Loading...
CCPC Minutes 09/03/2015 COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 3, 2015 9/3/2015 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE D ;B L5 B pc. ,T i COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples,Florida j September 3,2015 t Z-01 By 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 i "F"of the Government Complex,East Naples,Florida,with the following members present: Mark Strain,Chairman `: Stan Chrzanowski i Brian Doyle(Absent) Diane Ebert 3 Karen Homiak Charlette Roman Andrew Solis F i ALSO PRESENT: Heidi Ashton-Cicko,Assistant County Attorney ii Ray Bellows,Zoning Manager Thomas Eastman,Real Property Director,CC School District , u 4 1 i i , f. I' { Page 1 of 36 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 9:00 A.M., THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 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—August 6,2015 6. BCC REPORT-RECAPS 7. DISCUSSION 8. CONSENT AGENDA 1 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS Note: This item has been continued from the August 6,2015 CCPC meeting: 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, 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] Note: This item has been continued from the August 6,2015 CCPC meeting: 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] 10. OLD BUSINESS 11. NEW BUSINESS 12. PUBLIC COMMENT 13. ADJOURN CCPC Agenda/Ray Bellows/jmp 2 9/3/2015 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning,everyone.Welcome to the Thursday,September 3rd meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If everybody will please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,the four of us on this side are the blue team. These will be who knows what. Will the secretary please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. Good morning. Mr.Eastman? MR.EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr.Chrzanowski? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Solis is absent.Ms.Ebert is here. Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ms.Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr.Doyle is absent. And Ms.Roman? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brian did notify me that he had other commitments he had to make today. So he's excused. And this will probably be one of the shorter meetings. And since Andy's been here he has attended all the long meetings. So looks like he's going to miss the short meeting. We'll have to remind him of that when we see him. Addenda to the agenda. We have two cases on today's agenda,both for the same issue.One is a Growth Management Plan change and the other is a zoning action. And here he is. Andy,we were just saying you needed to be here,because this might be less than a full day meeting,so-- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Afraid I might jinx it,right? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yeah,go back outside. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So two items I want to add to the agenda. One under old business. Michelle Arnold was here last time to speak on sidewalks. She has a short presentation that I told her she could make under old business today,so she's monitoring this downstairs and she'll come up when we get into that. And then under new business I need to have,if it's okay with the rest of you,a brief discussion on setbacks and open space issues and some concerns that have been showing up more lately with these intensities we've been seeing in some of our submittals. I'm not sure what we'll do about it,but I'd like to bring it up for discussion. So with that is there any--there are no other addenda. Ray,everything else is scheduled as—we're fine? MR.BELLOWS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,planning Commission absences. Our next meet is September 17th. Does anybody here know if they're not going to make it? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I will not be here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That will be a real short day then. And the rest of us look like we'll be here so we'll have a quorum. Approval of minutes. We were electronically supplied with the August 6th minutes. Does anybody have any corrections? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion to approve by-- Page 2 of 36 9/3/2015 COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --Karen,seconded by Charlene. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-0--6-0,I'm sorry. BCC report. Ray,I doubt if you've got anything because they've been on vacation. MR.BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,we'll move directly into the advertised public hearings.There are no consent items. There are two items on advertised public hearings. We will review them both at the same time but I'll announce them separately. Item A is PL20140002143/CPSS-2014-4. It's for the Southbrooke Office Subdistrict. It's a small-scale growth--actually it's a Growth Management Plan change,small scale. That's a companion to the rezone which is PUDZ-PL20140002077. Again,it's--and that's the Southbrooke CPUD. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item,please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (All speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,we'll start on the far end with Toin,disclosures from the Planning Commission. MR.EASTMAN: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I talked to Wayne Arnold and I talked to Commissioner Henning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Andy? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I spoke with Wayne Arnold. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I spoke with Wayne and employees. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Employees of Wayne or employees of— COMMISSIONER EBERT: No,employees of the county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,and I've had discussions with multiple staff members.Trying to think of--the applicant,his team,plus I did go out to several meetings with the local community. Some of which have written letters--have written a letter to this board. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Excuse me,yes,I have spoken with constituents in that area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You went to one of the— COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --neighborhood information meetings because I went and when I saw you there I had to leave. So I remember you were there. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I was there for the NIM meeting,you were there for their association meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But we couldn't attend the same meeting,and we didn't. Just to make that clear. Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I spoke with Mr.Arnold. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Charlene? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: No contact. Page 3 of 36 9/3/2015 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,with that,Wayne,you want to make your presentation? MR.ARNOLD: Good morning. For the record,I'm Wayne Arnold with Grady Minor,and representing the Southbrooke Office Park plan amendment and rezoning today. With us is Brian Howell who's one of the contract purchasers of the property;we have Mike Timmerman who prepared the economic assessment for the property;and Jim Banks,who performed the transportation assessment for the property. Probably not going to ask them to make a presentation,but certainly they'll be here to answer any questions you or the public may have. So what's before you today is a small-scale plan amendment on just over five acres located on Immokalee Road about a quarter mile east of Oakes Boulevard. And we are proposing an office subdistrict under the Golden Gate Master Plan. And we have offered text language that supports office uses on this property,and the companion PUD rezone has a laundry Iist of uses and conditions that implement that subdistrict. As Mr. Strain and Ms.Ebert mentioned,we did have our neighborhood information meeting,and outside of the neighborhood information meeting there were also several meetings with members of the Oakes Association,who happen to be the association most affected by this subject property. And although it's in Golden Gate Estates technically,typically matters that are sort of this much in the urban area have been dealt with through the Oakes Association;the Super Target shopping center,for instance,was a good example and other churches,a fire station,things of that nature have moved forward with the input of the Oakes Association. And as mentioned you have a letter of no objection from the Oakes Association that was in your packet under the rezoning but not your Comp.Plan Amendment and it was also sent separately to you by my office and to--and by staff. So you can see on the visualizer the subject property is outlined. It's immediately across from the Quail commercial tract that's in front of the Longshore Lake and Quail Creek communities. To our west is the county's water management retention facility. Those of you who have been on the Planning Commission for a few years may remember that I represented the church that's at the corner of Valewood extension as a small-scale amendment and in that case a conditional use as well. This property in this tier of Golden Gate Estates is a little unique. This is an exhibit that the county has prepared that demonstrates locations of approved conditional uses and commercial activities and those that qualify for more commercial uses or conditional uses.And these are all coded to a series of matrices that the county's created. But you can see on the northern portion here we have several green places. Those are all pre-approved conditional uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you blow that piece up so we can see it more— COMMISSIONER ROMAN: You need to focus it too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I noticed everybody squinting. MR.ARNOLD: Two things out of this exhibit. It demonstrates,one,how isolated this is from the balance of Golden Gate Estates. And secondarily,it demonstrates that not only are there conditional uses on this portion of the Golden Gate Estates area on Immokalee Road,what you don't see is that you don't qualify for any other conditional uses or uses other than two single-family homes on the five-acre tract. We don't meet transitional conditional use criteria,they don't qualify to put in another church,I can't ask for a day care center,school or any other uses that commonly get to be requested under Estates zoning. So in this particular case,to move forward on almost anything other than another county facility,we would be here before you for a Comp.Plan amendment and a conditional use or in this case a rezoning. We think that obviously staff assessment and the recommendation is not appropriate. We hope that you can recommend approval. We think that there are enough conditions in the zoning document and concessions that were made with the neighborhood that warrant its approval. My premise all along was the site clearly is not appropriate for two single-family homes.And I know there's another tract of land other than this five acres,but then that would make it four single-family homes. Page 4 of 36 9/3/2015 And I don't think waiting two years potentially for another study of the Golden Gate Master Plan is necessary to understand that this is probably not the most appropriate place to force construction of two single-family homes. I think that the office district that's been offered is a good transitional use. It makes sense. There's a market demand for more office space in this corridor,as indicated in Mr.Timmerman's report. And we therefore disagree with staff that this isn't the most appropriate location. You know,honestly,staff,and you've seen enough of these,rarely recommends approval. But secondarily,they rarely find that you've met demand for more commercial activity. And in this case they agreed that our demand analysis shows that there's a market demand for more office space in this area. Again,some of the conditions too--that's just a tighter image of the five-acre tract that we're discussing today. But some of the rationale for us thinking that single-family homes on this tier of Golden Gate Estates is not the most appropriate is the fact that it is on a six-lane arterial road.There's intense conunercial development immediately across the street from it,doesn't qualify for any other use other than the single family. What we've offered meets and exceeds the C-1 zoning criteria which,as many of you know,the C-1 zoning district is supposed to be the transition use to allow commercial in close proximity to residential development. We don't fmd that this is creep. When you look at the corridor we're within,you know,less than half a mile to the activity center. There's commercial and conditional uses to our east,to our north,to our west. And the opportunity to do something other than single-family should be permitted here. I think that trying to say that what we have for Golden Gate Estates in this corridor is a good plan is inaccurate. I don't think our plan really reflects the planning effort that needed to be held for this tier of lots in Golden Gate. The last restudy effort,and I know Mr. Strain,I think you were chairman of that committee,but a lot of those efforts were focused much more east of Collier Boulevard.There were a lot of development pressures east of Collier Boulevard and on Collier Boulevard.And I think this is just one of those areas that staff didn't focus on,I don't think the committee focused on,and I don't know that it takes a committee when you have an active neighborhood association who can help you decide what's maybe the best use in close proximity to their homes. Your staff also acknowledges that we have public facilities in place,we have good access,we can make our access better. Staff's made some recommendations,mostly with regard to the PUD in that matter. And I'll get into those in just a minute. But again, I think the real question is,is this an appropriate site for two single-family homes. And I think clearly from a planning perspective the answer is no. So the applicant and the team decided that the best way to also show that was to go ahead and submit a concurrent PUD amendment. So we did that,it's called the Southbrooke commercial PUD. And the uses that you fmd there were discussed very thoroughly in numerous meetings with the Oakes Association,with staff,with--and with some recent adjustments with members of the Planning Commission. And those uses,for instance,one of the things that we initially thought would be appropriate for an office park setting would have been maybe a small cafe or coffee shop.The neighbors said no thank you. We deleted the use because they said you told us you wanted an office park,give us an office park,don't give us a restaurant,don't give us retail,give us offices. So that's what we delivered. So the uses have been pared down considerably so that even though it's a fairly long list of uses in the PUD document,those all represent what I believe and I think staff would confirm are all office typical uses. And I'll show you the PUD master plan.One of the things that staff has recommended is that we would eliminate one of the two access points shown on that project. And I'll show you what that looks like. They would like us to delete our westernmost access. So that's what the plan looks like deleting the westernmost access point and having a single access point only on Immokalee Road. It can function. But just to go back,I know we've had some staffing changes over the last several months in transportation,but we didn't start with two access points. We added a second access point,one at the east and one at the west end,after talking to staff and methodology meetings. And largely because of the traffic signal Page 5 of 36 9/3/2015 at Valewood it created a gap appropriate for us to have access at those two locations. And in fact the easternmost location probably allows us to get a left directional into the site too. So it functions very well in that regard. And we would prefer to have the two access points.That's what it looks like if you accept staffs recommendation to eliminate one of those access points. But again,it was done in collaboration with staff and I know that we've had some staffing changes and the direction's changing a Iittle bit and we're trying to react to that based on staffs recommendation. One of the other things that was a pretty important discussion point with the neighbors was a cross-section that's shown as Exhibit G in your document. And this is simply a cross-section from Autumn Oaks Lane to your right,and as you move left back toward the development area on Immokalee Road. And this shows the relationship of what we agreed to would be a minimum 45-foot wide preservation tract and then a separate 24-foot wide water management area in which supplemental vegetation plantings would occur. And then the other feature of this is a six-foot high wall that would be built at our parking lot grade that extends across the southern boundary of the property and then also extends north on our eastern boundary. And that eastern segment was requested by one of the neighbors on Autumn Oaks Lane and we obliged by extending the wall in that area. And Mr. Strain,in my discussion with you,you pointed out that our PUD document expresses only a 30-foot setback from Autumn Oaks Lane.And obviously with this exhibit our minimum setback would have to be,with the preserve and the water management area,69 feet. So I will show you a change in a moment on our development table that increases the setback from 30 feet to 69 feet from Autumn Oaks Lane. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: From the right-of-way. MR.ARNOLD: From the easement line of Autumn Oaks Lane,yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR.ARNOLD: The other thing,and let me--if I could,the PUD document is pretty short. If you would oblige if I could maybe just walk through the PUD document and show you some things. One of the things that was mentioned by Mr. Strain and others on the Planning Commission as I spoke with you was maybe incorporating more of the letter comments that was written by the Oakes Association into the PUD document so that there is certainty that they were going to get what was requested and what we had agreed to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,all of the letter,not more of it. MR.ARNOLD: Well,not all of the letter. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That letter was contingent on certain bullet points,and those need to be directly correlated to the language in the PUD,if I'm assuming you want to retain their letter of no objection. MR.ARNOLD: That would be preferable,yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well,that's what I was getting at when we spoke. MR.ARNOLD: Well,if I could,if you don't mind,I'll go right into the PUD document and just walk through some of those changes I think are necessary to incorporate the Oakes letter and their points into the PUD document so we're all clear what we're getting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR.ARNOLD: This is Page 1 of 9 of the PUD document. And in the first paragraph you can see that one of the Oakes Association points in their letter talked about having a maximum of two buildings, 20,000 square feet each. So I've added a reference that says that,that it can consist of a maximum of two buildings not to exceed 20,000 square feet each. And then also I think,Mr. Strain,this was your request,we go ahead and reiterate that restaurant and retail uses are prohibited. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR.ARNOLD: And then the letter also pointed out hours of operation. We previously said no 24-hour use. Their letter requested 6:00 a.m.to 10:00 p.m.as the limitation on hours. So that's been incorporated. The next change occurs on Page 3,which is your development table. And in the middle you can see there's a 30-foot reference under Autumn Oaks Lane setback. I changed that to 69 feet to be consistent with Page 6 of 36 9/3/2015 the cross-section that's also in the PUD document. And Mr.Strain,you pointed out that there was something that seemed a little misleading in the footnote that talked about per subdivided lot excluding parking areas under building. I think that was a carryover from how we've dealt with some of these Iimitations on square footage. But in this case since we've committed to a single-story building only that having any under-building parking is prohibited anyway, so we'lI strike that footnote. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got a space.Remember the word--might as well just tell us you're doing it between the word minimum lot on the second line. MR.ARNOLD: Oh,yeah. On the--in your document under minimum lot width there was no space between the words minimum and lot. So this version would correct that. The next change that I had was on Page 6 of 9,which are the list of deviations. There were two. And in this case the first one was prohibition on not having to provide a sidewalk on Autumn Oaks Lane. The neighborhood was very adamant they didn't want a vehicle,pedestrian or sidewalk connection on Autumn Oaks Lane.They didn't want to encourage people in the neighborhood to potentially drive,park on the street and then try to access the office uses. So that deviation,P11 explain that while I'm on the page. But the change we made was to the second deviation. Staff and I disagreed on this. On our western boundary where we abut the county's water management retention area I proposed a 10-foot wide buffer. And staff said it's still zoned Estates,you need a 15-foot wide buffer.And I said but it's a water management essential service lake,I don't need a 15-foot wide buff as if I'm going to be next to a home. So we compromised and I asked for the deviation on the western boundary only,and this is the--I added on the west boundary only. But this allows us to put the vegetation that would occur in a 15-foot wide buffer into a 10-foot width. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you show us--you had an aerial that appeared earlier. That was a pretty clear aerial as how that area fits.It was the one that was larger. MR.ARNOLD: Yeah,I got it right here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it would only be on that--up against that water management area to the left. MR.ARNOLD: Yes,that's correct. It's only in this area adjacent to the county's property on our western boundary. And that's the clarification that we were making. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the county owns that entire,what is it,two and a quarter,something like that? MR.ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And so you and some of the other conditional uses to the east have provided buffers in the back with vegetation on them,but the county put the buffer up against Immokalee Road and cleared out the land in the back. I wonder whose planning thought that was. I'm just--why would we have done that?But anyway,it doesn't help the neighborhood. MR.ARNOLD: It's an essential service. I think they're exempt from— CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But they could have flipped it is what I'm suggesting. MR.ARNOLD: Oh,I see. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know why we wouldn't have done that. MR.ARNOLD: I can't answer that. The other change that we're proposing to incorporate changes that are a result of the Oakes letter occur on Page 8 of 9,and we added a section for transportation commitments. And the first one is a little long,but it relates to the request from the county staff that we provide a right turn lane with compensating right-of-way into our property. And that was kind of a late request we saw as part of the staff report and hadn't really had a strong opportunity to evaluate that until recently. And we've added language here to address the compensating right-of-way and to provide that to the county if necessary. We think there's adequate right-of-way available today to provide the turn lane. If not,it's only a couple of feet short. But typically the county would say if you're using 12 feet for a turn lane,give the county 12 feet. Well,this road is already built to its maximum Page 7 of 36 9/3/2015 width;they're not going to need it for expansion of the roadway. So we've offered language here that would allow us to accommodate all the necessary changes and to also potentially have to build a retaining wall as the church did.If you've driven that corridor,the county built that retaining wall so it could transition easier back to the return to slope. So there is a guardrail that serves the church near the sidewalk for safety purposes, but we're adding that language just to clarify that that may be our option as well. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So you are willing to add a turn lane into here,to the eastern? MR.ARNOLD: Yes. I think it's always been assumed that we would have a turn lane.The county's request for compensating right-of-way was the twist we hadn't really anticipated until recently. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I did confirm with staff that the reservation format is more appropriate for this corridor since it's already built out to a six-lane maximum and the likelihood of needing it is minimal. And they were willing to address it at the time if there's any changes needed. MR.ARNOLD: It's lengthy,but if it would be appropriate I'll read it slowly for the court reporter into the record. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: I've not seen any of this language so I really can't comment on it.I know the first section Iacked clarity. I had a lot of questions. But-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I think the intent is you're willing to provide the reservation that county staff has indicated that's needed.Just a matter of how to make that sufficient for legal review can happen at any particular time,so-- MR.ARNOLD: Would it be appropriate for me to go ahead and read it just so we're all-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You had it on the overhead. MR.ARNOLD: Yeah. I didn't know if anybody had a chance to actually read it from there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You kept it there long enough. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: If the project is recommended for approval and you want to accept that kind of language,then I can review it and we can do the tweaks before the consent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,if there's a consent needed,okay. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. MR.ARNOLD: So that's the first commitment that was added with regard to the turn lane detail. Secondarily,the Oakes Association requested that we have ingress and egress only to and from Immokalee Road,so we've added that for clarification that we don't have any access into Autumn Oaks Lane. And then only one access point to Immokalee Road was a staff condition which I've added. Again we prefer two. We can live with one and are happy to live with one if the Planning Commission deems that to be appropriate too. And I think that represents the edits that I made. And I hopefully caught all of those that responded to the Oakes letter and other cleanup that I had expected as part of this review. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you mention E.1 and 2? Is that what you just got done? Since it's on the overhead,I thought you'd-- MR.ARNOLD: Oh,I'm sorry,I did have the other two. This was considered other just because they were kind of miscellaneous. But the six-foot high wall that was shown in the cross-section that's proposed to extend across the southern parking lot portion of the property and then extend north was to be at the parking lot grade so it was assured that the six-foot height really was there to protect from the vehicle height. Rather than it being down in a depressional area or somewhere back in the preserve,we moved it to the closest proximity to the noise that could potentially be generated from automobiles using the site. So this is a clarification that it's clearly from above the parking lot grade. And then the number two point is that the buildings would be single story and have a galvanized or tile roof but prohibiting asphalt shingles. And that was a request from the neighbors as well. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Is there architectural,Wayne,that is for the Estates only that you plan on doing these buildings? MR.ARNOLD: Well,staffs report recognizes that the Golden Gate Master Plan talks about rural character. And in this particular case I think we're probably going to have a metal or tile roof. It's going to be single story. I don't know what the finish on the siding is going to be,but I think we're certainly going to be Page 8 of 36 9/3/2015 as consistent with the criteria for being rural as any of the churches,the fire station or any other use that gets built in the Estates. So we didn't add specific architectural standards per se. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would concur. When we came up with that language for the Estates in 2000 and 2001,it was done primarily with the intention of those added activity centers or minor centers that we added throughout the Estates,because they're internal to the Estates. This being external,it's not as nearly concerning as it is if it was an internal intersection. MR.ARNOLD: Just a couple of things that I would point out. There were other recommendations in staffs PUD and Comprehensive Planning staff report. For instance,there was a request that we establish a floor area ratio for the property. And I think that that's unnecessary,given the fact that we've said that we're not exceeding 40,000 square feet total and that would be made up in two maximum 20,000 square foot buildings. I don't know what I accomplish by an FAR. When I go out in the community and talk to groups, most people don't really understand what an FAR is or how it's calculated. I think it's just easier for everybody to understand that 40,000 square feet is what you get on this five-acre piece of property. And then also there was a staff recommendation on the interconnection language,which I was unclear. Our PUD master plan shows an interconnection to the east. And maybe they can help me understand it.But we cull it out as potential interconnection. I don't know what the use is.And their condition says that we have to construct the interconnection,and I don't think we want to be in a position to actually have to construct an interconnection when I don't know what that use is and how we would function with it. We show that because that location also can vary. It may not be the most appropriate where we've shown it when the other group might come in in the future with development on their site. So I think the language we have,I'm not quite clear if staff wanted me to put in there that it would be vehicular and pedestrian,but I said potential interconnection and that's kind of consistent with at least how I've prepared these PUD master plans. Mr. Strang,I think that's all I have in terms of presentation. I'm not going to go back and debate some of the points in the county staff report with regard to the comprehensive plan. I disagree that this is appropriate for residential development and hope that you would support the office district that we've proposed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Now,Planning Commission,any members have any questions? Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Wayne? MR.ARNOLD: Yes,sir. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: You don't have to put a sidewalk in on Autumn Oaks? MR.ARNOLD: We are asking for a deviation to not construct a sidewalk on-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Because the residents don't want one there. MR.ARNOLD: That's my understanding. And for us to provide--if there's no connection to us,I don't know why we would want to construct a sidewalk. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I was going to ask,is there a sidewalk anywhere along Autumn Oaks? COMMISSIONER EBERT: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In fact,in the NIM minutes,the--someone in the--one of the members of those attending your NIM said that if you were to put a sidewalk in they would oppose this project. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: So do you have to pay in lieu of putting in a sidewalk? MR.ARNOLD: I hope not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's no legal basis for that,unless it's-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I know. And I was wondering,because if they don't pay in lieu they put in a sidewalk and it's a sidewalk to nowhere. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree with you. COMMISSIONER EBERT: There is one thing.I just saw a gentleman kind of shake his head out in the audience that there is a sidewalk on Oakes. So I don't know,probably by the church. Page 9 of 36 9/3/2015 Does it go all the way over to Oaks Boulevard then? MR.ARNOLD: There is a sidewalk,Ms.Ebert,that serves the church that's there,but they have access on Autumn Oaks Lane. So it was meant to be a safe passage because they have connection point to Autumn Oaks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you slide this aerial over to the church? By the way,I noticed the church hasn't got a buffer along Autumn Oaks either. Is that--that doesn't look--I mean a buffer like your 45-foot buffer like you're putting in. MR.ARNOLD: No,their buffer is not 45 feet wide. And ours--I didn't point out but it's in the language has to be opaque of 80 percent within a year. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Is there a reason the county didn't put a sidewalk in at their retention area? MR.ARNOLD: I don't know. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Have to say ask the county? MR.ARNOLD: I think you'll have to ask somebody from the county. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: So if you put in a sidewalk,they'll have to put one in at that retention area. MR.ARNOLD: I don't know that they would agree with you that they would have to put one in. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay,thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else from the Planning Commission got any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wayne,I just want to go through my notes to make sure that we caught everything. You're going to reduce the access on Immokalee Road to one access point. You're going to include a right turn lane with compensating right-of-way reservation,which language is going to be reviewed by the County Attorney's Office. You've specified two buildings no greater than 20,000 square foot each. You've got a single-story requirement galvalume roofs or tile with no asphalt shingles. You've covered that. Restaurants and retail are prohibited. Hours of operation are limited from 6:00 a.m.to 10:00 p.m. The water management in the rear is to be 24 feet wide by that exhibit,which will be part of the request,the PUD. The decorative wall is six feet above the parking lot grade staggered and along the south and east sides. The setback from Autumn Oaks has been changed to 69 feet. The footnotes on the table have been corrected. Let's see,clarification two. You just clarified deviation two. It applies to the west side only. That's it. Okay. I think you've covered everything at least that I made on my notes. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I had one question,Wayne. When you said that you accepted everything in the letter with the Oakes Estates,that included the type of plantings and the bald cypress and everything that you plan to put in? MR.ARNOLD: Yes,it is. And if there's a need to incorporate that language into the PUD document,I think we can certainly do that too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Wayne,I have a couple of questions for you. MR.ARNOLD: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I hate strip zoning.Maybe this shouldn't even have been a part of the Estates. It's--that brown area I know is the Estates,but it's very separated from everything else. Immokalee Road is very heavily traveled right now,and it's not even season. I would actually prefer you to buy the other two lots next to it and make it one nice office park where it's just--you know,so then all the people in Autumn Oaks Lane,so you have the one wall across there and it would be--I mean,it would be more--it Page 10 of 36 9/3/2015 wouldn't be hodgepodge,it wouldn't be spot zoning,it would be one complete thing with--on 10 acres rather than five. That's what I prefer. Because if we just do those two now,you know the next two are going to go commercial,and down at the end there's another place for commercial. And that's--by doing this you're going to make everything else very commercial along there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But Diane,the standards that they've established for this project would be something we would be able to consider as a consistency application to anything else that went along there. And these are better standards than what we came up with as minimums for such activities back in 2000, 2001. So in that regard I think we're better off and we've got something that's decently planned. So-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'm not saying that it's not planned. I mean,I understand that. I would just like to see you have all four lots and just do something very nice in there so that don't just get this and something completely different the next two lots.Because it's going to set stuff up. The other thing that I did notice you said at the NIM meeting that I was at that there was no medical office and everything in the area,and that's why it's needed. Across the street on the north side is Naples Kidney Dialysis. It is all--pretty much all doctors and dentists on the north side in the Quail II PUD area there. So there is that on the north side also. MR.ARNOLD: I don't dispute that there are other offices. And that's one of the basis in Mr. Timmerman's report. He analyzed the other existing commercial and medical offices in the area. And recently Mr.Timmerman I think as late as yesterday looked at the area across the street at the Quail II,and I've got his notes here,and he looked at that from a vacancy standpoint,and the office building has 56,010 square feet in it and currently 54,284 square feet are occupied leaving 3,400 square feet unoccupied. So it's a 97 percent occupancy. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Wait,on which buildings? There's more than one. Because I went back there and checked too. MR.ARNOLD: That incorporates all of the office buildings,according to Mr.Timmerman. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have different,only because I live there and have checked it.Doesn't make any difference. Because what you want to do,I would just rather see something really very nicely done on all four lots.And--because you're just--I don't like hodgepodge. I don't like strip malls anyway. MR.ARNOLD: Well,I think one thing to say,somebody has to be first. And this is the parcel. It's my understanding that the other owner of the five acres was not interested in selling at the time. It's held as an investment property for them. So I can't force them to come in and join with us. And they did not. But I think as Mr. Strain says,I think what you're seeing here is you're setting a standard that's a pretty high bar for the next person to address. And that may be a church,it may be a private school,it could be some other use like this. In which case I have a feeling that Mr.Frye and his group from the Oakes Association is going to probably hold them to a very high standard as they did us. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well,there is four churches between 1-75 and Logan Boulevard.There are four churches already. People like the churches there because of the hours of operation,usually Sunday and Wednesday.They're very provisional. You know,it's a perfect setting for that area. MR.ARNOLD: Churches can be good neighbors,there's no doubt about that. But a limited office project can and will be too. I think that--I don't know,I think in a conversation I had with Mr. Strain,you were pointing out that some of the churches have changed from their original operation and they do things differently and there's more music and there are more things that are associated with them that they have no limitations because you didn't really impose a lot of limitations on churches back in the day. So I think you're seeing a transition of some of those uses.This locks it into a PUD document and it's pretty tough to change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There is a church that this board reviewed back in the early 2000s,I believe,that went across one of the streets where Mr.Walker lives. And that has--it changed hands. I remember,I know the pastor that used to run that church,I know him personally,it changed to a new group. The new group is one of the more modernized churches with large activities,including bands. The noise generated from that church has become very disruptive to the neighborhood. I can assure you,because of that church,if any churches come forward in your neighborhoods,I think we--I will be suggesting strong standards put on them in regards to the way they now appear to be transitioning. It's kind of like mom and Page 11 of 36 9/3/2015 pop gas stations transitioning to RaceTracs. We now have issues with churches that I would never have expected before.Usually they were considered good neighbors.And with the kind of noise some of them are generating may not be as warranted in your neighborhood. So actually looking at this as a very restrictive conditional use or PUD with these office uses is more benign than I think a church would be. And also,some people may think that a transition from commercial to Estates is best accomplished with multi-family. I can assure you as an Estates resident we would probably strongly fight multi-family as more of an intrusion into our area than this particular use would be. At least those are my thoughts on it. MR.ARNOLD: I saw that reference in the staff report that we hadn't really considered multi-family. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank God you didn't. MR.ARNOLD: Pm sorry,but I think the reference to multi-family--one thing,I don't think I could deliver a single-story only product as a multi-family development on five acres. And two,you're not going to generate at low,low density enough density to entice any multi-family developer to put units there. So you'd be coming in at a substantially higher increase in intensity for residential zoning and probably having to put much,much more square footage on the site to make a multi-family development viable than you do for an office park. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have one quick question for Mr.Lenberger. I asked him yesterday-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you wait'til we get staff reports or do you want to do it-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: I just--just one real quick-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,Steve,come on up. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Steve. I just stopped by briefly yesterday with Steve and I asked him, because looking on the environmental thing all of this property is wetlands. And I didn't know what the deal was for the Estates and wetlands. Can you--did you get an answer? MR.LENBERGER: Yes,I did. Stephen Lenberger,Engineering and Natural Resources Department. Yes,I looked at the policies and the Conservation Coastal Management Element,and Policy 6.2.7 talks about the Estates designated area and the wetland. Permitting is deferred to the state agencies. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay,thank you. MR.LENBERGER: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,Steve. If there's no other questions,can we have staff report,Fred? MR.REISCHL: Thank you,Mr. Strain. Fred Reischl,Zoning Division. I've spoken to Mr.Arnold-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pardon me? MR. SCHMIDT: Excuse me,you've got the PUD after the Comp.Plan Amendment? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Corby,I'm running the meeting,not you. Fred,would you proceed with your staff report,please. Corby,please sit down. MR. SCHMIDT: Sure. MR.REISCHL: I've spoken to Mr.Arnold about the conditions that we have in the staff report and we've addressed them to some degree.The major one that I didn't know about'til this morning was the access and we support the revised access of one access point on Immokalee Road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On the reservation matter,did you talk with anybody about that? MR.REISCHL: Yes,I spoke to Trinity Scott and she said she had no issue with it. She's here,I don't want to speak for her,but I just spoke to her this morning and she said she had no issue with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I'm checking to see. I don't think I have any questions of staff. Does anybody on the Planning Commission have any questions of staff in regards to zoning staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,Corby? MR. SCHMIDT: Thank you,Mr.Chairman. I just thought we were going out of order and I'm glad Page 12 of 36 9/3/2015 I'm up here now,thank you. For the record,Corby Schmidt with your Comprehensive Planning Department. This morning I'll be speaking along with David Weeks,Comp,Plan Manager,and perhaps Mike Bosi,Zoning Section Director, We've heard a lot of discussion already from the applicant's agent about the details of a planned unit development and perhaps why you should find the Comprehensive Plan Amendment acceptable because of the details in the Comp.Plan Amendment. But I'm going to ask you instead to just keep your planning hats on for a moment and take off your zoning hats for a while. Because the two things are very different. When you think about the Comprehensive Plan,your Growth Management Plan,it tells you if you should do something. When you talk about zoning,it tells you how to do something. So let's focus on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment request and if it's supported by the documents represented. The FLUE and the Golden Gate Area Master Plan both direct commercial development to urban designated areas,mixed use activity centers and neighborhood centers. We've also heard from the agent about talking--and the details of that rural character. But the Golden Gate Area Master Plan describes what it means by that,and that is protecting the low density residential development. An objective and a policy in the Golden Gate Area Master Plan are clear about that. Based on the data and analysis submitted,it looks like there may be demand for commercial development in this area. However,nearby there's acreage available for that. It doesn't need to be at this mid-block location. This request extends that encroachment of nonresidential development and leapfrogs to a new location mid-block to provide this commercial use in what should be a transitional area from an already commercial area to the north and a residential area to the south. And those transitional uses are clearly identified in the Golden Gate Area Master Plan,and it does not include commercial uses. It doesn't include low intensity commercial uses.It doesn't include offices. It doesn't include office uses on a small scale inserted at a single isolated location that might be acceptable to neighbors because there are details about it that would be acceptable. The concept itself of inserting commercial development at this location cannot be supported by either the Golden Gate Area Master Plan or the FLUE. In the recent past,in 2011,you went through an Evaluation and Appraisal Report process and nothing at that time told staff or you that changes were necessary to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan to address these issues.These issues were valid issues then and they're valid issues now. The same things that were important then are important now. There is a restudy being done to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan in the early phases now. And we've--and until the time that that study is finished,staff feels that there's no compelling reason for you to do something other than what's already planned by the Golden Gate Area Master Plan at this location. We've been told from some of the public utility departments and others that there are no infrastructure concerns with this location;however,you do have vehicular access problems with this location worth noting. And you've heard something about those already. You may hear more about those from transportation staff. Keep in mind that if you approve this Comprehensive Plan Amendment for commercial uses at this non-commercial location,then it changes not just this property but many surrounding properties in the way the plan would address those. As this is supposed to be a transitional use,if it becomes commercial then neighboring properties to the south where they're already residential uses and residential lots,they become available for transitional uses. And then you begin to introduce the encroachment there,not intended by the plan. One last item. Keep in mind,if you approve this single isolated location for commercial development, it's akin to spot zoning. If you approve the PUD,it would be spot zoning. So the staff certainly recommends that you do not support this with a recommendation of approval. Now,a few other concerns. You've heard the agent refer to this stretch of road as urban area. Except for his client no one else describes it as urban area. He has talked about an inability or an unreasonableness for this property to be developed as it is Page 13 of 36 9/3/2015 planned to be developed.There's nothing unreasonable about that or the expectations of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. Mr.Weeks will be willing to show you and is prepared with illustrations,and you've seen in your staff report many other examples of residential single-family residential development backing up onto busy roads with even less distance between them and the road,and that seems to be reasonable to other developers,landowners and homeowners. I think you could extend that thought to these possible homeowners. I think the agent also referred to this commercial use as a transitional use in itself.I've already pointed out that the Golden Gate Area Master Plan clearly defines what those are,and this is not a transitional use. I believe he used the term that he had good access. He doesn't have good access.Good access with it developed as it's planned to be developed might be those homes with access onto the local street in the other direction. Here there's no good access onto Immokalee Road. There's a problem with the multiple accesses that were originally proposed,the single access location seems inconvenient,and we're dealing with a problem with traffic along this stretch of Immokalee Road that is already problematic. To clarify a few things for you,although you know you have a letter of non-opposition,not support from that Oakes neighborhood group,keep in mind that that entire letter begins with: Although we would prefer residential development at this location. Then they go on to explain that if they have to accept something else,then those details about hours of operation and access and buffering become acceptable. If you choose to recommend approval of this,staff has a recommendation that you strike some of the language from the proposed subdistrict language,because it is mis-directional and incorrect,and it would lead to other problems in dealing with the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and the FLUE. If you look at the bottom of the first full paragraph in your subdistrict language where it begins: This subdistrict will serve as a transitional use from. It doesn't do that,and you would not want subdistrict language to imply or state that it does. So if you're going to recommend approval of this,and we do not recommend that you do,but if you do,strike that sentence. Every other reader of the document will think commercial uses are transitional uses at every other location,and they are not. Transitional uses are clearly defined as something else other than this. So this sentence should be stricken. With that,I believe Mr.Weeks is available,Mike Bosi is available and others,to point out some of those locations where similar properties are developed residentially and answer other questions you may have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody have any questions of Corby? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't have any questions. Just a statement. I vehemently disagree with your conclusions. So thank you. Does anybody need--any other questions? (No response.) MR. SCHMIDT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David,did you have something you wanted to add to the discussion that Corby had? MR.WEEKS: I do,Commissioners. For the record,David Weeks of the Comprehensive Planning staff. Commissioners,I did make copies of aerials identifying the properties that were referenced in the staff report where there are single-family homes backing up to six-lane divided roadways. I don't know that you've--I sense that you're probably not interested in me spending the time doing that. I would like to put two exhibits up. The first is simply showing the subject site. And then the circles on the map identify the areas that 1 referenced in the staff report where they're single-family homes. Now,there's one here at Regent Park on Immokalee Road,roughly two miles west of this site. And then roughly two miles east of this site Pebblebrook within the Richland PUD. And then down on Pine Ridge Road just east of Goodlette Road,and then on the west side of Goodlette Road. In all cases these are Page 14 of 36 9/3/2015 six-lane roads with single-family homes backing up to the six-lane road. Commissioners,I acknowledge there are significant differences in all of those locations and the subject site. First of all,the fact that some of these single-family homes are within subdivisions that where the homes were built many years,in some cases decades before the road was widened. Nonetheless, somebody's living in those homes. I also acknowledge that some of these such as Regent Park and also Richland PUD,both on Immokalee Road,as is the subject site,those are part of a larger community with amenities.That's different than just living in your home.You're in a neighborhood and you have amenities,clubhouse,recreational facilities,et cetera. That's different than these two subject sites,clearly. Nonetheless,that has no impact in my mind on a person that has--on the impacts of living next to a six-lane divided roadway.Whether you have a clubhouse or not,your house is a matter of feet from that six-lane road,in particular with the case of Pebblebrook and the Regent Park developments. And these are all urban size lots. These aren't lots with a 300-foot dimension,as are the subject sites. These are lots with dimensions of typically in the neighborhood of 130 feet in depth. I'll just give one example. And this is the Pebblebrook development again,roughly two miles east of the subject site. Another thing I'd like to point out is that staff clearly acknowledges the obvious,there is commercial development across Immokalee Road from the subject site. I would point out to you,however,that that commercial development is not oriented towards Immokalee Road. There are not vehicles entering and exiting from Immokalee Road,there's not the traffic noise or lights or on-site activities on those commercial sites facing the subject site. All of those commercial developments are oriented to the north to I think it's called Executive Drive. And furthennore,I would note that most of the development there is office type development,which is low impact commercial development. The notable exception would be the convenient store with gas pumps,but that is slightly farther to the east of the subject site. Last thing I'll say regarding single-family homes,I would not want to live on these properties. And I'm going to guess that many or most of you would not as well.But is that the standard to apply,particularly when we consider that there are other locations,as I just mentioned,but there are also many locations within the Estates,including some that I mentioned in the staff report on Oil Well Road which is not six-laned at present,but there are lots that are narrower or shorter,excuse me,in depth than the subject site. They're also smaller in size,generally speaking 1.7 acres. But they--some of those are developed with single-family homes,all of those are restricted only to single-family homes,according to the Golden Gate Master Plan. Again,so I don't think the standard to apply is whether I or I respectfully submit you would want to live there or not,it's a matter of price point. Location,location,location,that's what the realtors tell us. Well, if it's a less desirable location,it will presumably be a lower price point to live at that location. I would also point out,moving on to other matters,the surrounding urban development that is to the west,to the north and to the east of this corridor of Golden Gate Estates is exactly as planned by the 1989 Comprehensive Plan.This isn't a surprise,at least not to staff,because those urban designated areas allow higher density,the activity center area was the area specifically identified as appropriate for commercial and mixed use development to occur. I'd also note that without exception since the plan was adopted in 1989,every single plan amendment to establish a commercial only development has been located at an intersection of streets. None have been located at a mid-block location. And now just some very specific points that were brought up during the discussion.Commissioners, just looking at the aerial,when the question was asked why is there no buffer for the church to the west of this site,and I can't factually answer that. But I would note to you that to the south of that church across Autumn Oaks Lane is not a single-family home.It is property zoned Estates,but it contains a nonconforming use,a legal nonconforming use,which simply means that that property is allowed to be redeveloped with another type of nonconforming use. It is not limited to single-family home development. Also,in regards to a comment about the county's lake. Again,I cannot factually tell you why the lake doesn't have a buffer there and why the preserve area is located where it is on that tract. I could only Page 15 of 36 9/3/2015 surmise that it may have been a function of the preservation requirements. Maybe that was the best habitat and so that's why its preserved up on Immokalee Road and not down on Autumn Oaks Lane. And secondly,is a lake that bad to look at? Is that something that needs to be buffered? Again,I can't factually respond,Commissioners,these are just some observations as I was sitting in the audience. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,David,I made the comment on the lake. And factually if I lived in a house south on Autumn Oaks and I had all the trees cleared so I can see straight through to Immokalee Road which is six lanes,I would not be a happy camper,so-- MR.WEEKS: All right. I would respectfully ask that you--because there was some discussion about medical offices--and again,staff has acknowledged,we agree with the applicant's needs analysis for this area,but there were some discussions specifically about medical office and I would just respectfully remind you that neither the plan amendment nor the PUD itself limits this site to development of medical office. So whatever uses are allowed is any of those or a combination of those could be developed on this site. Lastly is a last-minute item that is going to be new to you and staff just advised the applicant yesterday,and that is that there is a policy in the Golden Gate Area Master Plan that requires certain types of lighting within Golden Gate Estates. This is the policy here. And each time a zoning petition comes forward,be it a conditional use or a rezoning of some type,staff will ask that this policy be incorporated into the zoning approval document. Why would we do that if it's in the Golden Gate Master Plan already? The regulation already exists. Well,when a-- if we don't put it in the zoning document then when the Site Development Plan comes along,which is an administrative review process,that level of staff review is not going to include looking at the Comprehensive Plan or any element therein--well,specifically to the Golden Gate Master Plan,staff will not be looking at that to see if there's any policies or provisions that they need to check for. Just organizationally we don't do that. And so we ask that it be incorporated in the zoning document. As an alternative--and let me flip the page. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,before you do,while you're on that page,does the county use sodium vapor--low pressure sodium vapor halogen type lights for their--and cobra heads with flat bottoms on all the streets? Is that what we're using in the county? MR.WEEKS: I do not know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I mean,I just wonder if the county's inconsistent with this too. Because it says: Where required the street lamps shall be of high pressure sodium type and have a cobra head with flat bottom style or be fully shielded so the light is directed downward. I know we direct everything downward,but I'm wondering if we're doing that. If that's an issue that you've just raised,I certainly think the county should be abiding by it since it's a streetlight. Do you know if--maybe Trinity would know. She's looking it up and she'll let us know. MR.WEEKS: Okay. But I can tell you that if you look at the objective,it does refer to commercial development. And it also--let me be very clear,it also specifically refers to commercial development within neighborhood centers. This is not a neighborhood center.But staff has historically recommended the same type of lighting standard apply to other developments. So number one,you have the option of saying thank you for the recommendation,we'll disregard that. Another approach,if you think appropriate,would be to incorporate within the Comprehensive Plan Amendment,as has happened before,language that exempts this site from having to comply with those lighting standards.And-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But they're only recommendations,so if we don't insert the language and we don't institute the recommendation,it doesn't apply anyway,is that what you're saying? Since this is not a neighborhood center. MR.WEEKS: I would have to agree with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,thank you. MR. WEEKS: And that concludes my remarks,Commissioners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions? Page 16 of 36 9/3/2015 Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Just a comment.Every once in a while I drive down a road and I pass a real nice house in what I assume is an area where I would not have built a real nice house because it's right on a heavy duty road.And this is a very heavy traveled six-lane divided highway on one side and you have a two-lane road on the other side. You've got two front yards. And,you know,I couldn't picture building a nice house on a lot like that. It's just--and you don't sound all that convinced that you would want to put a nice house on a lot like that. So that's where I'm coming from. MR.WEEKS: And Commissioner,you've helped make my point. I would not want to.But I think someone else might. Just as I identified numerous other--that was not exhaustive,but there are other sites where somebody would choose to live there. It's a matter of price point. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah,they choose to live there. But how many of those people that chose to live—I remember every time the county goes to widen the road all the neighbors along the road show up and they want the road not to be widened or to be moved away from them. I've seen those arguments every time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,thank you. Wayne,you want an opportunity to rebut? MR.ARNOLD: Yes. For the record,Wayne Arnold. Mr.Weeks just brought up-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,before you do,I think we need--make sure public speakers-- MR.ARNOLD: I'm happy to cede to any public speakers. But this was related to the lighting comment that Mr.Weeks just made. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR.ARNOLD: I was going to interject. I meant to mention that as part of my presentation. I too don't agree that the policy directly applies. But one of the options that David had expressed in the email that he sent to me yesterday was to ask for an exception from meeting those policy and objectives of lighting. So I crafted some language to add to this subdistrict that would not require us to do it,because I don't know that much about lighting but I don't think what's being referenced in the Golden Gate Master Plan represents the latest technological advances in lighting design. So I offered and will offer some language that would exempt us from those but then still require us to have some shielded lighting with some Iimited heights as we go closer to Oakes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well,yeah,because at the NIM meeting that was one of the reasons, the wall,the lighting. They talked about lighting. They wanted the lower lighting. MR.ARNOLD: Well,if the Chair would indulge me,I'll read the sentence that I drafted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MR.ARNOLD: And it says: This project is exempt from the lighting requirements listed in Objective 5.1,in Policy 5,1.1 of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. Lighting standards will be required at the time of Site Development Plan approval and shall demonstrate that fixture heights for areas located south of the proposed buildings shall be limited to 15 feet in height and shall be shielded to protect neighboring residential properties from direct glare. And that can be tweaked. But I think that was representing hopefully A gesture to our neighborhoods that we're trying to demonstrate that obviously we're going to have lighting but the standards that are part of this master plan element I don't think allow you to meet current technological advances. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I think to limit your request or your change to parking lot lighting will not exceed 15 feet height on the south side of the building or any—does that say any lighting that is visible potentially from the south side? MR.ARNOLD: No,it just says south of the buildings. I'm happy to-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But if you put it on the side and it still can be--it's still not going to be blocked by the building. So if it's directly in front of the building,that's one thing. If it's not directly in Page 17 of 36 9/3/2015 front of the building,we have a different issue. MR.ARNOLD: I'll tell you what,any of our parking lot lighting would be limited to a maximum 15 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And shielded. MR.ARNOLD: And shielded. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well,I'd rather--and I'll defer to the board too. I'd rather not open the issue that you need an exception from the policy,because then it's acknowledging that the policy applies. And I don't think it applies. So why even go there? Because if the policy does apply,then I think the county may have concerns it may have to address in the way it's put its lighting up. So I don't even think we need to go there at this point unless somebody wants to. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I knew from the NIM meeting--from the NIM meeting I know that people were concerned about lighting. MR.ARNOLD: Well,to address Mr. Strain's comment,I guess we would reference--delete the exemption reference in the first sentence and then the second sentence that I wrote that talked about the standards,I would strike the language that talked about areas south of the building and simply say that all parking lot Iighting would be limited to 15 feet in height and shielded to protect neighboring properties. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. That works. Okay,anybody else have any questions at this time before we go to public speakers? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Can I ask something from Trinity? I consider Immokalee Road a freeway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,they don't charge you to go on it. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I wish they would. Trinity,I live on Immokalee Road,and in the morning going towards I-75 westbound,and this is in--not in season,the cars,because they want to go north on I-75,are always backed up past the Mobil Station and at times to Logan Boulevard. Yesterday coming home going eastbound,p.m.hours,it was backed up from Logan past Valewood. I think--I mean,something has got to break here on Immokalee Road pretty soon.We have to be doing something or changing something,because this isn't even season and it's very--it really is,Pin hearing a lot of complaints about that. MS. SCOTT: We're going to be having some conversations in the coming weeks about the AUIR. We're anticipating that the roadway is operating at a level of service D. We're anticipating that it's going to fail by 2024,AND so we're certainly looking at opportunities,Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension is one of those opportunities,to be able to have another corridor for the folks who are out east who are coming into the more urban area. So we're looking at other alternatives within the area. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. And what they're changing is in the transportation portion of this with just the one exit out.That satisfies transportation? MS. SCOTT: With regard to--yes,we're asking for the westerly access point to be removed and only retain the easterly access point. And we are currently working on the language with regard to the reservation. And I had a side bar conversation with Mr.Arnold that one of my concerns is that if there would happen to be a bus stop,there's now a bus route along Immokalee Road that if the bus stop has to be--if there's a bus stop that winds up in front of this space,they would need a boarding and a lighting area,which is a five-foot by eight-foot section. So it would have to bump out a little bit beyond the sidewalk. So I didn't see transit incorporated into that,so right now I'm working with Heidi to try to tweak that language to make sure that all the items are taken care into consideration. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'm sure if this is doctors and dentists office and that type of medical, that it wouldn't be just people from Naples,I think they'd be coming down from Bonita Beach Road,we would be getting people from South Lee County too? MS. SCOTT: Eventually,yes. That would be my guess. They would know their market then. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Thank you. Page 18 of 36 9/3/2015 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,with that we'll go to-- MS. SCOTT: And Chairman Strain,I'm working on the lighting question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. MS. SCOTT: I'll get with you after. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah,I can talk to you another time about that. Thank you. Public speakers. Ray,do we have any public speakers registered? MR.BELLOWS: No one has registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody from the public wish to speak on this item? Carl,and then Gary. Carl,I don't believe you were here to be sworn in,so would you mind with the court reporter? (Karl Fry was duly sworn.) MR.FRY: Chairman Strain,members of the Planning Commission,thank you for letting me speak. First of all,a comment. As a resident,I'm the president of the Oakes Estates Neighborhood Association,and we've been around for about 20 years to try to protect the interests of our neighborhood and ensure some cohesiveness to the development of the properties within our borders. I would like to comment that when I first took over as president 12 years ago,and this is my third stint as president,I was told that there was no way that we could possibly strike a partnership with the county and that development would steamroll,traffic would steamroll over our neighborhood. And I found that to be absolutely not the truth. So I'm actually very pleased at the level of interest,the level of detail that you are investigating on this matter,which is one small area in a gigantic county. I will say that in dealing with the developers,it was an aboveboard negotiation.And with that,I will say I feel like there's a bigger question here which is,you know,we are residential. And I'm putting myself--and Commissioner Ebert,I know you live in the area. I live one street south of Autumn Oaks,so this does not affect me directly. We had dialogues with several of the residents on Autumn Oaks,and I'm trying to put myself in their position. And I believe the bigger question here is if not this,you know,what do we end up getting down the road on this property and the other two parcels that are undeveloped on our road? I can tell you that the residents on Autumn Oaks certainly do not want to look at the back of an office complex. They would much prefer to see another home with a driveway off of Autumn Oaks,naturally many trees retained and just the consistency and the character of our neighborhood. I believe we negotiated with the developer based on an assumption. The assumption was that the pressure to create commercial uses for Immokalee,there was a need first of all,and second,that these properties may not be that attractive to people to build homes. I believe nobody has built a home along that section of Autumn Oaks on the north side in many years. I don't know the extent to which somebody will step forward to do that. But certainly we are interested in preserving the character of the neighborhood,and if it is a nonresidential use,then to protect our Autumn Oaks residents specifically as much as possible from the traffic,the noise,potential crime,you know,just all the things that come with the commercialization. So my question is,if not this application,this use of the property,you know,what would we end up with? Mr. Schmidt talked about the transitional uses that are clearly defined. I guess as a normal resident out there I'm not sure what those include. Is that churches,fire stations and things like that? Mr. Strain,you mentioned absolutely accurately the church that is on Hidden Oaks,at the end of the street I live on,has widened their activities,their hours of operation,the number of people accessing and exiting the property to such an extent that it has become quite a disruption for the neighbors across the street. And it's a little tiny end of a spine--a small road in our community. So the church has grown to be detrimental to the lifestyle of the residents,whereas in the past it never happened and churches were indeed good neighbors. So I guess if a church were to come along and want to occupy this space,I believe it's probably not possible,based on what Mr.Schmidt said,or what Mr.Arnold said,that there's no other transitional use that Page 19 of 36 9/3/2015 could even be applied here;is that correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,anybody can ask for anything. So they're asking for the commercial uses. Someone could still come in and do the same process,ask to change the master plan and then come back in and do a rezone to a church or some other use if they were able to successfully change the master plan for that use. And a lot of times transitional uses between residential and commercial are stepped.Meaning if you got low density residential sometimes you don't go straight to commercial,you go to a multi-family and then you blend into a commercial. So you've got a series of patterns before you get one alongside the other. But the concern,the issues that's happened here is with your input on what would be non-objectionable to the neighborhood as far as buffers and uses,you've got a pretty benign use,it would seem, compared to what maybe a multi-family would be or a higher density in those lots for single-family use than what we normally have as Estates. MR.FRY: True. So let me end my comments by saying this: I think that we operate under the assumption that this,if negotiated in good faith,and it was,might be the most benign use of that property that we could hope for as a neighborhood. It sounds like it is not consistent with the Golden Gate Area Master Plan in terms of it being commercial and mid-block. You have some concerns about traffic. I would just ask that you weigh all those things and that you help us as a resident,and you're a resident somewhere as well, protect the character of our neighborhood. If this is a positive outcome for our neighborhood and it might be worse otherwise,then these gentlemen negotiated in good faith,I would say,you know,we have 45 feet of trees that the residents will have between this and the back of a decent size commercial development. That's not a lot. Would we prefer something smaller,less square footage on that property? Absolutely. But we always try to balance the interest of the property owners,the county's greater needs and our residents. And so we just hope that you will be judicious in evaluating this and help us accomplish that objective. I wanted to ask,I also came up partly as a resident in the neighborhood,if anybody had any specific questions regarding the neighborhood and the association,how we handled it,what our thoughts were. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. And I remember when we met a while back,you and Bob and I and a few others,I strongly suggested to you guys to monitor or even get involved in the Growth Management Plan restudy that's going on. It's starting out with the rural fringe mixed use district,then it's going to be the Estates. And there was just a notification in the paper looking for people in the community to participate in a committee to kind of involve themselves with that process. And I encourage you guys to maybe from your neighborhood sign someone up since you're one of the more impacted neighborhoods. I hope that someone from your neighborhood has applied for that committee. If not,you might want to contact staff. It's the Growth Management Plan Advisory Committee,I think it's called. Chris VanLengen is part of it. But you might want to get your name in and try to get on that,because that would be helpful to get your input. MR.FRY: Thank you for the heads up. I missed that. But we absolutely,you know,would like to be involved in that process.Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thanks,Karl. Any--Garrett,I think you were next? Garrett,were you sworn in when we asked speakers to rise? MR.BEYRENT: No,I wasn't. (Mr.Garrett Beyrent was duly sworn.) MR.BEYRENT: For the record,I'm Garrett Beyrent. My address used to be 506 Autumn Oaks Lane. I lived there for three years and I never needed an alarm clock. That's because I woke up to what I refer to as the Immokalee river,which is the traffic on Immokalee Road.It was just so loud I couldn't sleep with my slider open. While I was living there,the church--and I'm assuming this is the same church.There's two churches on Autumn Oaks Lane;there's a little teeny Baptist church that's been there for eternity,and another church.The other church is directly across from my driveway entrance. And I got a notice that they were Page 20 of 36 9/3/2015 expanding the church to the extent that they were building a day care open air recreation place for children, right? And ails I could think of was now I'm going to wake up to the Immokalee Road river and the kids screaming in the yard. So to make a very long story short,as Commissioner Strain so aptly put it in the beginning of this meeting,churches should be scrutinized just like any commercial use should. Because they can do darn near anything they really want to do once they're there. And as far as this project goes,that is definitely the highest and best use that property could ever have,because the church has really established the use of that entire stretch of Immokalee Road all the way down forever,you know. And that's basically the--the use is office complex is the--if I was living back there again,I'd much rather have those guys there than any other use,including single-family residential. So that's--and I think Commissioner Strain should definitely look into what's promulgated by churches anymore,because they'll be popping up all over the place out in Golden Gate Estates and you'll have the same problem you've got here today.And I don't live there anymore,so I shouldn't even be complaining,should I? Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Is there any other member of the public like to speak? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,Mike,are you standing there for a reason? MR.BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So are you going to repeat what Corby and David have talked about? MR.BOST: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean,it would be unusual to have so many comprehensive planning issues on one Small-Scale Plan Amendment,but go right ahead. MR.BOSI: Mike Bosi,Director of Planning and Zoning. And I just--I wanted just to come up here and provide a context for the Comprehensive Planning statement,our presentation and our recommendation that was contained within the staff report. Many times like-minded professionals can see things in a different way and we've come up with a recommendation that was different than the applicant. I think that's a normal process, And I just wanted to say the basis and the context of where comprehensive planning staff have found their recommendation sits within the mid-block location of commercial--the commercial proposed land use. We normally don't get into the Growth Management Plan goals,objectives and the policies contained with--at the Planning Commission, One of the things,and I'll put it on your visualizer,is at the very beginning of our Growth Management Plan,we have a title--and it's the overview of what the Future Land Use Element provides for. And the Future Land Use Element is how we allocate land uses within the county. You have an overview,you have a purpose.You go down,there's a B,it's the basis. You go down and you have underlying concepts.Underlying concepts are the highest guiding principles that our Growth Management Plan,our Future Land Use Element is based upon to allocate our land uses. And within those underlying concepts there's a component that talks about attainment of high quality urban design. And if you see underneath where it says 22 in Roman numerals,it says: Major attention is given to patterns of commercial development in Collier County. And if you look underneath, it talks about--the next paragraph talks about control policies adopted by resolution and the access management plans for mixed use activity centers included in the land development regulations. One of the things you heard our transportation staff say and one of the reasons why our recommendation from zoning was for modification of that western access point was that western access point was not in alignment with our access management control policy. And then finally the paragraph concludes,it says: The mixed use activity centers are intended to provide for concentrated commercial and mixed use development but with careful consideration,configured access to the road network,superior urban design is therefore promoted by carefully managing road access, Page 21 of 36 9/3/2015 avoiding strip commercial development,improving overall circulation patterns and providing for community focal points. That's the long and short of it. We recognized that there was a need for additional office space in this Iocation. We just said based upon the guidance of the Future Land Use Element we felt that a recommendation of denial was appropriate based upon this guiding principle. We look at things from a comprehensive planning--from the guidance of the comprehensive plan from Future Land Use Element. The Planning Commission takes in a number of different considerations in aspects--when factoring a decision. So when we ask can--we ask can we make this recommendation strictly from the basis of the Future Land Use Element,and that's where we arrived upon. And my planners are passionate,Corby's passionate about his job,and I think sometimes that passion was--did not allow for the articulation of the establishment of why we--specifically of that overriding principle. And that's simply--I just wanted to provide a little context to that. And I appreciate the Planning Commission providing me the opportunity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. Mike,I just want to say that Comprehensive Planning I kind of listen to them,only because they don't always deny everything. They're looking at it through the Golden Gate Estates and they normally do go through and approve everything.I know a couple on Collier Boulevard, south by Hacienda where they did not recommend and somebody did something and right away the next property came up and right away they wanted to go right to a C-5 just because it was done next door. So I understand comprehensive planning's looks on this too. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Andy? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well,I was just going to say as a new board member that I appreciated your explanation of the context in which the Comprehensive Planning staff looks at things. So thank you for that,that was very helpful. MR.BOSI: You're welcome. And that was the only reason I really wanted to speak,because we had provided more than adequate representation of our position. I just wanted to give a little bit of a context. And I appreciate it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Didn't your position change on this project? MR.BOSI: The position--originally the staff recommendation at the beginning of the staff report was a recommendation of approval.Corby arrived upon the recommendation of approval based upon the market study suggesting that there was a need for additional office space through the review process,as typically David pointed out to the higher principles of the Future Land Use Element. And based upon that, the recommendation was as you indicated,Chair,a change from a recommendation of approval to a recommendation of denial. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR.BOSI: Thank you. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: But one of the things in the staff report is that denial unless certain provisions are incorporated. And as we've gone through the hearing today,it appears that many if not all of those provisions have been incorporated. MR.BOSI: That was the recommendation from Mr.Reischl. And my zoning staff had said that it was a recommendation--the PUD was recommended for denial unless the access points were reduced and a couple other additions of compatibility were going to be included within the PUD,and therefore that position I believe has changed from our zoning staff with the guidance of the CCPC in addition to those conditions being imposed in the PUD. MR.BELLOWS: And if I may--Ray Bellows for the record. Our recommendation would be only for approval if the Comp.Plan Amendment is approved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Cherie',you're okay? Maybe we can finish this one before we break? Okay. Wayne,you're welcome for a time for rebuttal if you so desire. MR.ARNOLD: Just a few comments to address what you've heard. Again the site,in my opinion,inappropriate for two single-family homes. I don't believe that a Page 22 of 36 9/3/2015 multi-family residential use would be the appropriate transition to the low density residential of the Estates. Your Comprehensive Plan is flawed. It allows nothing but single-family homes to be constructed on this property. That's inappropriate. That's bad planning. I appreciate Mr.Weeks and Mr.Bosi's comments about mid-block locations. I have no other option. The county took the corner parcel for right-of-way taking. The county took the other parcel down at Logan Boulevard for right-of-way taking. And I can tell you from somebody who represents a lot of developers,the corner locations for commercial development are not the ideal location they once were because of your access management spacing criteria that forces projects to have 660-foot spacing or 1,320-foot quarter mile spacing. The corner parcels don't get the premium access. They may get visibility but they don't get the premium access that one used to rely on. And I can tell you this is not the appropriate location for single-family homes.I'm not concerned about a mid-block location for this. Why aren't we concerned about a mid-block location for a church? Why? I don't know. rm less impactive than a church can be. So I'm not concerned about the mid-block location. I don't think this sets a precedent for anything,and I don't think you need to look two years down the road at your Golden Gate Master Plan to decide that this tier property in the Golden Gates is not appropriate for single-family homes. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,Wayne. Does anybody have any questions of anybody before we go into discussion? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I have one question.I have one question for Wayne,just to make sure that rm on the right document. Could you show the proposed PUD document,specifically Exhibit F,the developer commitments? And rm looking at paragraph C. MR.ARNOLD: Let me find it. I was using it on the visualizer,so let me locate my notes. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I just want to make sure I'm on the right document. The current copy that I'm using I got emailed,so I want to make sure it's the same one. MR.ARNOLD: Tell me what exhibit-- COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Exhibit F. MR.ARNOLD: Developer commitments? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Yes. MR.ARNOLD: Okay,I'm sorry. One moment. I apologize. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Oh,no problem. MR.ARNOLD: Is this regarding one of the revisions? Okay. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: With the revisions,yeah. MR.ARNOLD: One second. I don't know what I did with my language.Bear with me. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I thought it was going to be real easy. rm sorry,Wayne. MR.ARNOLD: It should have been. I don't know what I did with my notes. I had them in front of me a moment ago. Let's see if this has it. You said paragraph F? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Exhibit F,yes,the list of developer commitments. MR.ARNOLD: I apologize,let me go back to my--did I leave any paperwork down there? MR.REISCHL: No. MR.ARNOLD: rm sorry,which one was it?Maybe that will help me. I have several sheets that have different ones on them. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Yeah,that's--I wanted to make sure we're all talking--at least rm on the same sheet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What are we doing?There's a lot of dead silence here and I'd like to get--either we take a break-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Seven of eight. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we take a break and come back in--now you're making it real Page 23 of 36 9/3/2015 hard. Let's come back at 10:50 and resume the meeting and then we'll have our sidewalk discussion right after we finish up with this one,for Michelle Arnold's benefit,who is watching. So 10:50 we'll return. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,everybody,would you please take your seats. We need to resume the meeting. I think the hardest part today is to see if Wayne can fmd his paperwork. MR.ARNOLD: Well,just-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now that your wife's here watching you,let's hope you can. MR.ARNOLD: I know there was a lot of dead air time,and I apologize for that,but as it turns out the County Attorney's Office had borrowed that portion of my presentation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got to watch them,they do that a lot. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Blame it on staff. MR.ARNOLD: But I did speak with Ms.Roman. Her comment is not related to the one that Heidi's marked up that's not on your visualizer,but we can go back to the visualizer. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: I'll read it in when we're ready. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Okay,but I think we're straight now too. You found the right copy anyway. MR.ARNOLD: Found the right copy. And Ms.Roman's comment was on the landscaping section that appears on your existing PUD document. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Can you slide it down just a little bit. Yeah. And I just wanted to look at this to make sure I was on the right copy. Yeah,slide it--yeah,the other way or zoom out. To make sure that everything was incorporated,that I had the right copy of the revised PUD changes. And then Wayne has already added that bald cypress comment that I mentioned during the hearing earlier. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that was the-- COMMISSIONER ROMAN: We're good,yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Took a bit to get there,but I think we finally worked-- COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Yeah,I didn't think it was going to be that difficult. I'm sorry there, Wayne and Heidi. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wayne,and there is one question I had. And while I disagree with a lot of the positions I heard from Comprehensive Planning,there is one item that I want to make sure you don't have an objection to,because I believe it is warranted. It's the striking of that one sentence in the subdistrict text. Did you have a problem with that? MR.ARNOLD: Well,my only comment is that the language applies only to this subdistrict,it doesn't apply to any other. But we're talking about removal of the sentence that says: This subdistrict will serve as a transitional use from the general commercial uses found on the north side of Immokalee Road,the six-lane Immokalee Road arterial roadway to the low density large lot estates residential area south of the subdistrict. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You don't even need it.It's one of those fluffy statements that work their way-- MR.ARNOLD: We'll delete it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --into government too many times and then it could be misperceived. So from that particular point I would have to agree with Corby's position on that and we'll consider that, if the vote goes that way,to be struck from the GMP application. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Does Heidi agree with that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Heidi? I don't know,did you have something-- MS.ASHTON-CICKO: That's fine with me.Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I think,Wayne,you had concluded your rebuttal? MR.ARNOLD: I had,thank you. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: You need to zoom out so we can take that all in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Heidi,did you have any comments that you wanted to tell us about? Page 24 of 36 9/3/2015 MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Well,since we weren't provided a copy of any of the language I tried to edit it there but I had too many edits,so I'll just read in slowly the proposed language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We don't want to make this an exhibit then,do we? MS.ASHTON-CICKO: No. Would you like me to read it now? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Please do,that would be great. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: The owner or its successors or assigns shall construct a right ingress turn lane at the site's access points on Immokalee Road which may be placed in the county right-of-way if a right-of-way permit is obtained. The turn lane and all other improvements will be designed and constructed pursuant to county standards. if the county needs additional right-of-way now or in the future to accommodate any future turn lane,curbing,traffic signs,streetlights,stop signs,sidewalk,drainage and utility improvements determined needed by the county, including slope and clear zones,owner,its successors an assigns will convey to county road right-of-way up to the width and size of the county right-of-way used by owner for its right ingress turn lane. I'm reading it slowly so everyone can follow,since you don't have it in writing. Owner,its successors and assigns,will convey the road right-of-way to the county at no cost to the county within 60 days of county's written request,free and clear of all liens and encumbrances. County may make more than one request for right-of-way and owner shall convey the requested right-of-way to compensate for owner's use of the county's right-of-way. Owner or its successors and assigns shall have the option of constructing a retaining wall subject to the county's approval of the design and placement on owner's property outside of the existing road right-of-way with handrails to reduce the size of the right-of-way needed by the county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's quite a mouthful.But thank you,that was very slowly read and detailed. I appreciate it. Wayne,did you hear anything there that is problematic? MR.ARNOLD: The only thing that stuck out to me was that we would have to convey for the full width of the turn lane improvements. And it was my assumption with some of the language we had drafted that it was for the difference any of the additional right-of-way that would be required for our turn lanes and improvements. Because I don't think the county has any intentions of expanding that road beyond the six lanes. So I thought that was sort of the compromise here with the county. And maybe I misunderstood from some of the conversations with Mr.Banks. But it was for--we think there's about 15 feet of right-of-way there available for constructing a turn lane. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But you're constructing a turn lane for your project on county property,right? MR.ARNOLD: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So in lieu of putting the turn lane on your property,we're suggesting that if you take that distance of the county's property up in right-of-way,whatever that distance is you compensate for it is if we need it on your property. Isn't that the intention? MS.ASHTON-CICKO: That's correct. And then they indicated that they could build a retaining wall if they want to reduce it. So if they do a retaining wall it perhaps could reduce the 15 feet in width,if that's what it turns out to be. MR.ARNOLD: Well,my only concern with that is the additional 12 or 15 feet potentially impacts the development of our site. And maybe that's just consistent with the county's normal standard,but it was my understanding that we would try to craft the language so that--thinking that the county probably doesn't need the compensating right-of-way that it would be written as,you know,if the county needs the compensating right-of-way we would provide that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it was as needed. Didn't you indicate that language? MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought she said as needed. I'm sorry,go ahead,Andy. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No,and I understand what Mr.Arnold's saying,but it sounded to me Page 25 of 36 9/3/2015 like the owner had to convey the width of the turn lane that would be built,regardless of whether or not that whole distance was needed. MS.ASHTON-CICKO; No,it's the width of the right-of-way that they're using. So if they're using our county road right-of-way,then it would be up to that width and size of the turn lane that they're using. So if it's 200 by 15,then the county could get up to 200 by 15,assuming that's what they could fit that,you know,whatever it is they're actually using. And that would be established through the right-of-way permit,I would think. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right,but I guess--maybe I'm confused,but I thought the whole issue of the retaining wall was to reduce the amount of property required for that turn lane if they built it on their own property. So they wouldn't need to convey the full amount of the property that they're using in the right-of-way. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah,I mean,I did the best to rewrite it. You know,neither Trinity nor I were consulted with this language prior to this meeting,so I did the best to rewrite what I thought the intent was and what was fair and protects the county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think the point is this right-of-way isn't supposed to be utilized unless and if it's needed by the county. And I think that's the language that maybe needs to be strengthened in your--the way you wrote that. Is that what you were-- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right. Just to the extent that the county needs the right-of-way,then the owner will convey whatever is needed to construct their turn lane on their own--on their own property, right? MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Often,you know,you use 15 feet,you convey 15. That's how it used to be in the old days. So they're trying to say you don't really need all that. And Trinity and 1 are trying to work with them on that,based on the language that they proposed. I mean,we could indicate that if they used a gravity wall that's acceptable to the county,then that can reduce it to less than whatever the compensating-- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah. I mean,that was kind of the intent. Bud what they actually wrote regarding the gravity wall was unclear as to whose property it would be on and who would be able to review and approve it. I can try to tweak that fmal issue with Trinity after the meeting. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: That's what--Wayne,that's what you're referring to,right? MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah,I think that would be fair. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think if ifs clear that that taking would only happen if and when it's needed by the county,that's the clarity that doesn't come across in the way you read it maybe as crystal clear as it should be. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah. And I tried at the end to say to reduce the size of the right-of-way needed by the county. But we can tweak that a little bit about if that makes you more comfortable. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Heidi,I have one quick question. I remember Trinity mentioning a bus stop? MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Correct. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Because now they do have a bus on Immokalee Road finally. Is there something special that needs to be done there? MS.ASHTON-CICKO: No. Because we said if the county needs additional right-of-way now or in the future for--I put--I mean,ifs got a whole list,but a transit stop is included in that list. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Very good,thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR.ARNOLD: I think we're okay with that with some tweaking. And if one of our representatives like Jim Banks could be involved in some of the discussions between Heidi and transportation staff for final wording,that would be appreciated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I think the gist of what the board's concerns are have been transmitted to you all,so I feel confident.Based on the draft that you just read,some additional tweaking,we'll get there. Page 26 of 36 9/3/2015 With that,is that all that you have,Wayne,at this point? MR.ARNOLD: Yes,sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,with that,if there's no other questions of anybody from this board, • we'll close the public hearing and have either a motion or discussion. As far as we have to vote separately on both items and one is the comp.planning and of course then the other will be the PUD. And with that I'll ask for this board's either discussion or position on PL20140002143/CPSS-2014-4. That's the Small-Scale Plan Amendment. One of the issues that the applicant has agreed to do is strike that sentence that was referred to by Corby in his presentation. I don't know if this board saw anything else necessary for that element. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Does the lighting-- MR.ARNOLD: We added lighting. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: --go in this? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: You need to use the mic. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: The lighting? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wouldn't that go in the PUD? MR.ARNOLD: The lighting reference was in the GMP. I mean,it could be moved if we agreed that the policy wasn't necessary,we could move the lighting language to the PUD document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would—under that other category you had I thought we would just stipulate there that no lighting will exceed 15 feet in height and it will be directed--I mean shielded. That way it's not--it's part of the-- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: In the PUD,not in the-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the PUD,yeah. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Striking that one sentence. MR.ARNOLD: I'm fine with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the only note I made. Unless you all have something else. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Pll make a motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that one sentence struck? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Karen,second by Andy. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor,signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN S'T'RAIN: Motion carries 6-0. ***The next item is the PUD. It's PUDZ-PL20140002077. And I made some notes on that one. I'll walk everybody through them so we're clear and there can be a decision on how you want to vote on it. There's 11 items that we asked that did get changed in the document that was presented to us and that was: The access to Immokalee Road to one access point. The compensating right-of-way reservation,which we just spoke about. No greater than two buildings at 20,000 square feet each. Page 27 of 36 9/3/2015 There will be single-story with galvalume roofs or tile,no asphalt shingles. Restaurants and retail are prohibited. Hours of operations limited to 6:00 a.m.to 10:00 p.m. The water management area in the rear will be 24-foot minimum with the bald cypress language added to the landscaping section. The decorative wall will be six feet height above parking lot grade and staggered along the south and east sides. The setback from Autumn Oaks on the table will be changed to 69 feet. The footnotes to the table that indicate two-story will be struck for the footnote. And clarification deviation number two as to where it applies in east or west. Now,those are the things that they've already modified or changed in the language in some of the PUD we saw today. We had four additional items we discussed.First one was: The changes as noted to D.1,which is the reservation area which we just discussed with the County Attorney,we've heard the draft,that will be modified slightly. But that's the gist of the draft and the direction from this board was to make sure it was on an as if needed basis. Number two: Add a note about the 12-foot height bald cypress to supplement the water management area. That was done by Charlette's last question. Number three: Delete the sentence referred to by--we already did that one. Number four: Parking lot lighting will not exceed 15 feet in height and will be shielded. Those are the several things we discussed above and beyond the applicant's presentation and changes they made earlier today. Does anybody else have-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: I had— COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: But I had a question,Mr.Chair. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: You did make a table correction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I said that. That was already--I'm sorry. Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I make a motion to approve with the changes that you just read. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Changes. And I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,motion made and seconded. All in favor,signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries unanimously,6-0. MR.ARNOLD: Thank you all for your indulgence. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much,and we appreciate your time today and especially your work with the community to get to where you actually had a product that I think is real good for the neighborhood. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No consent? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Unless we request a consent,there isn't supposed to be one. I think Page 28 of 36 9/3/2015 everything is clear enough. Most of the changes are already made by—we saw in the document. Does anybody have a need for a consent? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No. Just wanted to make sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I appreciate that,Karen. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Heidi thinks we should say so every time,right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Either way is okay. I just wanted— MS.ASHTON-CICKO: That's up to your discretion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ***Okay,and that will bring us to our next item on the agenda,which is Wayne's better half. Michelle Arnold. MS.ARNOLD: What's so funny? It's the truth. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He's in trouble,huh? COMMISSIONER EBERT: He's just trying to eliminate one sidewalk on one side and--yeah,that's the problem. MS.ARNOLD: Exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He's your biggest challenge,Michelle. Okay,thank you for coming back to accommodate us. And again,I apologize we couldn't fit you in the previous day. It became an overwhelming day for a number of reasons. MS.ARNOLD: How do I make this full screen? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Don't tell me you lost paperwork too. MS.ARNOLD: I'm trying to figure out how to make it a slide show. CHAIRMAN S TRAIN: Is it power point? MS.ARNOLD: I don't see it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See where it says slide show up on the fourth one. Right there,hit slide show. Then go to the left,all the way to the left from the beginning. Hit that.There you go. MS.ARNOLD: Thank you. Okay,thank you for allowing me to come back. And I couldn't stay at that last meeting because I was taking my baby to the university,so I'm still recovering. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Honestly,that's one of the hardest things-- MS.ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --there is to do is to see your child off to college. MS.ARNOLD: Well,and I appreciate that you all took the time to hear all of the speakers,because I did listen in to what I could listen in to,and they had made some very good points. And I want to use this as an opportunity to just kind of give you a little bit of information about public transit. And then I'll give you my recommendation. The purpose of our system is to build aided mobility,reduce congestion,spark economic activities or economic development.And we do that with the utilization of two planning documents: One is our transit development plan,and that's primarily focused on the fixed route system. It's a five-year document. We update it annually. It looks at our current operations,it looks at objectives and goals. And it has performance standards in it,how we evaluate ourselves against other industries or other agencies within our peer group. We also utilize the public transportation disadvantaged plan,which is primarily for our paratransit system. It's our door-to-door system that picks up those that are transportation disadvantaged,primarily in areas that we don't have our fixed route system in operation. We,Collier Area Transit,is operated under my department which is a public transit and neighborhood enhancement department. And we provide service to pretty much all of Collier County. But our fixed route system is limited to mostly the urbanized area and we do provide service in Immokalee as well. We don't currently provide service in the Everglades City area for fixed route,but they are interested in that type of service. Our fixed route operation has 18 transit routes. We've got one express route which goes between Immokalee and the Marco Island area.We have 23 vehicles on that service,45 employees,and we provide over a million trips annually. We also have our paratransit system,which as I mentioned before,door-to-door system that has 23 Page 29 of 36 9/3/2015 vehicles,22 employees,and we provide about 87,000 trips annually. I'll give you a little bit more information about that system as well later on in the presentation. But some of the things that we have are bigger buses which provide fixed route service are all ADA equipped. So what that means is if you have a wheelchair we've got actually ramps that lower for access to the buses. We have areas within the bus where the wheelchairs could be strapped. But we have other things within the system that provide for other disabilities as well. We have our shelters that we are trying to construct more of throughout the areas,but this is an example of one of our older shelters. We are improving the shelters so that they have sides on them so that they protect the customers or our passengers more from the elements. We also have two transfer stations. The main one is on campus here,and it's incorporated into the parking garage. There's a schematic of it. And it's fairly new,it's about a couple years old now. And if you haven't had an opportunity to go over and see it,please take some time to walk over there.We have two waiting areas,one external,one internal air conditioned area. We have customer service over there. We have an ATM machine,snack vending machine. The customer service provides information about routes when they're coming,when they're running a little bit behind. We also have incorporated ITS information transportation system so that people like you're in the airport can monitor the activity of the buses and when they're scheduled to come,when they're running a little bit late and that type of thing. The second transfer station is at our operations facility on Radio Road. That is pictured in the lower right-hand corner. And that facility is limited--has limited transfers,mostly those that are providing transfers out in the eastern part of the county and they're connecting with other routes that are providing service within the coastal part of the county. And that location we also have as our base operation where we have all of our storage of our buses and that type of thing. And we do have customer service there. Right now we're going through a little bit of construction,so it's a little bit of a mess. But we're looking forward to having that first phase of our construction almost complete in the next couple of months,and then we're going to go into the next phase, which will be to build a canopy for the transfer activity that's going on out there. About the paratransit program. We have two programs that are in that system. ADA,which is Americans with Disabilities,and what that is,is it's related to our fixed route. So anybody that's within three-quarters of a mile of our fixed route system that is unable to access the fixed route system because of their disability is eligible for that particular program. And that's going to be an important point about what I'm going to stress with regards to sidewalks. Because I think one of our biggest challenges is access. And so someone may have the ability to utilize our fixed route system within that three-quarters of a mile,but they don't have a complete safe sidewalk route to get to that particular transportation system. And then the transportation disadvantaged,and we often use the acronym TD,is the other program that we have under the paratransit system. And that is providing transportation,door-to-door transportation for folks that don't have access to another means of transportation. And so that includes mostly those folks outside of our public transportation system,and it's based on income,age and availability of transportation. So there's a bunch of different things. It's not limited to a disability under that particular program. So you can have an ambulatory person that just doesn't have access to a vehicle,but they're nowhere close to our transit system and they need a ride in and they could qualify for that particular program. I wanted to throw up the map so you can get an idea of where our routes are,our existing routes are, and where that ADA service area is. And the hatched area represents that three-quarter of a mile service area for our ADA corridor. So we have service on a route all along where you see the blue lines,and then within that three-quarter of a mile is where we would provide ADA transportation service. And as I mentioned,some of our challenges are completing the corridor. We had,it's been over a year ago now,an AD assessment completed for our entire system. They looked at all of our bus stops and Page 30 of 36 9/3/2015 they evaluated each bus stop to see whether or not they're ADA complaint. And this is one of the tables that was taken from that report,and it reports the deficiencies. So we had 34 stops that no sidewalks were presented;66 stops where no sidewalks present but the shoulders of the roads may act as an accessible pathway. We had five where the slopes were deficiencies. It didn't have the five percent or greater than five percent slope,so it caused a challenge for someone using a wheelchair or scooter or something like that. These are some examples of what we have to deal with on a regular basis where we have stops where there are no sidewalks;you know,it's in a grassed area. Some of the other things that we need to have is a surface that is compacted so that someone can easily,you know,use a motor--a wheelchair on. I wanted to show you another example which is a big challenge. This is on U.S.41. And what you're seeing here is our shelter is in this location right here. And there is a sidewalk that goes along U.S.41 to that shelter. But if somebody wanted to go further north on U.S.41,they would have to,after getting off the bus,travel south,travel across the crosswalk here and then go across the street and then go north. Because this sidewalk doesn't go further. So one of our big challenges is the completion of our system. And so--or the sidewalk system. And we definitely need to improve that. The other challenges that we have is,you know,access to the shopping centers or the attractions themselves. This particular shopping center has a sidewalk,but again,you only have one option. You don't have multiple options to even access that particular shopping center. And my recommendation is to,you know,give the walker,biker,you know,whatever multiple options so that you're not limited to one access point. This is just kind of giving you further detail on what I just said. What I'd like you all to consider when you see projects,you know,ask yourself this question: Can all people,whether or not they drive,have access to enjoy all of the community that we have to offer? You know,I think a lot of times when we're planning,we are planning for the vehicle first and maybe only. I think we've gotten a lot better and we are including sidewalks in a lot of the major projects,but consider transit,biking and all the other alternative transportation resources out there. It is essential that transit and other mobility options are considered when land use decisions are made. This--the rise of social media,smart phones,online interactions have been linked to declining driving car ownership amongst our teens and young adults. The other thing is just we tend to plan for ourselves,we don't plan for the future sometimes too. You know,so keep in mind that some of the younger folks are a little bit more open to,you know,alternative transportation modes. They're learning when they're in university that they can use the buses or they have the ability to,you know,work while they're on the buses. And those are the things that we're actually making improvements to our system to encourage. Where someone may,you know,while they're waiting have access to their computers and,you know,via wife or whatever and they can continue to do work or their schoolwork or whatever it is that they're needing to do. So those are some of the things that we're trying to do to further promote and look to the future as to what people are doing. When we're talking about sidewalks,I would ask that you--now that you're a little bit more familiar with what we deal with with transit,look at the ADA corridor. Meaning look at whether or not we have a transit route and consider that three-quarter of a mile area.And so maybe within that three-quarter of a mile area,depending on what the traffic volumes are,I think that's a big consideration too. So when you're considering a waiver of the double sided sidewalks,whether or not you put sidewalks on two sides,see whether or not they're in the ADA corridor,you know,what type of roadway volume they have. And maybe if we've got larger volume traffic and they're in the ADA corridor,that that exemption is not granted. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Michelle? MS.ARNOLD: Yeah. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Why does that one route go out 1-75 and up State Road 29? Page 31 of 36 9/3/2015 What's out there? MS.ARNOLD: That's our express route.That goes from Immokalee--it leaves Immokalee,goes on 29,and that's the quickest way to get from Immokalee. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Doesn't make any stops,just-- MS.ARNOLD: No. That's the express. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Straight to Marco. MS.ARNOLD: Yeah. And then it goes to Marco and 951. And just in closing,recommending that maybe we consider some strengthening language in our Growth Management Plan to incorporate multimodal principles. And then after that to incorporate some language in our LDC to promote more connectivity,walkability,mixed use development and those types of things that are more transit friendly,and establish criteria with thresholds that--for the provision of transit and infrastructure based on the size of the development. And that's looking at,you know,providing bus shelters or Park and Rides. We've got a few developments that are going out east of town and I think a lot of times depending on who they're marketed to,they think that public transit is not something that those folks would be interested in. But if we're getting a lot more Europeans in town and that type of thing,it's something that they're more accustomed to,so we may want to consider public transportation. And maybe what they're providing is a Park and Ride lot closer in to the--at the entrance of their development so that people can drive or take their bikes there and then use--jump on the bus to get into town,because there are a lot more attractions in town. So those are just some thoughts. If you have any further questions for me—and again,thank you so much for giving me the opportunity to speak. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Michelle,one thing that would help I think this board is when projects are coming through to get your input on your review of the projects. I mean,we rarely see any comments from your department. I don't know if you're in the loop on what we see on our agenda when it's posted. If you have things that you recognize,for example,if the project is near a bus shelter and it needs to make sure we've got connecting points to that bus shelter,we wouldn't really know that unless someone actually brought the issue up. And we may not always have all those issues on our plate to bring up. So could you-- MS.ARNOLD: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --become more participatory on the review? MS.ARNOLD: We are trying to do that. I know with Trinity over in planning now,that's helped us a lot because she is familiar with our system and our needs. But I'm in the process of hiring a planner. And so once we have that person on board,the thought is that they would be coordinating at the time of review so that some of those comments could be incorporated, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah,that would be helpful. And if you could send your presentation to Ray so he could distribute to us? MS.ARNOLD: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd appreciate that.There's some slides in there I'd like to use on other presentations as well. MS.ARNOLD: Thank you. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I have a question,Mr.Chair. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Yeah,I was wondering,do you prioritize your bus shelter needs? I mean,how do you go about prioritizing it? MS.ARNOLD: Yeah,we look at it based on ridership. So if we have a stop that is used a lot for boarding and de-boarding,those would be the higher priorities to put. And I like to--even if on the other side of the street is not as highly utilized,my desire is to make both sides with shelters if we've identified a need. So we do have--with our technology we have the means to determine how many people are getting on the bus at a particular location,as well as getting off the bus at a particular location. So we utilize that as a Page 32 of 36 9/3/2015 priority. Another challenge that we have when we're putting in shelters or amenities is the right-of-way. Particularly along U.S.41 in the City of Naples area,it's very tight.There's little room to put a shelter in a lot of those locations. And so what we're having to do is work with the adjacent property owners and try to acquire easements to get amenities placed there. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: And do you know off the top of your head about how many bus stops do need shelters right now in the county that's on that prioritized list? MS.ARNOLD: I don't know off the top of my head,but I know that we're working on--with the funding that's in place we're working on maybe around 50 to 60 shelters. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Does the availability of sidewallcs impact a location on that priority list? MS.ARNOLD: Yes. Because if we're having to put that sidewalk in,it increases the cost for replacing that shelter there. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know,Michelle,along the thoughts of your having to put the sidewalk in it increases the cost,I have acknowledgment from our impact fee people that on arterial and collector roads the impact fees include sidewalks. So when we collect impact fees I hope that your department's realizing part of that collection is to benefit the sidewalks that you may be needing that should be part of the impact fee process instead of necessarily coming out of your budget. MS.ARNOLD: Well,we're doing a lot more coordination with the folks over in growth management. So when we identify that we'll inquire to see whether or not they have impact fees in place. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not,thank you very much. MS.ARNOLD: I just want to say,I'm a jogger,I do use the sidewalks. I bike too. I didn't get that question. Come on,Stan,how come? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: She was prepared for it too,Stan. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: He was snoozing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He's speechless. MS.ARNOLD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,Michelle. ***And we have one other item of new business I'd like to bring up,and I'll make it brief. We've had a lot of projects coming through that are starting to expand on their footprints. One that happened to catch my attention in the county recently came in to bring their setbacks obviously to the minimum standards we're starting to allow. You know,up to lake maintenance easement,five-foot on the sides, 10 foot in the front. Well,we have a couple new planners,Eric Johnson and Daniel Smith,who because they're new they looked at it a little differently.Dan being a ex--a background in landscaping took a look and said well,how do we fit the required landscape in? And Eric looked at it and said,well,I wonder if it's got the right open space. Well by the time they got done looking at it,the questions were not easily understood.The applicant has always said,well,we're going to take care of that when we do SDP. But this board's criteria I think can enter into it at this stage instead of waiting'til SDP. So I'm suggesting,and maybe this is something that as we get done with the meeting over the next few meetings or so staff could bring back something to address these issues. And it all involves open space. There's about seven of them. One is the reduction in setbacks;how that is affecting open space. Now,clustering is a provision in the code that's allowed. But theoretically clustering is supposed to accommodated by greater open space. That's the purpose of allowing it. We seem to allow it unilaterally on the PU Ds. Now,granted,the PUDs because of their preservation standards have more open space.But that brings in the definition of what is open space. There's usable and there's common.And they are two definitions. And some of the things Iike swimming pools are considered Page 33 of 36 9/3/2015 usable open space. Well,that does nothing to decrease the footprint of development. It really actually takes away from it. Then if we go in and we allow the right-of-ways to be narrowed down to these 40 and 42 feet requests we're getting lately,it takes away more green space that would be alongside the road. So there's a lot of issues that we're doing that have become almost commonplace with the approval of everybody involved. I mean,it's just something that I think needs to go back and be revisited from a policy standpoint.The reduction of setbacks,reduction of right-of-ways,the landscaping and how it fits and maybe what the minimum size per lot is needed to accommodate the landscaping that the code requires. We have equipment that's in setback,so you have five and five on each house 10 feet apart. But yet you've got three to four feet taken up by either pool equipment and their enclosures-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: And air conditioners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --or air conditioners. So you take that down,you've got a couple of feet. How do you fit the landscaping and most of the time a drainage swale in between these units when all of this is jammed in? And then how do the maintenance people get to the backyards without trespassing? I think we need to go back and revisit this. We have an open space requirement. But you know what? It's not per lot,it's per development. So we've got this preserves set-asides and setbacks and the lots themselves can be as tight as the setbacks allow and they can be all impervious. I suggest that,Ray,if staff could take a look at this and see how these things fit together and maybe consider some suggestions to this board about minimum standards. And Dan Smith and Eric have already started working on this in some regard. They're looking at it on a project right now. And they're concerned about the amount of square footage left to plant because there virtually is none. The developer came from California and said well,this is the way we do it there so we should be able to do it here. And the problem is California's got all--we don't want the problems California has. So I don't know what it takes to keep us from turning into something we don't want to see. But I think we ought to take a step back and look at it now that we've been going so strong with some of these. MR.BELLOWS: No,it's a good point. We have as staff been talking about these,not just because of the recent projects but there were a few older ones that were approved say 10 years ago and their landscaping where they could fit it in has grown into the utilities and water pipes and is causing damage in that regard. So it may be that we're approving a cluster development that could fit in their required tree in the front,but it's so tightly packed against the utilities that it's causing long-term problems. So it is an issue that we've been aware of. We do have deviations from the standard.Our standards wouldn't create these problems,but all the deviations being requested is causing the problems. So we need to maybe establish like what I would call a cluster,a housing standard that would accommodate trees and maintenance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I think if you could look at that from a staff perspective-- MR.BELLOWS: Yes,we are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --and suggest some policy recommendation to this board. We might want to take a more careful look at combining all these in these developments that seem-- MR.BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --to want to do that. MR.BELLOWS: And we might have to do an LDC amendment as well to establish those standards. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And this board has the ability to make that direction. But I think we need some guidance. Another one you just mentioned,I forgot to mention,the front of the lots on the 10 feet they try to leave remaining,that's the PUDs that are required alongside all your right-of-ways. MR.BELLOWS: And that's where we've had other projects similar and it's created long-term maintenance problems. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You virtually can't plant in those because the roots get around the pipes and the next thing you know they're pulled up every time a tree blows over. So we need a more global look at this instead of a piecemeal approach. And unfortunately with the Page 34 of 36 9/3/2015 recession we kind of started being more flexible. I'm not sure that's going to-- in the long term we need to still do that. MR.BELLOWS: That's a great point. And I think that was the case over the last few years,but as we--those communities that were approved over 10 years ago with cluster design standards,we are more aware now of the problems with those types of designs and we need to establish new standards in the Land Development Code where you can't ask for a deviation,that is the minimum standard. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And you hit the nail on the head,you know it? Because that was one of my big complaints,the developers are coming in and saying well,we don't want to do 60,which is county, we'll do 50,40. One of them came in,and I'm going wait a minute,you can't even--you know,in between the homes. It's perfect,Mark,you hit everything that I've been thinking about and complaining. I know on the east coast the developers must be 15 feet between the homes,so it has to be seven and a half feet on each side is what they're telling me. So thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the impact that's hurt has been the combination of all these coming together like,for lack of a less descriptive,a perfect storm you might say and limit eliminating the ambiance that Collier County has always been noted for. And I don't want us to be noted like Lee County or Broward and Dade where just everything's a cram-and-jam project. So I think we need to step back and think about this. MR.BELLOWS: Yes,I think over the years individual deviations may not have been problematic, but when you start adding multiple deviations,not just say a road right-of-way width but the setbacks are 10 feet. Or--then there's no you're reducing your buffer. Those kinds of things in regard to trying to create a cluster development is causing a lot of problems. Because we don't have what I would say the preferred • cluster design standard that we would say no less than this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,about once a month or so I'll probably bring it back up and see if you made any progress on ideas. MR.BELLOWS: We're definitely working on it. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And the landscaping.It's right. I mean,we might have our standards but I notice,and I know this,the developers go in and they want everything to look great and instant,and they take their Iandscaping and put it all the way around the houses and everything. You don't need quite that much,but they want it instant. And that's creating a problem,there's just too much landscaping without the grass. CHAIRMAN MAN STRAIN: Well,after what I've seen working closer with staff,I can assure you when we start getting more residential projects especially,I'll be asking a lot harder questions about these seven or eight items to see how they fit. So we'll just deal from there. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not,is there any public comment? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,with that--no,I don't want to adjourn,because then Andy's going to say he was here for a shorter meeting.And so we probably just need to-- since Andy's been on board our meetings have gone into the afternoon. So is there a motion to adjourn,Andy? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: So moved. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yes,I move to adjourn. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor,signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. Page 35 of 36 9/3/2015 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're out of here.Thank you. *************** There being no further business for the good of the County,the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11:37 a.rn. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION C.v PUatI4 ())/%4Ti6, MARK l RAIN,Chairman These minutes approved by the board on JD-/' /6 as presented Y or as corrected . Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service,Inc., by Cherie'R.Nottingham. Page 36 of 36