setback for principal structures from the southern MPUD boundary shall be measured from the future right-of-way line(and added as a clarifying footnote to Exhibit B Table I) ; 2. The Type D Landscape Buffer along The Lord's Way shall be restored to the minimum code prescribed 20-foot width on Tract G. (This will require the deletion of Deviation number 1 from Ordinance number 08-41). 1 If the above staff recommendations are adopted, then the proposed change should not adversely affect living conditions in the neighborhood. 7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or 5 create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety. The roadway infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project. The project's development must also comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations and operational improvements, including Exhibit F Developer Commitments when development approvals are sought at time of Site Development Plan (SDP) or Subdivision Platting (PPL) review. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. The proposed development will not create a drainage problem. Furthermore, the project is subject to the requirements of Collier County and the South Florida Water Management District. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. The proposed change will not seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. 10. Whether the proposed change would adversely affect property values in the adjacent area. Staff is of the opinion this PUD amendment will not adversely impact property values. However, zoning by itself may or may not affect values, since value determination is driven by market value. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. First Assembly Ministries Education&Rehabilitation Campus MPUD,PUDA-Pi20140002461 July 27,2015 Page 10 of 15 ppl @(t Most of the property surrounding the subject site is partially developed. The basic premise underlying all of the development standards in the Land Development Code is that their sound application, when combined with the site development plan approval process and/or subdivision process, gives reasonable assurance that a change in zoning will not result in deterrence to improvement or development of adjacent property. Therefore, the proposed zoning change should not be a deterrent to the improvement of adjacent properties. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare. F The proposed development will comply with the Growth Management Plan which is a public policy statement supporting zoning actions when they are consistent with said Comprehensive Plan. In light of this fact, the proposed change does not constitute a grant of special privilege. Consistency with the FLUE is further determined to be a public welfare relationship because actions that are consistent with plans are in the public interest. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. The subject property can be developed within existing zoning. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the county. As previously stated, staff is of the opinion that the proposed change to the southern boundary of Tract G from a parking area to a building within 10 feet of a future right-of-way is out of scale with the neighborhood. 15. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. Not applicable. The proposed uses are already permitted at the subject site. 16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. Any development anticipated by the PUD document would require site alteration and these residential sites will undergo evaluation relative to all federal, state, and local development regulations during the building permit process. 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County GMP and as defined and implemented through the Collier County adequate public facilities ordinance. The development will have to meet all applicable criteria set forth in the LDC regarding Adequate Public Facilities. The project must also be consistent with all applicable goals and objectives of First Assembly Ministries Education&Rehabilitation Campus MPUD,PUDA-PL20140002461 July 27,2015 Page 11 of 15 the GMP regarding adequate public facilities. This petition has been reviewed by county staff that is responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP as part of the rezoning process, and that staff has concluded that the developer has provided appropriate commitments so that the impacts to the Level of Service will be minimized. k4 18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners shall deem important in the protection of the public health,safety and welfare. To be determined by the BCC during its advertised public hearing. PUD FINDINGS: LDC Subsection 10.02.13.B.5 states that, "In support of its recommendation, the Planning Commission shall make findings as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the following criteria:" 1 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. The currently approved type and pattern of development was determined to be suitable when the subject PUD was previously approved. 2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contract, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public r expense. Documents submitted with the application,which were reviewed by the County Attorney's Office, demonstrate unified control of the property and roadway access to the subject site. Additionally, the development will be required to gain platting and/or site development plan approval. Both processes will ensure that appropriate stipulations for the provision of, continuing operation of, and maintenance of infrastructure will be provided by the developer. 3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives and policies of the GMP. County staff has reviewed this petition and has offered an analysis of the relevant goals, objectives and policies of the GMP within the GMP discussion of this staff report. Based on that analysis, staff is of the opinion that this petition can be found consistent with the overall GMP. 4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. First Assembly Ministries Education&Rehabilitation Campus MPUD,PUDA-PL20140002451 July 27,2015 Page 12 of 15 As described in the Analysis Section of this staff report, staff is of the opinion that proposed change to the southern boundary of Tract G from a parking area to a building within 10 feet of a future right-of-way is not compatible with the external neighborhood. 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The amount of open space set aside for this project meets the minimum 30 percent requirement of the LDC. 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. The roadway infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project at this time, i.e., GMP consistent at the time of rezoning as evaluated as part of the GMP Transportation Element consistency review. The project's development must also comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations and operational improvements when development approvals are sought at time of Site Development Plan(SDP)review. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. This proposed PUD Amendment will not adversely impact the previous BCC finding that the subject property and surrounding areas can accommodate expansion. 8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. This criterion essentially requires an evaluation of the extent to which development standards and deviations proposed for this PUD depart from development standards that would be required for the most similar conventional zoning district. With the exception of the previously approved Type D Landscape Buffer Deviation (from a 20-foot wide Type D Landscape Buffer to a 10-foot wide Landscape Buffer), the development standards in this PUD are similar to those standards and the petitioner is not seeking any additional deviations as part of the rezoning action. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING(NIM): The agent/applicant duly noticed and held the required NIM on May 5, 2015. For further information,please see Attachment C:NIM Summary. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney Office has reviewed the staff report for Petition PUDA-PL20140002461, First Assembly Ministries Education&Rehabilitation Campus MPUD, revised on July 24,2015. First Assembly Ministries Education&Rehabilitation Campus MPUD,PUDA-PL20140002461 July 27,2015 Page 13 of 15 3 RECOMMENDATION: Planning and Zoning Review staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition PUDA-PL20140002461, First Assembly Ministries Education & Rehabilitation Campus MPUD to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval subject to the following stipulations: 1. The minimum setback for principal structures from the southern MPUD boundary shall be measured from the future right-of-way line (and added as a clarifying footnote to Exhibit B Table I) ; 2. The Type D Landscape Buffer along The Lord's Way shall be restored to the minimum code prescribed 20-foot width on Tract G. (This will require the deletion of Deviation number 1 from Ordinance number 08-41). 1 Attachments: Attachment A: Proposed PUD Ordinance Attachment B: Ordinance 08-41 Attachment C: Consistency Review Memorandum Attachment D: NIM Summary Attachment E: ESP Housing Agreement Attachment F: Density Map Attachment G: Letter of Support Attachment H: SDP Related Documents !qi 5 First Assembly Ministries Education&Rehabilitation Campus MPUD,PUDA-PL20140002461 July 27,2015 Page 14 of 15 PREPARED BY: l ( Lath , df N Y i I , P,PLA E PRINCIPA W L ' ER ZONING DIVISION REVIEWED BY: a Z. 7/I 7fr- RAYM i ND V. BE LOWS,ZONING MANAGER DATE ZONING DIVISION • MIKE BOSI, AICP, DIRECTOR DATE ZONING DIVISION APPROVED BY: AMES F CH,DEPUTY DEPARTMENT HEAD ATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT J /7...*A-- DAVID S. WILKISON, P.E. DEPARTMENT HEAD DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT First Assembly Ministries Education&Rehabilitation Campus MPUD,PUDA-PL20140002461 July 27,2015 Page 15of15 3 � ORDINANCE NO. 15- AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 08-41, THE FIRST ASSEMBLY MINISTRIES EDUCATION &REHABILITATION CAMPUS MPUD, AS AMENDED, TO REMOVE TWO-FAMILY DWELLINGS FROM PERMITTED PRINCIPAL USES, AND ADD DETACHED AND ATTACHED GARAGES, AND DAYCARE SERVICES FOR CHILDREN TO PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES IN TRACT G; TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM FLOOR AREA FOR MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS FROM 850 SQUARE FEET TO 750 SQUARE FEET; TO REDUCE THE PERIOD THAT AFFORDABLE-WORKFORCE DWELLING UNITS MUST BE RESERVED FOR QUALIFIED RENTERS FROM 60 DAYS TO 14 DAYS; TO REMOVE THE AFFORDABLE-WORKFORCE HOUSING PHASING SCHEDULE; TO REMOVE THE PROHIBITION ON ONE BEDROOM NON-CHURCH-RELATED DWELLING UNITS; TO RELEASE DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS RELATING TO TRANSPORTATION AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING; AND TO REVISE THE PUD MASTER PLAN TO RELOCATE THE EXISTING ACCESS POINT NEAR THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY TO ALIGN WITH THE ENTRY FOR THE LORD'S WAY RPUD TO THE SOUTH FOR THE PUD PROPERTY CONSISTING OF 69d ACRES LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF COLLIER BLVD. (C.R. 951), APPROXIMATELY 1/2 MILE NORTH OF RATTLESNAKE-HAMMOCK RD. (C.R 864), IN SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, on July 22, 2008, the Board of County Commissioners approved Ordinance No. 08-41, the First Assembly Ministries Education and Rehabilitation Campus Mixed Use Planned Unit Development, in accordance with the Mixed Use Planned Unit Development document attached thereto (the"MPUD Document"); and WHEREAS, Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP, of Hole Montes, Inc., representing Lord's Way Apartments, LLC, has petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to amend Ordinance No. 08-41, the First Assembly Ministries Education and Rehabilitation Campus Mixed Use Planned Unit Development,and the MPUD Document. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA,that: Words struck th ough are deleted,words underlined are added. 3 Page l of 7 Attachment A SECTION ONE: AMENDMENTS TO SECTION II OF THE MPUD DOCUMENT ATTACHED TO ORDINANCE NO. 08-41, THE FIRST ASSEMBLY MINISTRIES EDUCATION& REHABILITATION CAMPUS MPUD Section II, entitled "Residential Permitted Uses (Tract G)," of the MPUD Document attached as Exhibit A to Ordinance No. 08-41, is hereby amended as follows: IL RESIDENTIAL PERMITTED USES(TRACT G) No building, structure or part thereof located on Tract G,shall be erected,altered or used,or land used, in whole or part,for other than shown below: A. PRINCIPAL USES AND STRUCTURES: 1. Multiple-family and two family dwellings. 2. Any other principal use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted principal uses,as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals(BZA)by the process outlined in the LDC. B. ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES: 1. Recreational facilities that serve as an integral part of a residential development, including but not limited to a walk path, docks, community center building and office, pool and playgrounds. 2. Uses and structures that are accessory and incidental to the residential permitted uses within this MPUD Ordinance including garages, detached and attached, swimming pools, boat docks, recreational buildings, which may include daycare services for children who reside in the community,and a tot lot for children. 3. Any other accessory use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted accessory uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals(BZA)by the process outlined in the LDC. C. DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY: A maximum of 296 multi-family units are allowed on Tract G SECTION TWO: AMENDMENTS TO EXHIBIT B OF THE MPUD DOCUMENT ATTACHED TO ORDINANCE NO. 08-41, THE FIRST ASSEMBLY MINISTRIES EDUCATION & REHABILITATION CAMPUS MPUD Exhibit B, entitled "Residential Development Standards," of the MPUD Document attached to Ordinance No. 08-41, is hereby amended as follows: Words stfuelt-thr-eugh are deleted,words underlined are added. Page 2 of 7 EXHIBIT B LISTING OF TABLES TABLE I - RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY INCLUDING TWO FAMILY DWELLING UNITS DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES, FOR TRACT G * * * * * * * * * * * * * TABLE I RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES For Tract G A. =__;: :.: .::: MULTI FAMILY . . PRINCIPAL;STRUCTURES :;... . 'DWELLING IN :.: ... ..:.. MINIMUM FRONT YARD 25 FEET MINIMUM SIDE YARD NONE,AS LONG AS MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN STRUCTURES IS MET MINIMUM REAR YARD 25 FEET MINIMUM FLOOR AREA 859 750 SQUARE FEE-I PER DWELLING UNIT MINIMUM SETBACK FROM NORTHERN, 35 FEET PLUS ONE FOOT FOR EACH FOOT OF BUILDING SOUTHERN AND EASTERN MPUD FIGHT OVER 35 FEET BOUNDARY MINIMUM YARD FROM INTERNAL PAVED 10 FEET UNLESS ATTACHED TO CARPORTS,G,ARAGFS-OR VEHICULAR USE AREAS PORTICOS,OR GARAGES.WHETHER ATTACHED OR DETACHED* MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN STRUCTURES GREATER THAN 20 FEET MULTI-FAMILY STRUCTURES--FOUR STORIES NOT TO MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT EXCEED 52 FEET AS ZONED AND NOT TO EXCEED 56 FEET ACTUAL •-- FEET ACTUAL - - MINIMUM DISTANCE FROM LAKES 20 FEET * This standard does not apply to travel ways that include public rights-of-way but may include parking areas and driveways. See Exhibit Bi typical sketch for distance of principal uses,carports,garages or porticos from travel ways. B. DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY A maximum of 296 multi-family units are allowed on Tract Ga --• - -•- • C. ROOF TREATMENTS Words str-uck-thfeugh are deleted,words underlined are added. Page 3 of 7 All the roofs for multi-family units •. .: - . . .. . .- .. __ shall be constructed of tile. D. TWO FAMILY DWELLING UNITS GENERAL:Except as provided for herein,all criteria shall be understood to be in relation to individual parcel or lot boundary lines, or between structures. Condominium, residential cooperative and/or homeowners' association boundaries shall not be utilized for determining development standards. TABLE II RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES For Tract G A. • ACCESSORY STRUCTURES MINIMUM FRONT YARD 20 FEET MINIMUM SIDE YARD NONE AS LONG AS MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES IS MET MINIMUM REAR YARD 20 FEET DISTANCE FROM PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE 20 FEET OR 10 FEET FOR CARPORTS OR DETACHED GARAGES TWO STORIES NOT TO EXCEED 25 FEET AS ZONED AND MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT NOT TO EXCEED 35 FEET ACTUAL BUILDING HEIGHTS MINIMUM SETBACK FROM MPUD 25 FEET BOUNDARY MINIMUM DISTANCE FROM INTERNAL 10 FEET UNLESS ATTACHED TO CARPORTS OR PAVED VEHICULAR USE AREAS* GARAGES,WHETHER ATTACHED OR DETACHED* MINIMUM DISTANCE FROM LAKES 20 FEET • *See Exhibit B1 depicting location of carport areas adjacent to vehicular use area/travel ways. * * * * * * * * * * * * * SECTION THREE: AMENDMENTS TO EXHIBIT F OF THE MPUD DOCUMENT ATTACHED TO ORDINANCE NO. 08-41, THE FIRST ASSEMBLY MINISTRIES EDUCATION& REHABILITATION CAMPUS MPUD Exhibit F, entitled "List of Developer Commitments," of the MPUD Document attached to Ordinance No. 08-41, is hereby amended as follows: EXHIBIT F Words struelc eugh are deleted, words underlined are added. Page 4 of 7 LIST OF DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS * * * * * * * * * * * * * 2. AFFORDABLE HOUSING GMP COMMITMENTS A. A minimum of 147 of the 296 affordable-workforce and market rate housing units, as they become available, will be offered first to persons involved in providing essential services in Collier County (essential service personnel (ESP)as defined in the LDC, as further defined in the County's Local Housing Assistance Plan). The units will be offered, for sale or for rent, pursuant to the provisions of the approved ESP Housing Agreement between the Developer and the County. := - •- •- :! -• • • . • -•• - • •. - - •. • -• : In addition to the requirements of the approved ESP Housing Agreement, the The developer shall comply with the following afferdable-liousingcommitments upon approval of the SDP for Tract G, the multi-family tract. * * * * * * * * * * * * * C. No more than 57 market rate dwelling units shall be constructed prior to the construction of all affordable-workforce housing (AWH) dwelling units_ • .- , •• - - , .- .._. - .._ .., Phase 1A 60 SWH units+57 market rats units- 117 ESP units Phaso 1B 30 market rato ESP unity D. The maximum primary occupancy per dwelling unit in the 296 non-church-related dwelling units . .. : ..-: -- -- . .. ..- :: .... _. shall be as follows: 1. One bedroom units-three occupants. 2.47 Two bedroom units-five occupants. 3.2 Three bedroom units-seven occupants. B. All but 4 mobile home units currently .-- : :. • _. . • - . : • . • . - ' E. The number of one-bedroom units shall be limited to no more than 20 percent of the total number of units provided. F. A minimum of 75 of the required parking spaces shall be met via enclosed garages. G. Residential development on Tract G shall conform with the following design standards: Words del eugh are deleted,words underlined are added. Page 5 of 7 1. Amenities. The following amenities shall be provided in association with any residential development: a. Resort-style swimming pool; b. Clubhouse; c. Outdoor barbeque facilities; d. Fitness center; e. Dog park; 1. Children's playground area/tot lot; g. Tennis court or bocce ball court or picldeball court; h. Gated entry; and i. On-site property management if developed as a rental community. 2. Construction. The following shall be required: a. Concrete Masonry Unit construction and stucco,or approved equivalent; b. Cement or slate tile roof or approved equivalent; c. Minimum 9-foot ceiling heights within first-floor of units;and d. Paver accents at project entry. 3. TRANSPORTATION D. Residential development shall be phased. Phase One development is limited to 147 dwelling units and 10 church-related dwelling units and will commence upon SDP approval. (Soo also Exhibit F.2.F.) Phase Two development will permit construction of the remaining 149 units for any prospective property owner, plus any units allowed but not constructed during Phase One. . , - • . • -: .. • . . _ • . * * * * * * * * * * * * * 8. PLANNING The developer, its successor or assignee, shall provide to any potential tenant a disclosure statement with respect to the noise that is associated with the Swamp Buggy Races located at 8250 Collier Boulevard, Naples, Florida, within the Florida Sports Park (within the Hacienda Lakes MPUD) as it relates to the location of this PUD. The statement shall disclose that the Florida Sports Park and Swamp Buggy operations regularly generate noise which may be heard on the First Assembly Ministries property, both during the day and into the evening, including, but not limited to, noise from swamp buggy racing, tractor pulls, festivals, and music concerts. This statement must be presented to the resident prior to entering into any contract. SECTION FOUR: AMENDMENT TO EXHIBIT C, THE MPUD MASTER PLAN, OF THE MPUD DOCUMENT ATTACHED TO ORDINANCE NO. 08-41, THE FIRST ASSEMBLY MINISTRIES EDUCATION & REHABILITATION CAMPUS MPUD { jS Words c through are deleted,words underlined are added. Page 6 of 7 1 Exhibit "C", the MPUD Master Plan, of the MPUD Document attached to Ordinance No. 08-41, is deleted in its entirety and is hereby replaced by the new Exhibit "C", MPUD Master Plan attached hereto and incorporated herein. SECTION FIVE: EFFECTIVE DATE This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super-majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,Florida,this day of , 2015. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E.BROCK, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA By: By: Deputy Clerk TIM NANCE, Chairman Approved as to form and legality: Scott A. Stone Assistant County Attorney Attachment: Exhibit C—MPUD Master Plan 15-CPS-01418/118 First Assembly Ministries Ed.&Rehab.Campus MPUD PUDA-PL20140002461,rev.7/24/15 Words strtsk--thr-eugh are deleted,words underlined are added. Page 7 of 7 I 1 t 1 1 r m�A% %� ORDINANCE NO 08- 41 •- 'c AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY i CI A,. o COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA, 1 ,� AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2004-41, AS I AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WINCH INCLUDES THE } COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING THE F. APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS; BY = CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM A i PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) ZONING DISTRICT TO A MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (MPUD) ZONING DISTRICT•FOR A 7 69+1- ACRE PROJECT KNOWN AS THE FIRST ASSEMBLY MINISTRIES EDUCATION AND REHABILITATION CAMPUS MPUD TO ALLOW • • MULTI-FAMILY UNITS, COMMUNITY FACILITIES _ J AND CHURCH-RELATED USES ON PROPERTY _ - - • LOCATED IN SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, . ' m RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, •' PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ORDINANCE • . :• 1 NUMBER 99-59 WHICH ESTABLISHED THE -j FORMER 79.1+1- ACRE FIRST ASSEMBLY - • MINISTRIES EDUCATION & REHABILITATION ' CAMPUS PUD; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 1 WHEREAS, Robert L. Duane, AICP, of Hole Montes, Inc., representing J. David iiMallory, President of First Assembly of God of Naples, Florida, Inc., and William L. Klohn, President of MDG Capital Corporation, Managing Member of MDG Fountain Lakes, LLC, Y ' 3 petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to change the zoning classification of the herein I described real property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA,that: 1 1 I 1 I PUDA-2007-AR-12043 Page 1 of 3 1 REVISED 6-17/08 KD l Attachment B } } i I I SECTION ONE: The zoning classification of the herein described real property located in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, is changed from a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Zoning District to a Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) Zoning District for a project known as the First Assembly Ministries Education and Rehabilitation Campus MPUD to allow multi-family units, community facilities and church- related uses in accordance with Exhibits A through I attached hereto and incorporated herein and by reference made part hereof The appropriate zoning atlas map or maps; as described in Ordinance Number 200441, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, is/are hereby amended accordingly. I SECTION TWO: $ 1 i Ordinance Number 99-59, known as the First Assembly Ministries Education & Rehabilitation Campus PUD, adopted on September 14, 1999, by the Board of County Commissioners is hereby repealed in its entirety. SECTION THREE: This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by a super-majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,Florida,this i,N day of J UJ/ ,2008. ATTEST:. a A, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIgHT E:I3I4QC ; CLERK COLLIER CO TY,FLORIDA a. r '� D u`y Clerk TOM HENNING,CHAIRMA PUDA72507411n2U47 Page 2 of 3 1 1 REVISED 6-17/08 KD Approved as to form and legal sufficiency • Marjori , Student-Stirling Assistant County Attorney PUDA-2007-AR-1 2043/KD/sp Exhibit A: Permitted Uses Exhibit B: Development Standards/Typical Building Layout Exhibit C: Master Plan/Typical Cross Sections Exhibit D: Legal Description Exhibit E: List of Request Deviations from LDC Exhibit F: List of Developer Commitments Exhibit G: On-site&Of site premises signage Project History: Ordinance Number 93-57(repealed) Ordinance Number 96-58 (repealed) Ordinance Number 96-86(repealed) Ordinance Number 99-59 This ordinance filed with the ary of o ei lise;,tit day of 4UV Q and acknowledgem- . that fill • recei • th'. ; day of 11 - , gy .:Wit ♦� PUDA-2007-AR-12043 Page 3 of 3 REVISED 6-17/08 KD EXHIBIT A FIRST ASSEMBLY MINISTRIES EDUCATION AND REHABILITATION CAMPUS MPUD CHURCH RELATED USES AND DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY I. CHURCH RELATED PERMITTED USES(TRACTS A-E) The First Assembly Ministries Education and Rehabilitation Campus MPUD will include a mixture of land uses for religious, community social services, and residential uses in a campus-type setting. This wide mixture of land uses is also intended to provide some services on-site, which will provide convenience for the many non-mobile residents and minimize traffic generation from the campus. The key facilities at build-out will include a maximum of: an auditorium for predominantly church use with 2200 seats,a chapel with 200 seats,and a private school for 300 students in elementary and secondary schools or Bible College, a care unit facility with 249 care beds and a facility for 300 day care units. The care beds will be located in the educational complex on Tract A(183),66 beds in the Rehabilitation Center on Tract A and 20 beds will be located in the multi-family/multi-purpose facility on Tract A until such time as the rehabilitation center on Tract A is completed. No building or structure,or part thereof,shall be erected,altered or used, or land used, in whole or in part, for other than the following: A. PRINCIPAL USES AND STRUCTURES AND SIC CODES: (TRACTS A-E) Land Use Type Tract I. Religious organizations(Group 8661,limited to churches and religious organizations). A 2.. Private elementary and secondary schools(Group 8211,limited to vocational high school and colleges,universities and professional schools)(Group 8221,limited to theological seminaries). A 3. Residential care units(Group 8361—maximum of 249 beds,limited to: a)Alcoholism rehabilitation centers,residential,with health care incidental; b)Drug rehabilitation centers,residential,with health care incidental; c)Homes for children,with health care incidental;and d)Homes for destitute men and women). A 4. Child daycare services(Group 8351, limited to child care centers). A 5. Rehabilitative service center specialty outpatient facilities,not classified elsewhere(Group 8093, limited to outpatient detoxification centers"). A a) Job training(Group 8331, limited to job training). A, C b) Individual and family social services(Group 8322,limited to: 1)adult day care centers; 2)counseling centers;and 3)hotlines). A c) Specialty hospitals,except psychiatric(Group 8069,limited to: I)Alcoholism rehabilitation hospital;and 2)drug addiction rehabilitation hospital). A d) Social services—not classified elsewhere(Group 8399,limited to social service information exchange,e.g.alcoholism,drug addiction). A A-I First Assemblies,AR 12043 revised 7/28/08 6. Any other principal use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted principal uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA)by the process outlined in the Land Development Code(LDC). *Principally for on-site residents only, however, an incidental component of the program is to allow past program residents or social service agency referrals to attend programs comprising no more than 10% of 1 program participants. •B. ACCESSORY USES AND SIC CODES(TRACTS A-D) 1 Accessory uses are uses that are only accessory to permitted religious or institutional uses, temporary or periodic in nature. Accessory uses shall be of a lesser area than the size of the principal uses in which they are located. Accessory uses are principally for on-site residents only, however, an incidental component of the program is to allow past program residents or social service agency referrals to attend programs comprising no more than 10% of program participants. Accessory uses shall principally generate their activity from the principal permitted uses for the subject property, including their traffic's trip generation so as to minimize external impacts to adjacent properties and the external roadway network. Land Use Type Tract 1. Coin-operated laundries(Group 7215,limited to coin-operated laundries). A,C 2. Radio broadcasting stations and tower(church use)(Group 4832,limited to one only). A, C 3. Television broadcasting station and tower(church use)(Group 4833,limited to one only). A,C 4. Book stores for church and school only(Group 5942,limited to a maximum of two), A 5. Cemetery,including mausoleum,accessory to the church use only. A 6. Christian memorial per MPUD Master Plan. A 7. Guard house/campus security office. A 8. Cafeterias that are not soup kitchens(shall be an integral part of a principal use for on-site residents and visitors utilizing permitted principal uses on the campus only). A 9. Help supply services for residents only(Group 7363,limited to labor pool only and limited to residents only). A 10. Overnight parking for visitors in recreational vehicles or busses(see Exhibit B,Table 1V.C.). C 11. Recreational facilities,including but not limited to: gymnasiums, football fields,baseball fields, soccer fields,basketball courts,swimming pools,tennis courts,shuffle board courts,waterways A,B, for canoeing,gazebo,boat/fishing docks and boardwalks. C.D 12. Grassed parking area for overflow parking within FPL right-of-way. B $ 13. Administrative services for principal uses including offices,meeting and conference rooms for I the church and rehabilitative center. A 14, Ten multi-family units for church employees in the multi-family/multi-purpose building. A • A-2 First Assemblies,AR 12043 revised 7/28/08 1 15. Motor vehicle dealers(Group 5211,with sales limited to used vehicles that have been repaired in conjunction with the Rehabilitation Center use on site,and further limited as shown in Table IV.D). C 16. Recreational vehicle dealers(Group 5561,with sales limited to used recreational vehicles that have been repaired in conjunction with the Rehabilitation Center use on site,and further limited as shown in Table IV,D.). C 4 17. Any other accessory use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted accessory uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals(BZA) by the process outlined in the LDC. C. PRESERVE SUBDISTRICT USES AND STRUCTURES(TRACT E) No building or structure or part thereof shalt be erected, altered or used, or lands used in whole or part other than the following: A. Permitted Uses and Structures: 1. Passive recreation areas. 2. Water management facilities in wetlands and water management structures. 3, Mitigation areas. 4, Boardwalks and trails. 5. Any other accessory use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted accessory uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) by the process outlined in the LDC. A-3 First Assemblies,AR 12043 revised 7/28/08 II. RESIDENTIAL PERMITTED USES(TRACT G) No building, structure or part thereof located on Tract G, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used,in whole or part,for other than shown below: A. PRINCIPAL USES AND STRUCTURES: 1. Multiple-family and two family dwellings. • 2. Any other principal use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted principal uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) by the process outlined in the LDC. B. ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES: • 1, Recreational facilities that serve as an integral pan of a residential development, including but not limited to a walk path, docks, community center building and office,pool and playgrounds. 2. Uses and structures that are accessory and incidental to the residential permitted uses within this MPUD Ordinance including swimming pools, boat docks recreational building and a tot lot for children. 3. Any other accessory use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted accessory uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) by the process outlined in the LDC. C. DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY: A maximum of 296 multi-family units are allowed on Tract G that may include three two- family multi-family dwelling units. III. RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENT(TRACT F) Use of this tract is limited to rights-of-way. IV. PROHIBITED USES Soup kitchens shall be a prohibited principal and accessory use throughout this entire MPUD Zoning District. A-4 First Assemblies,AR 12043 revised 7/28/08 II gI EXHIBIT B FIRST ASSEMBLY MINISTRIES EDUCATION AND REHABILITATION CAMPUS MPUD RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS gf LISTING OF TABLES gg TABLE I- RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY INCLUDING TWO FAMILY DWELLING UNITS DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES,FOR TRACT G 2 TABLE II- RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR ACCESSORY STUCTURES,FOR TRACT G 3 TABLE III- DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR CHURCH RELATED PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES,FOR TRACTS A,B,C 4 TABLE IV- DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR CHURCH RELATED ACCESSORY STRUCTURES,FOR TRACTS A,B,C 5 p @§ B- I First Assemblies,AR 12043 revised 6/10/08 TABLE I RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY INCLUDING TWO-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES For Tract G A. MULTI-FAMILY INCLUDING TWO FAMILY PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES DWELLING UNITS* MINIMUM FRONT YARD 25 FEET MINIMUM SIDE YARD NONE,AS LONG AS MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN STRUCTURES IS MET MINIMUM REAR YARD 25 FEET MINIMUM FLOOR AREA 850 SQUARE FEET PER DWELLING UNIT MINIMUM SETBACK FROM NORTHERN, 35 FEET PLUS ONE FOOT FOR EACH FOOT OF BUILDING HEIGHT SOUTHERN AND EASTERN MPUD BOUNDARY OVER 35 FEET MINIMUM YARD FROM INTERNAL PAVED 10 FEET UNLESS ATTACHED TO CARPORTS,GARAGES OR VEHICULAR USE AREAS PORTICOS' MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN STRUCTURES GREATER THAN 20 FEET MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT MULTI-FAMILY STRUCTURES---FOUR STORIES NOT TO EXCEED 52 PEET AS ZONED AND NOT TO EXCEED 56 FEET ACTUAL TWO-FAMILY STRUCTURES—TWO STORIES NOT TO EXCEED 25 FEET AS ZONED AND NOT TO EXCEED 35 FEET ACTUAL MINIMUM DISTANCE FROM LAKES 20 FEET * This standard does not apply to travel ways that include public rights-of-way but may include parking areas and driveways. See Exhibit BI typical sketch for distance of principal uses,carports,garages or porticos from travel ways. B. DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY A maximum of 296 multi-family units are allowed on Tract G that may include three two-family dwelling units in separate structures. C. ROOF TREATMENTS All the roofs for multi-family units including two-family dwelling unit structures shall be constructed of tile. D. TWO-FAMILY DWELLINQ UNITS The two-family dwelling units shall be subject to the standards of the LDC for Cluster Residential Design and approved as a Site Development Plan along with other multi-family structures. GENERAL: Except as provided for herein,all criteria shall be understood to be in relation to individual parcel or lot boundary lines, or between structures. Condominium, residential cooperative and/or homeowners'association boundaries shall not be utilized for determining development standards. B-2 First Assemblies,AR 12043 revised 6/10/08 • gS TABLE II RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR ACCESSORY STUCTURES For Tract G A. "2't,`}$ t«(' l'#.d 'W:':4'YSi!, ':''• ., :.ut;"'.'iA:'• -r A=i.::: •;`I!W A4'.,.: .,}.. MINIMUM FRONT YARD 20 FEET MINIMUM SIDE YARD NONE AS LONG AS MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES IS MET MINIMUM REAR YARD 20 FEET DISTANCE FROM PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE 20 FEET OR 10 FEET FOR CARPORTS MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT TWO STORIES NOT TO EXCEED 25 FEET AS ZONED AND NOT TO EXCEED 35 FEET ACTUAL BUILDING HEIGHTS MINIMUM SETBACK FROM MPUD BOUNDARY 25 FEET MINIMUM DISTANCE FROM INTERNAL PAVED 10 FEET UNLESS ATTACHED TO CARPORTS OR GARAGES* VEHICULAR USE AREAS* MINIMUM DISTANCE FROM LAKES 20 FEET *See Exhibit B1 depicting location of carport areas adjacent to vehicular use area/travel ways. k4 FC • k B-3 First Assemblies,AR 12043 revised 6/10/08 TABLE III DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES For Tracts A,B,C MINIMUM FLOOR AREA FOR CARE 275 SQUARE FEET UNITS MINIMUM FLOOR AREA FOR MULTI- FAMILY UNITS 700 SQUARE FEET MINIMUM SETBACK FROM NORTHERN,SOUTHERN AND EASTERN 35 FEET PLUS ONE FOOT OF SETBACK FOR EACH FOOT OF ZONED BUILDING MPUD BOUNDARY HEIGHT OVER 35 FEET MINIMUM FRONT YARD 100 FEET ALONG CR 951,35 FEET ALONG THE LORD'S WAY AND 25 FEET ELSEWHERE MINIMUM SIDE YARD NONE AS LONG AS DISTANCES BETWEEN STRUCTURES ARE MET MINIMUM YARD FROM INTERNAL PAVED VEHICULAR USE AREAS 10 FEET MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN GREATER THAN 20 FEET STRUCTURES FIVE STORIES NOT TO EXCEED 67 FEET AS ZONED BUILDING HEIGHT AND NOT TO EXCEED 74 FEET ACTUAL BUILDING HEIGHT FOR CHURCH, MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT EDUCATION FACILITY AND CARE UNITS. ALL OTHERS-THREE STORIES IN HEIGHT NOT TO EXCEED 40 FEET ZONED HEIGHT AND NOT TO EXCEED 45 FEET ACTUAL HEIGHT. THE HEIGHT TO THE TOP OF THE STEEPLE OF THE WORSHIP CENTER SHALL NOT EXCEED104 FEET. SHALL BE SEPARATED A MINIMUM OF ITS FALL ZONE RADIUS(BASED ON SETBACK RADIO TOWER THE HEIGHT OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE)OF 170 FEET FROM ANY HABITABLE STRUCTURE PRESERVE AREA 25 FEET SPECIAL MINIMUM SETBACK 3 FEET FROM TRACT BOUNDARY;AND FOR THE MULTI-FAMILY/MULTI- NO STRUCTURE IN THAT PORTION OF TRACT A LOCATED EAST OF THE FPL PURPOSE BLDG.ON TRACT EASEMENT EAST OF EASEMENT SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED WITHIN 60 FEET OF ANY RESIDENTIAL FPL EASEMENT STRUCTURE(SEE ALSO EXHIBIT B-1 DEPICTING THE MULTI-FAMILY/MULTI- PURPOSE BUILDING SETBACK) LAKE SETBACK 20 FEET gs B-4 First Assemblies,AR 12043 revised 6/10/08 39 TABLE IV DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR ACCESSORY STUCTURES • CHURCH RELATED USES FOR TRACTS A,B,C A. •:IL`:R. iF 1 e A*..1n 1''3••, -,f: • '.`v•3.;>•i•`!;'.v�: -�1 t ..,�,•• +.r yi' �k' a; sg. {,4. .Fa�gA;gh,r 4 .. '•' ; ' i;':6' i.&.1.* T1 t y s �}rl ��5 ,_:' {t jt���^ 'FK ,� �iQ .ry� +:' d... . ... :?C{k . . {',;. K �:�t • ::i"n'a .:.xit .. . . . .. Fy ', .1`..+.. MINIMUM FRONT YARD 25 FEET ALONG THE LORD'S WAY;50 FEET ALONG CR 951 EXCEPT FOR FISHING DOCKS • MINIMUM SIDE YARD SAME AS PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES MINIMUM REAR YARD 120 FEET DISTANCE FROM PRINCIPAL 20 FEET STRUCTURE - t MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT TWO STORIES NOT TO EXCEED 30 FEET ZONED BUILDING HEIGHT AND NOT TO EXCEED 35 FEET ACTUAL BUILDING HEIGHT • PRESERVE AREA 10 FEET MINIMUM SETBACK FROM MPUD 25 FEET OR FRONT YARD SETBACK,WHICHEVER IS GREATER BOUNDARY MINIMUM DISTANCE FROM LAKES 20 FEET *Fishing docks shall not intrude into the landscape buffer. **The monument honoring the National Christian Armed Forces will have a maximum height of thirty-five(35)feet and it shall be located no closer than 50 feet from the western edge of this MPUD on the Master Plan. B. SIGNAGE REQUIREMENTS Accessory uses shall have no signage visible from The Lord's Way or CR 951 and signage shall only be permitted at entries to their respective buildings with on-premise directional signs. No advertising shall be permitted for accessory uses other than with materials directly associated with principal uses,such as church bulletins, flyers and circulars available to residents, employees, members,program participants and patrons of the principal uses(see also Exhibit A pertaining to accessory uses). C. PARKING OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES(RVs) Parking for RV vehicles is limited to Tracts A and C only and there shall be no more than three consecutive night stays permitted for each vehicle. A maximum of 25 RVs may be parked at any one time. This parking area shall be only for self-contained vehicles that include sanitary facilities, The developer shall provide a dump station on- site for use of residents only that is sufficient to serve the maximum number of RVs that may be parked at one time. D. SALE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES(RVs)AND USED CARS Combined sales of RVs and used cars shall be limited to a maximum of 10 sales per year. A maximum of 3 vehicles may be stored or held for sale at any one time on Tract C at the repair site. No vehicles shall be stored on any other Tract. All storage, repairs and sales must be conducted inside a fully enclosed structure limited to Tract C only. Compliance with this provision shall be submitted as part of the annual PUD Monitoring Report. B-S First Assemblies,AR 12043 revised 6/10/08 1 a z h A5 . i a G r- 1 iZi?: . I - i , 1 1$O&113 g H b co g i g I 44C:CZ/ 5 f ONK11U19 7C . I }e A .. ,., COQ �. �I /Y�+f !rt ytv I r •,::,...1.- YEJ I 1. + w AAAAA+ Y ro y�.( . p ..:.,:t,..,..1.,..,-..,... J `I I � I: •' 1.-.1,...--,T---3:. .., ,X }, Q r� ; }j �. I `y 4j �r-r v 1"ryxLE l i. •ChY. �F 1:L1� t ;i • . ','x I 7 i r i 7 la _j O I ,I _ I ,. • j yam, 3 1 ) A ammi rIL +ax !0 .15 'k• °# 1IL 1 , r i D. 4 -1 . .•t r lL E.:: d r.:' ` r i it• I ' 44 a. 1q i L ......--- 5...•••••.1.... ..,:."4::::.!......,I ,e :" ... . g .... ... ... • 1 • RENSED MAY 20. 2OOa a i . x I i flir 1 t g -cla); X1 111 i a w 11111 P .4:4 11 lik i§ P . " I If ill __.__ . ■Ipr.t .',. ,. i . 4 j 44. 'I. -' ,..-- 1 I r ---11-. ' ' 411 I . 1 , 111 _ , . i / .. ill li. v...- D ill _ \ IDV21.1 . >- - ., • .• ' . < 4 I 0 ,Il i L_Cd :MAI i 11! 6 .,,,: P -• i ii., -:,11 illigill Z vq•-41(S1,-' 1 /-.'- c ,, u ; It .. . . lim 1 i P ... 1 •c•J.. 7 < .9.,.. "-,...:i`_/`‘.. "`"•..;S:.-".-s".. . •.-';‘, CI ...I 'i.f '.. :, ; :) ti ;w .it t 5 i . 1 .■_ ,L - LI It Pg 1, Z ..e,-;:-,;114,42;?."'f:'2,":„ . : ••••••••• •••••-or, s •tis, 1 1 .. ii iip ',TN < Pi r--).7-7 I c.,/ A I-,), ! :. , ..._.-- --:,) _A I L II 1 i e ., i,.,. V •.L \..i t 'I Ihr , v1*, ' - 1 i., 4,;,ii•:, - -0. ..,..,-1,),.•,,-1'-',-...,. ..tax 9 1 . . .: ; II—11' ki.t,41,1,,111.),•rvidp;I•le' . E- --V57_1•71_:. 1, 4"1 I ' ..41 , But• I'lliitlii Mt•r ,''' ..,,-(--- --••••••---+ i-----,:: --------•-7-----,•-. ..... g 1 li cz i 1 , \ '‘ Pi 1 • •- - / 1 o Z 1 I.I., :, 2 1, "1g - \ ,i/ AVA 40-4 ■ iv.' el i•••■owra 1 iSfi VIM-.10-1H01)1 i'd'.1 • III i 1 1 .1...,..,11 .1. 5g.r OMAN WM 03500341 ir2g i. 1 >. ill 0 0 11 1111 1 1.11 :, ......y .._ .... P D ii• . : .. - • . ..--- 1 8 /11 6 . :.,....-- 4„,------, , I 1,.4'h.'. ... 1 I I I in 0 D • • • At . t L•f,(.. - I I!'ll 2 ' 1 : .. -.• • :.. PI. • • . . ,-• , 1 1. u :,! ,i• . ,....::;.N....!.., .:.::::„..4.:i......,,b.... ..:::—:..E. .,, i: 1 . . . . 1, :,;f11.1.1,',E; :::•.•:h.:*.. ... .:, illii: I 1 11:i1,:, 0 -I-''',/ # 10 it - • • . . ... . ... . ' ,ii1.1 I.I 1,11Li ., t 1 a 1 •:::.....: , It;.i.: ; • .. :', - p .%, 'i ' I •i '.:: ,, • .4,,4 Ili. \I; tiki .011114 I I' " '.. i't . 1 b I g 101 >,. . .., , s.... r 0 • - -: 1 ....J : . ' i•• ...47.:.i. „ ..a 1 ' co ,i:„Iliii - —•::.• ." ...,' oi 1 il E 3.)00)43* I : . • , .• .1,.,.6 • „...,,‘• 0,,„ 1,,,:::, ' P v) :....: :. " ;n•-.., ... v) •. \,, i ,,:::,:::1; AP fit • II , ''.-0 i•ili Ali 1 \ x t i ! I i : I ' 0 i=.l*' 0 I . . cn if 1 , n'3'1144' • 0 ii i 1 I doll tX I/ 1 11 . A 1 . ------'''' iitii 1 lia 17 i -:,,, 4 1§.4 1 1 1 156 IrD g i-- t.1 g —.--_ _ __ ___ b It . ............ . _• ------ -- -- . _ -.. .,,._ ., . ., ...... --•-- ; --. --... .=- .=Tme•-•mairs.---m-a.7 .-s.w.1-nrre-4.•—a-nr,,,,,..........m..tra••=7--.....,:p_._..717/71MW .sews.a ...... .r.3.s.=."1 111 3 ----.......-.—.-- '- i i 1 —. — .......—... . .--...............—............ . I PUDA-2007-AR-12048 First Assemblies PUD LEGAL DESCRIPTION: (AS FURNISHED BY CLIENT) THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4, LESS THE WEST 100 FEET THEREOF: AND THE WEST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 AND THE WEST 1/2 OF THE EAST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4, SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, ALL SITUATED AND LYING IN COLUER COUNTY, FLORIDA. NOTES: THIS PROPERTY SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, RESERVATIONS OR RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON REFER TO THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AS BEING S.00'49'12"W. (STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM, FLORIDA EAST ZONE, 83/90) ABOVE GROUND IMPROVEMENTS EXISTING ON THIS PROPERTY HAVE BEEN LOCATED HEREON AS SHOWN. ABOVE GROUND INDICATORS OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES EXISTING ON THIS PROPERTY HAVE BEEN LOCATED HEREON AS SHOWN. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES HAVE NOT BEEN LOCATED ON THIS SURVEY. ALL OTHER IMPROVEMENTS EXISTING ON OR ADJACENT TO THIS PROPERTY HAVE NOT BEEN LOCATED OR SHOWN ON THIS SURVEY. ABSTRACT OF TITLE HAS NOT BEEN REVIEWED BY SURVEYOR. THIS SURVEY IS NOT VALID WITHOUT THE SIGNATURE AND THE ORIGINAL RAISED SEAL OF A FLORIDA LICENSED SURVEYOR AND MAPPER. PROPERTY AREA: 68.78 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. • CERTIFIED TO: FLORIDA COMMUNITY BANK FIRST ASSEMBLY OF GOD OF NAPLES, FLORIDA, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION TIB BANK OF THE KEYS FIRST TITLE AND ABSTRACT, INC. CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY • Legal Description Exhibit D EXHIBIT E FIRST ASSEMBLY MINISTRIES EDUCATION&REHABILITATION CAMPUS MPUD REZONE LIST OF REQUESTED DEVIATIONS FROM LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE(LDC) 1. Deviation No. 1 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.02 C.4, which requires a 20 foot wide Type D buffer along The Lord's Way, to allow this buffer to be reduced from 20 feet to 10 feet in width along Tract G, the Multi-Family Tract. This deviation will also allow the existing 10 foot wide buffer to remain on Tract A adjacent to The Lord's Way prior to the widening of The Lord's Way and to allow this Type D buffer to remain 10 feet in width after the widening of The Lord's Way and to be relocated to the north of the existing sidewalk. The plantings in the 10 foot Type D buffer area on Tract A shall be located just to the north of the sidewalk. (See Exhibit I, The Lord's Way Typical Cross Sections for Tract A and G.) 2. Deviation No. 2 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.04 C.16.b.i, to allow a off- site premises sign in the southwest corner of the subject property on Tract A. The deviation is to exceed the maximum area of 12 square feet to allow the off-site premise sign to be a maximum size of 32 square feet as an addition to the existing sign. (See MPUD Master Plan and Exhibit G depicting proposed sign detail.) 3.A. Deviation No. 3A seeks relief from LDC Section 05.06.04 C.l.c, that allows a maximum sign area of 80 square feet, the deviation is to allow a maximum size of 132 square feet in area. The sign is currently 100 feet in area. (See Exhibit G for sign detail and also Deviation no.2.) 3.B. Deviation No. 3B seeks relief from LDC Section 05.06.04 C.16.b.ii., that limits the height of the sign to 8 feet above the lowest center grade of the arterial roadway and to allow the existing sign to remain 20 feet in height. 3.C. Deviation 3C seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.04 C.1.a, that limits the size of signs to 15 feet to allow the existing 20 foot tall sign to remain. 4.A. Deviation No. 4A seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.04 C.I 6.b.v,which requires an off-site premise sign be located within 1,000 feet of the intersection of the roadway to allow the sign to be 1,400 feet from the property it serves on Tract G. 4.B. Deviation No. 4B seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.02 A.1, Sidewalk and Bike Lane Requirements to allow relief from the requirement that a 6 foot wide sidewalk and bike lane be provided along The Lord's Way (a requirement for The Lord's Way upon becoming an arterial roadway in the future). The deviation is to allow the northerly most G:ICurrent1DE5ELEMIPUD Rezones\First Assembly of God Naples,PUDA-2007-AR-120431PUD docs for BCC1EXHIBIT E List of Deviations 5-9-08.doc Page 1 existing 7 foot wide sidewalk to remain west of the existing entrance into First Assembly Ministries on Tract A to satisfy the pedestrian access requirements of LDC Section 6.06.02 A. 1. This deviation will also allow a 5 foot wide sidewalk to be constructed within a five foot easement area on Tract G, the multi-family tract, to satisfy this LDC requirement. (See also Exhibit I,The Lords Way Typical Cross Sections.) 4.C. Deviation No. 4C seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.02 A.1, Sidewalk and Bike Lane Requirements that requires sidewalks on both sides of the street and to allow a sidewalk on only one side of the internal access drives for the multi-family Tract G as buildings are proposed only on one side of the access drive. Furthermore, the project includes a proposal for an extensive internal pedestrian circulation system for access throughout the MPUD. (See MPUD Master Plan.) 4.D. Deviation No. 4D seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.02 A.1, which requires a 6 foot wide sidewalk and bike lane along C.R. 951, an arterial roadway, to allow an existing 7 foot wide sidewalk along a portion of the C.R. 951 road frontage on property belonging to First Assembly Ministries to satisfy this requirement or by providing money in lieu of providing a sidewalk. A connection will be provided from the sidewalk on The Lord's Way to the sidewalk which the County will construct on CR 951 east of the canal at the intersection of The Lord's Way and CR 951. 5. Deviation No. 5 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.01 B, Street System Requirements, which requires that layout of all developments to be coordinated with surrounding properties to provide interconnections. The deviation is to allow private access to both the church campus and multi-family development to be private entrances and to not require interconnection between the two uses. A provision has been made for a potential future access to the east. 6. Deviation No. 6 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.05.04 D.1, Group Housing which requires a maximum floor area that shall not exceed 0.45 for care units. The deviation is to allow the care units to be developed within the 368,000 square feet of floor area for all uses. 6.A. Deviation No. 6A seeks relief from LDC Section 5.05.04 D.3.b. that requires 0.75 parking space per assisted living unit,to allow.75 parking space per 10 care units. 7. Deviation No. 7 seeks relief from LDC Sections 4.06.02 124 and 5.03.02 E.3, pertaining to minimum landscape buffer width and minimum wall setback,respectively. The LDC requires that a 15 foot wide Type B landscape buffer and a 10 foot wide Type A landscape buffer to be provided along the property boundary between Tract G, the multi-family tract, and Tracts A and C of First Assembly Ministries' campus, with the 15 foot Type B buffer to be provided for the more intensive use(i.e.,on Tracts A and C)and the 10 foot Type A buffer to be provided for the less intensive use(i.e., on Tract G). The LDC also requires that the non-residential use provide a minimum 6 foot high concrete • (precast or masonry) wall a minimum of 6 feet from the residential zoning district G:1Current1DESELEM\PUD Rezones\Firet Assembly of God Naples,PUDA-2007-AR-12045\PUD docs for BCCIEXHIBIT E List of Deviations 5-9-08.doc Page 2 boundary (i.e., at least 6 feet inside Tracts A and C). The LDC allows for reductions in required buffer widths to a minimum width of 10 feet provided that compensating increases in width are made elsewhere in the buffer. The deviation is to locate the buffers within platted easements as depicted on Exhibit C, the MPIJD Master Plan, departing in places from the property line and with portions of either buffer encroaching onto an adjacent tract(s), Areas depicted in the legend represent reductions in buffer width and include compensating increases in buffer width. Portions of the 10 foot Type A buffer on Tract 0 — Phase 2 (i.e., adjacent to Celebration Boulevard, the existing entry road into Tract A)are shown with a reduction in width to less than 10 feet, severed in some places, due to the encroachment of proposed impervious improvements. The required wall shall be located a minimum of 6 feet from the residential side of the 15 foot Type B buffer. 8. Deviation No. 8 seeks relief to LDC Section 4.06.02 C,Table 2.4, which requires buffering internal to uses within Tracts A and C. The deviation is to allow no buffering between uses internal to Tracts A and C. See also Deviation no. 7 that provides buffering between Tracts A and C. 9. Deviation No. 9 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.05.04 G., Table 17, Parking Spaces Required which requires 3 parking spaces for each 7 seats in the chapel or assembly area, to allow a reduction of this standard to a minimum of 1 space for each 4 seats that is typically only for the expansion allowed due to congregational growth so as to allow this standard to apply only to previously approved church-related structures in existence prior to the adoption of this Ordinance. Any future church-related parking area will require the standard of 3 parking spaces for 7 seats. • it G:1Current1DESELEM1PUD Razones\First Assembly of God Naples,PUDA-2007-AR-120431PUD does for BCC\EXH1BIT E List of Deviations 5-9-08.doc Page 3 3 EXHIBIT F FIRST ASSEMBLY MINISTRIES EDUCATION AND REHABILITATION CAMPUS MPUD REZONE LIST OF DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS GENERAL Development of the First Assembly Ministries Education and Rehabilitation Campus MPUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this Ordinance and applicable sections and parts of the LDC and Growth Management Plan (GMP) in effect at the time of issuance of any development order,such as,but not limited to final subdivision plat, final site development plan (SDP), excavation permit, and preliminary work authorization, to which such regulations relate. Where these regulations fail to provide developmental standards, then the provisions of the most similar district in the LDC shall apply, 2. AFFORDABLE HOUSING GMP COMMITMENTS A. A minimum of 147 of the 296 affordable-workforce and market rate housing units, as they become available, will be offered first to persons involved in providing essential services personnel (ESP) as defined in the LDC, as further defined in the County's Local Housing Assistance Plan. The period of time that the dwelling units will be reserved for persons providing essential services will be a minimum of 60 days from the date of issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the initial offering and 60 days from the date a unit is offered thereafter. The developer shall comply with the following affordable housing commitments upon approval of the SDP for Tract G, the multi-family tract. F I B. The developer of Tract G, the multi-family tract, shall comply with one or more of the following: i. The Affordable-Workforce Housing Density Bonus provisions in the LDC, in effect as of February 19, 2008, the date of adoption of the GMP provisions affecting the subject property: or, ii. State law applicable to the designation as a Community Workforce Housing Innovation Program (CWHIP) Project by the State of Florida. 1.) the developer shall provide a minimum of 80 ESP dwelling units comprised of a minimum of 1.0 dwelling units for those earning less than 80% of the median income for Collier County, and 2.) a minimum of 70 dwelling units for those earning between 80% and 140%of the median income for Collier County;or, iii. The developer shall enter into an agreement with Collier County assuring that no fewer than 147 affordable-workforce and market rate housing units are F- I j First Assemblies,AR-12043 revised 7128108 r V i V V V : constructed and, as they become available, will be offered first to ESP, persons involved in providing essential services in Collier County. Such agreement shall be in effect for not less than 15 years. Such an agreement shall provide that a minimum of 35 dwelling units shall be provided for those earning no more than 150% of the median income of Collier County, and a minimum of 25 dwelling x units shall be provided for those earning no more than 80% of the median income of Collier County. i C. No more than 57 market rate dwelling units shall be constructed prior to the construction of all affordable-workforce housing (AWH) dwelling units and the following phasing schedule shall apply, however more AWH units may be included i gP g however, Y in any one phase. Development of the project will be phased, as follows: Phase IA 60 AWH units+57 market rate,units= 117 ESP units Phase 1B 30 market rate ESP units Phase 2 149 housing units 1 D. The maximum primary occupancy per dwelling unit in the 296 non-church-related dwelling units for two and three bedroom units (one bedroom units are not permitted) shall be as follows: 1 1. Two bedroom units-five occupants. 2. Three bedroom units-seven occupants. 1 e E. All but 4 mobile home units currently located on Tract A east of the FPL right-of-way shall be removed from the subject property prior to the construction of any housing not reserved for church-related employees, staff and program participants. The 4 I. remaining mobile home units may serve as adult care units for program participants, and shall be removed as they are replaced by permanent multi-family residential 1 structures, 20 temporary adult care units and related accessory uses, or within 24 months from the date the GM? Amendment is adopted (February 19, 2008), whichever is sooner. 3. TRANSPORTATION A. Up to 55 feet on Tract G and approximately 50 feet on Tract A up to the existing 7 foot wide sidewalk shall be reserved along the southern portion of this MPUD for • Collier County for an east/west public right-of-way corridor, a portion of which currently includes a 30 foot easement for The Lord's Way. The right-of-way shall be dedicated to Collier County in fee simple title and free of any encumbrances upon request by Collier County based upon a demonstrated need for the roadway. Incorporation into the Collier County Capital Improvement Element shall constitute demonstrated need. The right-of-way shall be dedicated at no cost to the County. The right-of-way shall be dedicated to Collier County within 120 days of such demonstrated need. (See also Exhibit C-1 and Tract F on the MPUD Master Plan.) i g i F-2 First Assemblies,AR-12043 revised 7/28/08 I i i i { B. Signalization at the Collier Boulevard/The Lord's Way intersection shall be provided when warranted and a fair share contribution shall be provided by the developer of this MPUD. C. The right-of-way reservation for The Lord's Way shall satisfy the developer's mitigation requirements pursuant to Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP so the project can be found consistent with the GMP. (See also Exhibit C-1, The Lord's Way Typical Cross Sections for Tracts A and G.) The mitigation will not alter the phasing requirement set forth in Exhibit F.3.D. D. Residential development shall be phased. Phase One development is limited to 147 dwelling units and 10 church-related dwelling units and, will commence upon SDP approval. (See also Exhibit F.2.F.) Phase Two development will permit construction of the remaining 149 units for any prospective property owner, plus any units allowed but not constructed during Phase One, For the 149 dwelling units in Phase Two, no certificate of occupancy shall be issued until improvements to the deficient segment of Davis Boulevard are complete from CR 951 to Radio Road. E. The existing throat length on Tract A shall remain the same after the widening of The Lord's Way and the gatehouse shall remain in its present location. F. A sidewalk interconnection shall be required between Tracts A and G in the vicinity of The Lord's Way and church gatehouse. (See MPUD Master Plan.) G. The cost of any (potential, future) turn lanes onto The Lord's Way created to serve this development shall be borne by the developer, its successors, or assigns. This commitment shall remain valid after such time that The Lord's Way has been publicly dedicated. H. A 5 foot sidewalk will be constructed within the 5 foot easement dedicated to Collier County along The Lord's Way on Tract G, the multi-family tract. The existing 7 foot sidewalk on Tract A shall be deemed sufficient to satisfy pedestrian access requirements on the church's property. (See also Exhibit E,7.) I. The developer of Tract A shall be responsible for relocating landscaping from the existing buffer to the new buffer north of the existing sidewalk at no cost to the County and with no claims for any future disruption to the landscaping in the event of The Lord's Way widening. pj3j�p 99 ' 4 F-3 First Assemblies,AR-12043 revised 7/28/08 3 4. LANDSCAPE/BUFFERING/WALL REQUIREMENTS A. The plantings within the Type D buffer area on Tract G shall consist of trees on 15 foot centers. This provision is designed to implement GMP provisions pertaining to enhanced landscaping in the Collier Boulevard Community Facility Subdistrict. B. When the existing 10 foot buffer is relocated on Tract A, it shall consist of trees on 15 foot centers. This provision is designed to implement GMP provisions pertaining to enhanced landscaping in the Collier Boulevard Community Facility Subdistrict. C. A continuously running 6-foot high concrete wall shall be provided by the developers of each respective portion of the site along the entire western boundary of Tract G. Said wall must be in place prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy in Tract G. S. RECREATIONAL FACILITIES A tot lot shall be provided on Tract G for children 2 to 12 years of age, which meets ASTM standards. The tot lot shall be constructed prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the first multi-family building. 6. USE LINIITATIONS The rehabilitation facility and associated uses shall not provide housing, food service or any other services to sexual predators or pedophiles. 7. SECURITY The developer shall provide twenty-four(24) hour security services for the rehabilitation facility and associated uses at all times. • 1 1 F-4 First Assemblies,AR-12043 revised 7/28/08 • • .. 1 I . i .. i 1 I 1 • . i. 1 k r. . k I , , .— 1-• -- —I 01-1"--"—•" 1 16' •, — --- -L.;22.--7-1 •5 — e•:-:;:.. . . • m c ASS_P A,--` k. _______ --F'il •1-1;ccnr . . ..,. .... 7'<'.',14;:.• : . i r".• '' I/ . . ..7 • 141111 e '''''L, EXISTING ; I . . • 14 1'44 i ON- 1E MINISTRIES • . : ILLUMINATED ' 1 ' DOUBLE-SIDED : !! . b - — , .._.... ••-----: -••---•-• •:••-- • P11.0N SON ..I ![ t-i —r- 1 1 :I r•-.. . a , , 1 • .1, :,• .____.: • I , .3 i . • • :-..,-: .,•::••",' -":--• 4.:;::•-••_ 1 ••:, -7.-;_-•-:• . pRoposED : .1 1 -§ i •' • JOIN US ILLUMINATED 1 j. !I -... 4".SLIFICEWMAIrr • DaME-SIDED ! . SON J II , 1 .g. • L_ - :r ;i 4 1 . i 4 7 ••• ••••'Lon_ •• r 63 1 2 . — : •—• 4 — 1 • Off-Site 1 ... • Premise Sign t . : tr-4.• - 8 , 1 . ! 1 , 1 . • .• (32 sq. ft.) ! 1 0 • i i5 i : ‘I i . 15 . — ! ‘• -_ 1.__1 t_..- ; 1 v ... . ............._..... ......._.. i 1 .1. , ..!. . . _ - _.... _ .... • - • II , _, , . -- d. ..... -- . .., .. • _ 1./ Jr• , . i 8 6 , g , 1 1 1 1 I 5 . 1 I 1 . . .. . -CHECKED BY I PROJECT Na. a 950 Encore Way ON-SITE & OFF—SITE RD. 2005.054 i . L A II Naspies. FL. 34110 Pharie PREMISE SIGNAGE l 239) 254-2000 MA*BY 4 co FILE NAME: ,J0N 004 Doi I : Floe a Certificate of , 0131E5ftill05•1111t115 Authorization No.1772 EXHIBIT G 0,0E, 10/07 Caaen—rrcii G - • • :4 STATE OF FLORIDA) COUNTY OF COLLIER) . I, DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk of Courts in and for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, Collier County, Florida, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of: ORDINANCE 2008-41 Which was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on the 22nd day of July, 2008, during Regular Session. WITNESS my hand and the official seal of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this 29th day of July, 2008 . DWIGHT E. BROCK..• '�`, ' Clerk of Court' ;:aria{:' rk Ex-officio to...Bo , of •'?• County Commiesii ers + ' •• y,i ry,• F�C J;1 By Ann Jenn oHA, " Deputy Clerk 9J&9tY GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT ZONING DIVISION CONSISTENCY REVIEW MEMORANDUM To: Nancy Gundlach,AICP, Principal Planner,Zoning Services Section From: Corby Schmidt,AICP, Principal Planner, Comprehensive Planning Section Date: April 24,2015[Updated to July 21,2015] Subject: Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Consistency Review of Proposed Amendments to the First Assembly Ministries Education &Rehabilitation Campus Mixed Use Planned Unit Development(2nd memo) PETITION NUMBER: PUDA-PL20140002461 [REV: 2] PETITION NAME: First Assembly Ministries Education & Rehabilitation Campus Mixed Use Planned Unit Development(MPUD)Amendment REQUEST: To make revisions affecting a 23.6 acre portion of the existing 68.78-acre MPUD in accordance with provisions of the Collier Boulevard Community Facility Subdistrict (Subdistrict). The MPUD is presently approved for a mixture of multi-family residential units, community facilities and church-related uses in a campus-type setting, including: 296 multi-family units, a 2200 seat church auditorium, 200 seat chapel, 300 student school (K- 12), 300 child/adult care facility, 249 bed care unit facility, recreational vehicle parking, an outdoor recreational area, and accessory uses. Only a portion of the land uses permitted by the subject MPUD have been developed. Note part of this request is to make revisions to the existing PUD document, including provisions that address: dwelling unit types, dwelling unit size, housing for qualified essential services personnel and terms of heir availability, development phasing, relocation of planned access to align with recent roadway improvements — including the removal of development commitments that have now been met. The individual changes comprising this PUD amendment are found in PUD Exhibit B (Residential Development Standards), Exhibit C (MPUD Master Plan) and Exhibit F (List of Developer Commitments). The other part of this proposal is an Agreement with Collier County to develop affordable-workforce and market rate housing units for persons involved with providing essential services. The Subdistrict accommodates a mixed use, residential and institutional development on 68.78 acres. The petition provides for the develop of up to 296 dwelling units — including 147 units for persons involved with providing essential services in Collier County, comprising 60 affordable-workforce units, and 149 market rate units for any prospective property owner. LOCATION: The First Assembly Ministries Education & Rehabilitation Campus MPUD is located at the northeast corner of Collier Boulevard (CR 951) and The Lord's Way,within Section 14,Township 50 South, Range 26 East. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS: The subject property is designated Urban, Urban Mixed Use District, Collier Boulevard Community Facility Subdistrict, as depicted on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and addressed in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP); and is zoned as the First Assembly Ministries Education &Rehabilitation Campus MPUD. The provisions of the Collier Boulevard Community Facility Subdistrict proposed in the amendment are itemized below,followed by staff analysis in [bold text]. The Collier Boulevard Community Facility Subdistrict comprises approximately 69 acres and is located on the east side of Collier Boulevard, approximately one-half mile north of the Collier Boulevard/Rattlesnake Hammock Road intersection. —1 - Attachment C Main Collier Boulevard Community Facility Subdistrict provisions state"The purpose of this Subdistrict is to provide community facility uses, primarily institutional uses and other non-commercial uses generally serving the public at large, and residential uses, both affordable-workforce and market rate housing - all in a setting to be compatible with surrounding land uses. The Subdistrict is intended to contain a mix of uses and services which lessens traffic impacts upon the external transportation network and public services, while serving the needs of the community at large." [These purposes and intents are provided for throughout Subdistrict exhibits.] Subdistrict provisions go on to state"All development in this Subdistrict shall comply with the following requirements and limitations: Subdistrict section a. provides that "Rezoning is encouraged to be in the form of a PUD." [The First Assembly Ministries Education & Rehabilitation Campus was established as a PUD and is proposed here as a PUD amendment.] Subdistrict section b. provides that "Allowable land uses [are] community facilities such as churches, group housing uses, cemeteries, private schools and colleges;child care facilities; residential dwelling units, not to exceed 306 units; essential services; (and) parks, open space, and recreational uses," [Exhibit A, Church Related Uses and Development Intensity, lists these uses as principal or accessory uses, and is unaffected by proposed amendments.] Subdistrict section c. provides that"The maximum floor area for institutional and other non-residential uses shall not exceed 368,000 square feet' [This limitation is not expressed in Exhibit A or other PUD exhibits. Staff acknowledges that this square feet cap omission is within the existing PUD thus is not an issue being created by this petitioner. The missing square footage cap is applicable to a portion of the PUD not under this petitioner's control, raising a procedural issue. Staff acknowledges this petitioner's restriction/inability to make the requested addition since the petitioner has no authority to do so. Therefore, staff's analysis continues to note the PUD is missing this cap but acknowledges the procedural limitation.] Subdistrict section d. provides that "Of the 306 total dwelling units, a maximum of ten (10) units shall be reserved for occupancy solely by church employees and church-related personnel and their families. The 10 church-related dwelling units will be considered incidental and accessory to the institutional uses within this Subdistrict." [Provisions for these units are found within Exhibit A and are unaffected by proposed amendments.] Subdistrict section e, provides that "A requirement shall be put in place at the time of rezoning/PUD amendment that all but nine (9) mobile home units currently on site shall be removed from the subject property prior to the construction of any housing not reserved for church-related employees, staff and program participants. The nine remaining mobile home units may serve as temporary adult care units for program participants, and shall be removed as they are replaced by permanent residential structures, permanent adult care units, or within twenty-four(24) months from the date of adoption of this Subdistrict, whichever is sooner." [Application materials indicate these mobile homes have been removed from the property. Exhibit F, List of Developer Commitments, subsection 2.E. implements this provision -and is deleted by this amendment.] Subdistrict section f. provides that "One hundred forty-seven of the 296 affordable-workforce and market rate housing units, as they become available,will be offered first to persons involved in providing essential services in Collier County, as defined in the County's Local Housing Assistance Plan." [Exhibit F, List of Developer Commitments, subsection 2.A. implements this provision - and is affected by changes proposed in this amendment shortening period of time these units are reserved for persons involved in providing essential services. Changes are also reflected in the accompanying Agreement Confirming ESP Density Bonus and Imposing Covenants and Restrictions on Real Property submitted with the subject PUD amendment. The proposed changes are consistent with this criterion; see further analysis on page 4 below.] -2- i Subdistrict section g. provides that"To achieve the density of approximately 4.28 dwelling units per acre,and to allow development of the 192 non-church-related, non-base density dwelling units, the project shall comply with one or more of the following: 1) the Affordable-Workforce Housing Density Bonus provisions of the Collier County Land Development Code Ordinance Number 04-41 in effect as of the date of adoption of this Subdistrict;or, 2) be designated as a Community Workforce Housing Innovation Program (CWHIP) Project by the State of Florida and comply with all requirements and limitations of that designation, and provide a minimum of eighty (80) essential services personnel dwelling units— comprised of a minimum of ten (10) dwelling units for those earning less than 80%of the median income of Collier County,and a minimum of seventy (70)dwelling units for those earning between 80%and 140%of the median income of Collier County;or, 3) enter into an agreement with Collier County assuring that no fewer than 147 affordable-workforce and market rate housing units are constructed and, as they become available,will be offered first to persons involved in providing essential services in Collier County, such agreement being in effect for not less than fifteen (15)years, including a minimum of thirty-five (35) dwelling units for those earning no more than 150%of the median income of Collier County,and a minimum of twenty-five(25)dwelling units for those earning no more than 80%of the median income." [The subject PUD amendment and its accompanying Agreement Confirming Affordable Housing Density Bonus and Imposing Covenants and Restrictions on Real Property (Agreement) comply with the third density bonus provision. The proposed changes are consistent with this criterion; see further analysis on page 4 below.] Subdistrict section h. provides that"No more than 57 market rate dwelling units shall be constructed prior to the construction of all affordable-workforce housing dwelling units." [Exhibit F, List of Developer Commitments, subsection 2.C. implements this provision - and is affected by changes proposed in this amendment. Changes are also reflected in the accompanying Agreement submitted with the subject PUD amendment. Paragraph 25 of that Agreement is consistent with this provision. The proposed PUD changes are consistent with this criterion;see further analysis on page 4 below.] Subdistrict section i. provides that "At the time of rezoning/PUD amendment, the maximum occupancy per dwelling unit in the 296 non-church-related dwelling units shall be addressed,as deemed appropriate by the Board of County Commissioners," [Exhibit F, List of Developer Commitments, subsection 2.D. implements this provision - and is affected by changes proposed in this amendment. Changes are also reflected in the accompanying Agreement submitted with the subject PUD amendment.] Subdistrict subsection j. provides that "At the time of rezoning/PUD amendment, consideration shall be given to increasing the landscaping requirements along The Lord's Way beyond existing Land Development Code requirements." [Exhibit F, List of Developer Commitments,section 4.implements this provision- and is unaffected by proposed amendments.] Subdistrict section k. provides that "At the time of rezoning/PUD amendment, the petitioner shall be required to mitigate for the project's impacts upon affected roadways in accordance with the concurrency management system and as otherwise determined appropriate by the Board of County Commissioners." [Exhibit F, List of Developer Commitments,section 3.implements this provision-and is unaffected by proposed amendments.] Subdistrict section I. provides that"Residential development shall be phased. Phase One development shall be limited to 147 dwelling units for persons involved in providing essential services in Collier County and 10 church-related dwelling units. Phase Two development shall consist of the remaining 149 market rate units, plus any units allowed but not constructed during Phase One. For the 149 market rate dwelling units in Phase Two, no certificate of occupancy shall be issued until improvements to the existing deficient segment of Davis Boulevard are complete." [Exhibit F, List of Developer Commitments, subsection 3.D. implements this provision - and is affected by changes proposed in the subject PUD amendment. —3— E Changes are also reflected in the accompanying Agreement submitted with the subject PUD amendment. The proposed changes are consistent with this criterion; see further analysis on page 4 below.] This MPUD allows development of up to 296 affordable-workforce and market rate dwelling units not reserved for church-related employees or staff. Of these 296 dwelling units,236 would be market rate(80%) -including a portion of those intended for people employed by occupations or professions considered essential (essential services personnel or, ESP). Of the 60 units remaining, 35 would be for those earning 5150% of median income (12%),and 25 units would be for those earning 580%of median income(8%) [20%gross affordable-workforce]. A formal Agreement to provide housing to people employed by occupations or professions considered essential is submitted with the subject PUD amendment. The full evaluation of this Agreement is deferred to the Department of Housing, Human and Veteran Services review personnel. The proposal makes 147 residential units available to these people as an essential part of this Subdistrict, This MPUD provides a mix of housing types especially for these people - providing 87 market rate units, 35 gap units and 25 workforce units. This 35/25 mix varies from the standard [Collier County] Affordable-Workforce Housing Density Bonus requirements of 30/30 in order to reach the desired density of approximately 4.28 dwelling units per acre. This variation from County standards is explicitly allowed by the Collier Boulevard Community Facility Subdistrict and presumably justified given the commitment to providing no less than a total 147 housing units to people employed by occupations or professions considered essential. As previously noted, paragraph 25 of the Agreement proposes to allow proportionate provision of the 60 required Affordable Housing units which is not consistent with the Subdistrict. The affordable-workforce housing component is not proposed to meet the definitions and requirements of the Collier County Affordable-Workforce Housing Density Bonus Program, but provides a mixture of Gap and Workforce housing unique to this Subdistrict Collier County continues to need affordable housing for people employed by occupations or professions considered essential - including teachers, educators, other school district employees, community college and university employees, police and fire personnel, health care personnel, skilled building trades personnel and government employees.* This MPUD commits 147 of these 296 units,as they become available,to being offered first to these persons in particular need and demand. This first-offer availability is guaranteed for fifteen years, each time one of these 147 housing units is vacated. * [Staff note: The occupations and professions considered essential are defined in the County's Local Housing Assistance Plan,updated October 10,2006] The County benefits from ensuring 147 ESP residential units are available for 15 years and the developer benefits from 192 buildable bonus units. FLUE Policy 5.4 requires new developments to be compatible with, and complementary to,the surrounding land area. [Comprehensive Planning leaves this determination to Zoning and Land Development Review staff as part of their review of the petition in its entirety. However, staff notes that in reviewing the appropriateness of the requested uses/densities on the subject site, the compatibility analysis is to be comprehensive and include a review of both the subject property and surrounding or nearby properties with regard to 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.] In order to promote smart growth policies, and adhere to the existing development character of Collier County, the following FLUE policies shall be implemented for new development and redevelopment projects, where applicable. Each policy is followed by staff analysis in [bold text]. Objective 7, Policies 7.1 through 7.7, of the Future Land Use Element(FLUE)were approved on October 26,2004, This Objective and policies incorporate certain "Smart Growth" provisions into the FLUE. This formulative process was one of Collier County's earliest opportunities to apply more of the practices found in the Toward -4- 3 3 Better Places - The Community Character Plan for Collier County, Florida. The Community Character Plan provides the County with a policy document featuring the most useful aspects of traditional neighborhood design (TND),smart growth,traffic calming,new urbanism and other contemporary planning practices. Objective 7: In an effort to support the Dover, Kohl & Partners publication, Toward Better Places: The Community Character Plan for Collier County,Florida, promote smart growth policies, reduce greenhouse gas emissions,and adhere to the existing development character of Collier County, the following policies shall be implemented for new development and redevelopment projects,where applicable. 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 PUD fronts the canal paralleling Collier Boulevard, with no direct access provided. Exhibit C, MPUD Master Plan, depicts indirect access to Collier Boulevard (CR 951),classified as an arterial road in the Transportation Element,via The Lord's Way.] Policy 7.2: 3 i The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce vehicle congestion on 1 nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic signals. [Exhibit C, MPUD Master Plan, depicts one access point on The Lord's Way with internal accesses provided for the tracts within the PUD. I Subject Tract '6' site provides only traffic circulation and parking areas. All vehicular traffic accesses w Collier Boulevard(CR 951)via The Lord's Way.] g a Policy 7.3: I All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and their interconnection i 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. I [Local street connections with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments are not disallowed by other ordinances or regulations and appear to be feasible on two sides of the subject site,as follows: • Land to the north this PUD is approved for the Hacienda Lakes MPUD/DRI, where a water management feature is planned along the full length of the common boundary - making 1 vehicular interconnection infeasible. i • Hacienda Lakes MPUD/DRI is also approved to the east of this PUD, where residential g development is planned along approximately one-half the length of the common boundary - making vehicular interconnection feasible. For the subject PUD, Exhibit E, Requested Deviation ) No. 5 presently provides for "a potential future access to the east" and Exhibit C, MPUD Master Plan depicts an interconnection point along the boundary between these adjoining properties, with the labeling,"FUTURE POTENTIAL INTERCONNECTION." Within the Hacienda Lakes PUD a water management feature and site reserved for a future EMS station are planned along approximately one-half the length of the common boundary- making i vehicular interconnection infeasible. • The Henderson Creek Canal parallels Collier Boulevard along the westerly boundary of the entire subject PUD;Tracts'A','B','C'and'E' lie adjacently west of the residential subject Tract'G'portion 1 of the PUD, comprising church and educational related facilities, FPL easement,job training and rehabilitation services,and existing preserve area. Exhibit E, Requested Deviation No.5 presently provides relief from LDC requirements for internal interconnection, allowing "private access to both the church campus and multi-family development to be private entrances and not require interconnection between the two uses."] 1 3 1 t -5- 1 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. [As to walkable communities, the PUD provides an only marginally walkable design, with sidewalks located on only one side of single- loaded streets (with dwelling units on only one side of street). Exhibit E, Deviation No. 4C presently provides relief from the LOC requirement for sidewalks on both sides of the street, allowing "a sidewalk on only one side of the internal access drives for the multi-family[residential] subject Tract'G'." A"SIDEWALK INTERCONNECTION ON TRACT"G"" is indicated on Exhibit C, MPUD Master Plan. Exhibit E, Deviation No. 4B presently provides relief from the LDC requirement for a 6 foot sidewalk and bike lane... along The Lord's Way, allowing "a 5 foot wide sidewalk to be constructed within a five foot easement area on subject Tract'6',the multi-family[residential]tract." With regard to common open spaces, preserve areas and civic facilities, the PUD presently provides the sixty percent open space the LDC requires; permits various recreational uses and facilities, and open space uses and structures. Designated preserve areas permit passive recreational areas, nature trails and boardwalks. With regard to a blend of densities and a range of housing prices and types, the application identifies multi-family residential units (with 750 sq. ft. minimum floor areas for 1, 2 and 3 bedroom units. This minimum floor area is reduced from the presently approved 850 sq.ft.and one bedroom units are a new addition. Approximately one-half of the 296 residential units planned (147 units) are intended for persons involved in providing essential services(ESP), including teachers,educators,other school district employees, community college and university employees, police and fire personnel, health care personnel, skilled building trades personnel and government employees; with sixty of these ESP units being affordable-workforce housing units. ADDITIONAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: Aside from advancing the subject PUD amendment, the petitioner is entering into an Agreement with the County for assuring that no fewer than 147 affordable-workforce and market rate housing units are constructed and, as they become available, will be offered first to persons involved in providing essential services in Collier County—such Agreement being in effect for not less than fifteen (15)years, including a minimum of thirty-five (35) dwelling units for those earning no more than 150% of the median income of Collier County, and a minimum of twenty-five (25) dwelling units for those earning no more than 80% of the median income, The Agreement accompanies the subject PUD amendment. Full evaluation of the Agreement itself is deferred to the Department of Housing, Human and Veteran Services review personnel. Exhibit F, List of Developer Commitments, provides that "the period of time that the dwelling units will be reserved for persons providing essential services will be a minimum of 14 days from the date of issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the initial offering and 14 days from the date a unit is offered thereafter." It is understood that after the ESP-related time period expires the affordable-workforce units remain affordable- workforce offerings and the number of market rate units does not increase through the Agreement's effective period of 15 years. Acceptable Developer Commitments ensure that the number of AWH units shall not be fewer than 60 during the 15-year life of the Agreement; and, that the number of units first offered to ESP shall not be fewer than 147 during the 15-year life of the Agreement. Based upon the above analysis, the proposed Planned Unit Development Amendment may be deemed consistent with the FLUE. PETITION ON CITYVIEW cc: Ray Bellows,Zoning Manager,Zoning Services Section David Weeks,AICP, Growth Management Manager, Comprehensive Planning Section Michael Bosi,AICP, Director,Zoning Division G:Comp\Consistency Reviews\2015 G:ICDES Planning Services\Consistency Reviews120151PUDAIPUDA•14-2461 First Assembly REV3c FNL,docx 3 j 1 NIM Summary First Assemblies Ministries MPUD Amendment PUDA-PL20140002461 May 5,2015 5:30 PM Collier County South Regional Library 1 Meeting Room `B" Note: This is a summary of the NIM. A recording is also provided. Attendees: On behalf of Applicant: Bob Mulhere,Richard Yovanovich,David Torres, Gary Haines,Paula McMichael County Staff: Nancy Gundlach Approximately 15 members of the public attended, including Commissioner Donna Fiala Mr.Mulhere started the presentation by introducing himself,the other consultants,and County staff. He explained the NIM process, the process for approval,provided an overview of the project, and also went over the proposed changes to the PUD and the PUD master plan. 1 The members of the public who attended identified themselves as residents of Naples Lakes Country Club. The following questions were asked: What's going on there? Clarified that there are no real changes to the existing PUD, the amendment only affects Tract G, and the developer is proposing a rental community,296 units,4 stories, as currently allowed.No details or construction plans yet,but should be available,including architectural elevations, by the time this petition is ready to be scheduled for public hearing. Multifamily residential is the only permitted use. Do you mean apartments,condos,townhomes,single houses,skyscrapers? Multifamily excludes single family homes. We are talking about something like the apartments across the street[Aster Lely apartments, across Lely Cultural Parkway from the library]. What population are you targeting? The current PUD and Growth Management Plan Subdistrict require housing for essential services personnel(ESP),and we are not proposing to change that.Priority must be given to ESP for 147 units, with these 147 units held for a certain length of time. That period of time is currently being negotiated H:12U1412614D851WP\PUD\N1M\N1M Summary 5-5-1 5.docx l Attachment D 1 with the county. Only a certain number of the units are income-restricted.A minimum of 35 units have to be provided for those earning no more than 150 percent of the median income for Collier County, and a minimum of 25 units have to be provided to those earning no more than 80 percent of the median income. The income limits are based on the Area Median Income(AMI) [a statistic published by the federal government,Department of Housing and Urban Development.] The current AMI for a family of four for the Naples-Marco Island Metropolitan Statistical Area for a family of four is $66,500. The only entrance/egress is onto Lord's Way,and all of these trips will be turning onto Collier Blvd.Are there any improvements to the intersection of Lord's Way and Collier Blvd.? There is a commitment for a proportionate share agreement when the traffic light is warranted;however there are no improvements scheduled at this time. The amount of trips created by these units will not be sufficient to warrant the light on their own. There are no level of service issues based on this development. What are the amendments to the PUD referenced by"deletion of stipulations regarding transportation and affordable housing that are no longer applicable"? There were commitments in the PUD that have already been fulfilled and are therefore being removed. These included phasing of the project,which is no longer proposed;removing mobile homes from the site,which has been done;and delaying issuance of certificates of occupancy until improvements to Davis Blvd.were completed, and those improvements have been made. You are adding daycare services for children of residents of the development as an accessory use. Is this a low-income development? We anticipate that because these are rentals,they might attract young families,who are not ready to purchase a home, for whom the daycare services would be an attractive amenity. The services would only be for residents of the project. There will be amenities provided in this project that will ensure this is not a"low-income"development, such as a gated entry,resort-style pool, garages.We will make those commitments in the PUD. How can this be an upscale development when you are reducing unit sizes from 850 SF to 750 SF? The reduced size is for one-bedroom units only. How many one-bedroom units? Not sure,but we are willing to make a commitment that the number of one-bedroom units will be limited to 20 percent of the total number. 2 H:12014120140851WP\PUD\NIM\NIM Summary 5-5-15.docx What are the sizes of the 2-bedroom units? Right around 1,000 SF right now,plus or minus. Three-bedrooms are in the 1300 or so range. What amenities can you fit in here or have you planned on? All of the same amenities,except possibly tennis courts,that were provided for the Vincentian Village MPUD,will be provided here. Those commitments will be in the PUD before this goes to CCPC. There will be both construction and site-related commitments to ensure the quality of the development. Will these units be rented for less than a year? We anticipate following the market for the rental leases,which are typically annual,but some are currently offering 7-month leases. We would not do weekly rentals. You are talking about"ESP" as teachers and nurses, but really anyone who meets the income requirements can live here.Why can't you build larger,nicer units?We have plenty of low- income housing, but we don't have housing for young professionals. Young single professionals when they first move here may be looking for a smaller,one-bedroom unit. The development needs to be competitive in the market place, and having a range of unit types will help do that. The owner talked about how he also owns the property to the north,east, and south, and that he wants to construct a community that he thinks will fit in with and be complementary to development plans for the surrounding area. When will this go from conceptual to some details we can look at? SDP will be into the county for review by the end of June. This will include all the details—landscaping, fences,lighting,architectural. May not include details on signage. Will the community be gated? Yes,but the gate will not be manned. Will you have on-site management? Yes, but it will not be 24-7. How many lots are in Lord's Way?What is the price point for those units? There are 75 lots,probably starting at around$400,000. 3 HK\201412014085\WPIPUDNTIIM\IdIM Summary 5-5-15 door The property owner clarified that Swamp Buggy is there to stay [not in response to a question]. Hacienda Lakes is not the title holder for that property.There are no plans to remove the use. Randy Johnson from Swamp Buggy was in attendance and recommended that a commitment, similar to the one placed in the Lord's Way RPUD,be included with respect to the noise associated with Swamp Buggy Races. What are your development plans for the adjacent areas? There is a plat for the Lord's Way RPUD. There is nothing pending for that portion of Hacienda Lakes, as development of the DRI is starting at the southern end of that property, around the extension of Rattlesnake Hammock. This development(First Assemblies)will be built before the adjacent area of Hacienda Lakes. Will there be additional access points built with Hacienda Lakes? Yes,there will be another bridge built to 951 and a"back-entrance"connected to the future Benfield Road that will connect to the Rattlesnake Hammock extension. What is the timeline for approval? Tentatively, a CCPC hearing in July and BCC in September when the board returns from summer recess. The SDP would be submitted in June, and that process typically takes about 10 months. Construction would start in late 2016 and continue for two years. Are there any plans for the existing church building? Not part of this request,however,we understand that the building has been bought and the new owner seems committed to the site and has plans to use it as a church. The property owner would like to see the property finished and occupied. The meeting concluded at approximately 6:15 PM. 4 11:12014120140851WPFPUD\NtM\N1M Summary 5-5-15.docx AGREEMENT CONFIRMING ESP HOUSING DENSITY BONUS AND IMPOSING COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS ON REAL PROPERTY This AGREEMENT is made of the day of , 2015 by and between Lord's Way Apartments, LLC (the "Developer") and the Collier County Board of County Commissioners(the"Commission"),collectively,the"Parties". RECITALS: A. The Developer owns a tract of real property described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein (the "Property"). It is the Developer's intent to construct a maximum of 296 multi-family units on the Property. B. The Property is located within Collier Boulevard Community Facility Sub-district within the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan(the"GMP"). C. Pursuant to Collier County Ordinance No. 08-41, the Property is zoned First Assembly Ministries Education and Rehabilitation Campus MPUD (the"PUD"). D. This Agreement is not intended to supersede or otherwise replace the PUD terms. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the approval and grant of the density set forth in the GMP and PUD, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Developer and the Commission hereby covenant and agree as follows: 1. The above Recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference. 2. The Developer agrees that a minimum of 147 ESP housing units will be constructed within the project and as they become available will be offered for rent first to Essential Service Personnel (ESP) persons involved in providing essential services in Collier County as defined in the County Local Housing Assistance Plan. A minimum of 35 of the 147 units shall be offered for those earning no more than 150% of the median income of Collier County and a minimum of 25 of the 147 units shall be offered for those earning no more than 80% of the median income of Collier County. The remaining 87 ESP units may be provided for those earning any level of income. The minimum timeframe for rental lease agreements for all unit types shall be seven months. Attachment E 3. In an effort to attract ESP renters, the Developer will provide written notification at a minimum to Collier County, the Collier County School District, all local hospitals, City of Naples, and all independent fire districts that ESP units are available to be rented and will be set aside for the applicable period described below. Any printed advertising for the development shall identify the project prioritizes units for essential services personnel. 4. The period of time that the rental unit will be reserved and advertised first for ESP persons within the income categories identified in paragraph C will be a minimum of 14 days from the date the unit is first advertised for rent and 14 days thereafter when a unit is offered for rent due to a projected or actual vacancy. If an ESP renter is not committed to a lease within the 14 day period,the unit may be offered for rent to a non ESP renter. 5. The restriction to provide units first to ESP renters shall remain in effect for 15 years. As units become available, the Developer shall first offer units to qualified renters, either ESP or income restricted ESP, whichever applicable, until the number of units described in paragraph 2 are maintained,in order to satisfy the terms of this Agreement. 6. The following provisions shall be applicable to the ESP Units: (1) Defined terms: In the event of a conflict between terms as defined in the Land Development Code (LDC) or in Ordinance No. 08-41, the definitions of the LDC will control when applying or interpreting this Agreement. (2) Median Income. For the purposes of this Agreement, the median income of the area as defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) shall be the then current median income for the Naples Metropolitan Statistical Area, established periodically by HUD and published in the Federal Register, as adjusted for family size as shown on the tables attached hereto as Exhibit `B", which Exhibit shall be adjusted from time to time in accordance with any adjustments that are authorized by HUD or any successor agency. In the event that HUD ceases to publish an established median income as aforesaid, the Parties hereto shall mutually agree to another reasonable and comparable method of computing adjustments in median Income. 8. Qualification Process. The Developer shall be responsible for qualifying tenants by accepting applications, verifying income and obtaining income certification for all income restricted ESP units in the subject development per procedures approved by the County which are described below. (a) Application. A potential renter shall apply to the Developer, owner, manager, or agent to qualify for the purpose of renting a unit and occupying a unit pursuant to this Agreement. The Application form is Exhibit "C", attached to this Agreement and incorporated by reference herein. (b) Income Verification and Certification. No income restricted ESP housing unit in the development shall be rented to an individual or family whose household income has not been verified and certified in accordance with this Agreement. (c) Income Verification. The Developer shall obtain written verification from the potential occupant (including the entire household) to verify all regular sources of income (including the entire household). The most recent year's federal income tax return for the potential occupants (including the entire household) may be used for the purpose of income verification, attached to the ESP Housing Applicant Income Verification form, including a statement to release information, occupant verification of the return, and a signature block with the date of application. The verification shall be valid for up to one hundred eighty (180) days prior to occupancy. Upon expiration of the 180 day period, the information must be verbally updated from the original sources for an additional 30 days, provided it has been documented in writing by the person preparing the original verification. After this time, or if the person preparing the original verification is no longer employed with the organization, a new verification form must be completed. The ESP Housing Applicant Income Verification form is Exhibit"D", attached to this Agreement and incorporated by reference herein. (d) Income Certification. Upon receipt of the Preliminary Application for ESP Housing Unit and ESP Housing Applicant Income Verification form,the Developer shall require that an income certification form be executed by the potential occupant (including the entire household) prior to occupancy of the ESP housing unit by the occupant. Income certification shall assure that the potential occupant has an appropriate household income which qualities the potential occupant as an eligible family to occupy an income restricted ESP unit. The ESP Housing Applicant Income Certification form is attached to this Agreement as Exhibit"E". 9. Inspection. Random inspection of files containing required documentation to verify occupancy in accordance with this Agreement may be conducted by the Community and Human Services Department upon reasonable notice. 10. Annual Progress and Monitoring Report. The Developer shall provide an annual PUD Monitoring Report to the County regarding the rental of units to ESPs throughout the period of their construction and occupancy. The annual progress and monitoring report shall, at a minimum, provide any information reasonably required to insure compliance with this Agreement. The report shall be filed on or before September 30 of each year and the report shall be submitted by the Developer to the Community and Human Services Department. Failure to complete and submit the monitoring report to the County within sixty (60) days from the due date shall result in a penalty of up to fifty dollars ($50.00)per day unless a written extension not to exceed thirty (30) days is requested prior to expiration of the sixty (60) day submission deadline. No more than one such extension may be granted in a single year. 11. Occupancy Restrictions. No Affordable Workforce Unit in any building or structure on the Property shall be occupied by the Developer, any person related to or affiliated with the Developer, or by a resident manager. 12. Violations. It shall be a violation of this Agreement to rent or occupy, or attempt to rent or occupy, an ESP unit except as specifically permitted by the terms of this Agreement; or to knowingly give false or misleading information with respect to any information required or requested by the Community and Human Services Department or by any other person(s) within the County. Collier County or its designee shall have full power to enforce the terms of this Agreement. The method of enforcement for a breach or violation of this Agreement shall be at the option of the Commission by criminal enforcement pursuant to the provisions of Section 125.69,Florida Statutes,or by civil enforcement as allowed by law. 13. Certificate of Occupancy. In the event that the Developer fails to maintain the ESP units in accordance with this Agreement, as amended, at the option of the Commission, building permits or certificates of occupancy, as applicable, may be withheld for any future planned or otherwise approved unit located or to be located upon the Property until the entire project is in full compliance with this Agreement,as amended. 14. Assignment by Commission. The Commission may assign all or part of its obligations under this Agreement to any other public agency having jurisdiction over the Property provided that it gives the Developer thirty (30) days advance written notice thereof. The Developer may assign, delegate or otherwise transfer all or part of its duties, obligations, or promises under this Agreement to any successor in interest to the Property without the express written consent of the Commission. The Developer shall provide written notice to the County of the assignment to a successor in interest to the property and shall be relieved of any further obligations under this Agreement. The written notice to the County shall include the successor's acknowledgment that it is bound by the terms of this Agreement. 15. Severability. If any section, phrase, sentence or portion of this Agreement is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct, and independent provision, and all other provisions shall remain effective and binding on the Parties. 16. Notice. Any notices desired or required to be given under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall either be personally delivered or shall be sent by email, mail, postage prepaid,to the Parties at the following addresses: a. Collier County Community and Human Services Department 3339 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 211 Naples,Florida 34112 b. Lord's Way Apartments, LLC do David E. Torres 7742 Alico Road Ft. Myers,Florida 33912 Any Party may change the address to which notices are to be sent by notifying the other Party of such new address in the manner set forth above. 17. Authority to Monitor. The Parties hereto acknowledge that the Collier County Community and Human Services Department or its designee, shall have the authority to monitor and enforce the Developer's obligations hereunder. 18. Indemnify. The Developer hereb y agr ees to protect, defend, indemnify and hold Collier County and its officers, employees, and agents harmless from and against any and all claims, penalties, damages, losses and expenses, professional fees, including, without limitation, reasonable attorney's fees and all costs of litigation and judgments arising out of any claim, willful misconduct or negligent act, error or omission, or liability of any kind by Developer, its agents or employees, arising out of or incidental to the performance of this Agreement. 19. Covenants. The Developer agrees that all of its obligations hereunder shall constitute covenants, restrictions, and conditions which shall run with the land and shall be binding upon the Property Y and against every p erson then having any ownership interest at any time and from time to time until the date that is fifteen years from the date of issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the 147th residential unit in the project. However,the Parties agree that if Developer transfers or conveys the Property to another person or entity, Developer shall have no further obligation hereunder and any person seeking to enforce the terms hereof shall look solely to Developer's successor in interest for the performance of said obligations. 20. Recording. This Agreement shall be recorded at Developer's expense in the official records of Collier County, Florida. 21. Entire Agreement. The Parties hereto agree that this Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement between the Parties hereto and shall inure to and be binding upon their respective heirs, successors, and assigns. 22. Termination. The minimum number of affordable ESP housing units for sale or { rent shall be deed restricted to remain and be maintained as the required affordable ESP housing for a period of fifteen (15) years from the date of the last Certificate of Occupancy of the last ESP unit constructed. 23. Modification. This Agreement shall be modified or amended only by the written agreement of both Parties. 24. Discrimination. a. The Developer agrees that neither it nor its agents shall discriminate against any renter or potential renter because of said owners race, color, religion, sex, national origin, familial status,or handicap. b. When the Developer advertises, rents or maintains the ESP housing units, it must advertise sell, rent and maintain the same in a non-discriminatory manner and shall make available any relevant information to any person who is interested in renting such ESP housing unit. c. The Developer agrees to be responsible for payment of any real estate commissions and fees for which it is liable in the rental of ESP units. d. The ESP housing units shall be intermixed with, and not segregated from, the market rate dwelling units in the development. e. The square footage, construction and design of the ESP housing units shall be the same as market rate dwelling units in the development. All physical amenities in the dwelling units shall be the same for market rate units and ESP units. For developments where construction takes place in more than one phase,all physical amenities shall be the same in both the market rate units and the affordable units in each phase. Units in a subsequent phase may contain different amenities than units in a previous phase so long as the amenities for market rate units and affordable units are the same within each and provided that in no event may a market rate unit or affordable unit in any phase contain different physical amenities. 25. Phasing. No more than 57 market rate dwelling units shall be constructed prior to the construction of all affordable-workforce housing dwelling units. 26. Disclosure. The developer shall not disclose to persons, other than the potential renter of the particular ESP housing unit or units, which units in the development are designated as ESP housing units. 27. ESP Housing Agreement. This Agreement is distinct and separate agreement from"development agreements"as defined by Section 163.3220,Fla. Stat.,as amended. 28. Consistency. This Agreement and authorized development shall be consistent with the Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Code Regulations of Collier County that are in effect at the time of development. Subsequently adopted laws and policies shall apply to this Agreement and to the development to the extent that they are not in conflict with the number, type of ESP housing units and the amount of ESP housing density bonus approved for the development 29. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida. 30. Further Assurances. The Parties hereto shall execute and deliver, in recordable form if necessary, any and all documents, certificates, instruments, and agreements which may be reasonably required in order to effectuate the intent of the Agreement. Such documents shall include but not be limited to any document requested by the Developer to exhibit that this Agreement has terminated in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. 31. Conflicts. To the extent this Agreement conflicts with the PUD, the PUD shall control. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by their appropriate officials,as of the date first above written. Attest: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E.BROCK, Clerk COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: By: ,Deputy Clerk , Chairman WITNESSES: Lord's Way Apartments,LLC A Florida Limited Liability Corporation Print Name: By: Print Name: STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2015, by , as of , who is [ ] personally known to me, or [ ] has produced driver's license no. as identification. NOTARY PUBLIC (SEAL) Name: (Type or Print) My Commission Expires: Approved as to form and legality: Jennifer A. Belpedio,Assistant County Attorney J coo Y ,.„,,,,,t,,,,,.1!,,, -.,, "fir,, - o t,,� 1 J. �'�` sl m ( ,, ,q,,,, ,..._ 0 1 ,,,Iiiik,A c.i. I.i. .4,.,p -,,, ot tr. 16.1-.... _...... .r. . .-- :„. s.-- , , ,„ CIJ r° i� . Radio RD y�__ ' .-.N4 .,,*- r ' tS � ' x -41„.44114 I 1r< yam .. 7$ w"'"'.e..°". ._'y.�-„0......- . 1c,_ii..1/4: ' .',,-. --y 4, -.. :i r} I1 C iar Ha nmo r P,1.s , - : r G&C C?tL r 1 / Dens...: 1.9 fr Davis BLVD' It S k '” r Naples Herigaae C&CC ' r 1 R. San Manna F" . C4Napie NA-'L G Cer t ..." ' Cens. y:..03 Miff y1 • Homes of Islandia iifiia ' Density:0` . f, ' >>CI _ Project,Location: 1 '...7,.,',, -�,i •I • i m, First Assembly Ministries MPUD I ,\ Maples Lakes CC�) Density: 4.28 :"' Density:1.56 �; $``= 4 Lord's Way ;:IS e;, ± 0 Density:2 5 Rattlesnake Hammock.RD ' u:,; ,...%, fa' si v d a Hac enda Lakes r De i.;: s p " erfs Density:D.BS d,-� `' ockedge �__.___ Y t#® Dense:5.23 .,..is ' , _._... .� a r fM.F x t y racienda Lakes ,, IIIR all ~ i .i'f � / ,.Wind 14,C,, G } r.^' 1�.'�' ti C1 r. ftY:1.57 _ it ;. �— ,e; i a ye itri ^„, i ' GROSS DENSITY UNITS PER ACRE (UPA) ° 02=°5 1.5 moo. N FOR FIRST ASSEMBLY MINISTRIES MPUD AND SURROUNDING PROPERTIES Callftr Cau ...� GrowYi Manapemeent Departm nl , Attachment F NCH Downtown Naples Hospital NCH North Naples Hospital 350 Seventh Street N. 11190 Healthpark Blvd. Naples,FL 34102 Naples,FL 34110 (239)624-5000 Healthcare (239)552-7000 System July 9, 2015 To Whom It May Concern: The NCH Healthcare System supports all local efforts to add affordable housing capacity for our community. As the largest private employer with a year round work force of over 3,000 which swells to about 4,000 folks seasonally,we have a huge need for affordable, safe, conveniently located housing. Although we all live in rapidly changing times but there is always a need for residencies for our colleagues. There is a nation-wide shortage of skilled health care workers including nurses,technicians, and all sorts of support personnel. Considering the range of homes available near NCH's three campuses there is always a demand for more affordable housing. NCH expects to continue to grow as our Collier County develops. We all support each other and whenever there is an imbalance,be it excess or deficient,waste is created. Having a structure to where large organizations help each other with capacity issues decreases waste and adds value for all concerned. We have been through many cycles over the years. Change is always difficult but repetition of past shortages makes no sense particularly when we know better. Please let me know if I can add any further support for the cause of additional work force housing. Sincerely, Allen S.Weiss,MD,MBA,FACP,FACR President and CEO www.NCHmd.org Attachment G S ccps I rollic)r County RECEIVED so> 1'ulllic:icllUOlu twit- tJ1iE+. €ri the Superintendent )1.1t 4$ 7111' HOLE MONTES, INC July 20, 2015 Bob Mulhere Hole Montes 950 Encore Way Naples, Florida 34110 Re: Essential Service Personnel Housing Projects Dear Bob, I wanted to take this moment to thank you for your July 8, 2015, email concerning your client's plan to construct affordable housing and their effort to submit an amendment to the existing PUD that would not include any additional density. What I found interesting and important, among other things, is that not only will the anticipated 147 units be offered first to essential service personnel, which would indeed include District instructional and non-instructional personnel, but also that 60 of the units will have household income targets attached to them for the purposes of affordability. We believe a housing plan that is concerned with helping our employees, as well as helping other essential service personnel working in Collier County is a project that certainly seems intended to benefit the community and contribute to the recruiting and retaining of essential service personnel and their families. Thank you again for making me and the District aware of the project's status. Sincerely, - 'fir . Kamela Patton, Ph.D. Superintendent Today's Learners .Tomorrow's Leaders 5775 Osceola Trail I Naples, Florida 34109 I p:239.3 7.0001 1 1.239.3/7.0181 a:info CO mill orschools.corn I www.coll lei schoolS.CU111 N l Al I' 104 i y 'alnai1 t l 1 l I K i▪3;%4 Aft 1 .� E ayq �hg t fl f • W �r l ag 'M U g IP A aKs „fFY7 t ii+ l r . l F3-i. i i ' 1 Z O t.Y A f ^g alit lir A%, (0 ..*, ... ,, . 1 J 41111, y ,,,:::....-.......:.:,:.:.::::::.--\001........- .,,,....-.."::::,,.1\0‘t fY Illaillilr i " •••,........,••••••-.......•••-•••••4---••••••• '.:g:::.3:i.'i.:::....§:•. 10‘.4 aaBB: ...., Q orii!_lam 1 . , 1 1 *I' f i 119* i f f 'aN J 71 l l?.k �.1 , I V � I 1,Nj • l �� i t 1 m I I • O O g �� ig gl K >< f 1 , 11 �I z i FP • CL f ,rtf61 111 hie °o` 0 I I , \ �r. �, �° 1 4 4 Ire r Oi C4 �. y i two 1 054. 9 1 l t 0 g _o fflSi1 1 I 4.. ilzZ 1 ,-I # 1 -caa.1 o° 1 I4 4 0e f - I 1 E•t �, 1 J +� .�. a 7-1 v a .a.1.:•.-i.; - 1 l IV K 1 ':::' 1 gl I \ 1 0 A :',$4.::,.: ill 1 i \ I 1 ,.,oti I pilb• J ill asps 1 ,. I 1 w $tl wtft 3x 1 $ ���� 1 QD 17 1_� 1 I 1 1 !_:ice:•,_ I 1 ' .412: ,# ��J 1 •f _ r / M -0 , 1 5_ .:":. 1 1 ill I I 1 i Z 1 ▪ C 4I.a'-tam y ��Y N .I 1 1 It i / NO ' A I II 11111 1 . . .---=.--Av it. — -- .0/..:- 4;-: 4" %. 1 tilb,._ IMPU-11.11 a.r.>, V aaa, 1 '�y i�ioii� t ` 1 l `at t rte' : " ._a o-tl...,. Li1r-a.. I*:;:t'• .... K 1 1 0 1� 0 y II { 11,r ail 1 a':oirl K K�'`r{,1' w: ,i� u1 k ` - N O .;; ; ` 1 I •= lI l { 1 11, II lt g Al MD •/ ,Lig II Y 4 g1 \ Il 1 Pla i I �, I 111 rrai_ arras_ 1 , r A. •1 1 1 i I Il • sun ov o 3au ..,m.�. \11.114) 3' 1 i • i i iii cv SSN�YVla11d�/AVM5GJO1 a ai tin UMW a o e a o o N : 't'.? . ; • i Se r siN3'm 3oa t? O as Sus SLauF-tbrrd A 1 NS A 3 $ $ 1911 ■ ■ Jit I §a gill ii- IF , h FY jt!3t Mtn EN ®O FE II •• III � s 4 . L __ E .18 •B q 0 i 0 NM _! - ��.. ED E gi It ............... .._ . . _ EB-E1 ® ® Ll� ® •E • • 01 \\ \ =< Z S.4 E'2 B 3 \ w m IN 0 ....„_...., , et w o....., >--m < P-A ...4.. „z, 3•7I Q in - 4 zi , . .. "I CC o Tc 0 9. 4 w o cn z Ld co -.......m I co ci_ vi w cc 0 < z 417\ Z ' o in 0 . 3 1-1%,■ }— 0_n„ 0 M H -J = LI m w z LI (1) CC 0 Lai 41 41 en a..0 V)CI_...... –1 b 633-1 – iri 41— y Ln w i co 1 0- Mk, < 0 >- < Z 3 -n- U, 5 b co cc 0 . . ...I • ! i