Loading...
CCPC Agenda 06/02/2016 COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA JUNE 2, 2016 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 9:00 A.M., JUNE 2, 2016, 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. NOTICE: ITEM 9D,THE ARCHITECTURAL LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS, WILL BE HEARD AFTER ALL OF THE LAND USE PETITIONS AND BEFORE 3 PM. THEREAFTER, IT WILL BE CONTINUED TO THE NEXT MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: April 21,2016 and May 5,2016 6. BCC REPORT-RECAPS 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA 1 9. ADVERTSDED PUBLIC HEARINGS: Note: This item has been continued from the April 21, 2016 CCPC meeting and again from the May 5,2016 CCPC meeting: A. PUDZ-PL20140002809: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance no. 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which established 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 a Mobile Home (MH) zoning district to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district for the project known as Highview Roost Road RPUD to allow development of up to 60 single-family detached dwelling units or 86 single-family attached dwelling units on property located on Roost Road, south of Manatee Road in Section 11, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 21.59+/- acres; and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach,AICP,RLA,Principal Planner] B. PUDZ-PL20150001613: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance No. 2014-34, the RMC-Enclave Residential Planned Unit Development, and amending Ordinance No. 2004-41, the Collier County Land Development Code, by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of an additional 12.17± acres of land zoned Community Facility Planned Unit Development (CFPUD) known as the Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples CFPUD to the Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district known as the RMC-Enclave RPUD; by adding 48 residential dwelling units for a total of 162 residential dwelling units or by adding 150 group housing units for a total of 500 group housing units; by amending the master plan; by repealing Ordinance No. 11-18, the Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples CFPUD; and by providing an effective date. The subject property is located at the northwest quadrant of Learning Lane and Livingston Road, in Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida consisting of 40.55±acres. [Coordinator: Eric Johnson,AICP,CFM, Principal Planner] C. PUDZ-PL20140000890: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance No. 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which established 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 the Residential RMF-6 zoning district to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district for a project known as the Onyx RPUD to allow development of up to 48 single family and/or multi-family dwelling units on property located on the east side of Santa Barbara Boulevard approximately one-half mile north of Rattlesnake-Hammock Road in Section 16, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 8.72± acres; providing for repeal of Ordinance No. 06-53 and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator: Eric Johnson,AICP,CFM,Principal Planner] D. An ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance Number 04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which includes the comprehensive land regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County,Florida, by providing for: Section One, Recitals; Section Two, Findings of Fact; Section Three, Adoption of Amendments to the Land Development Code to make comprehensive changes to architectural and site design standards, more specifically amending the following: Chapter Two — Zoning Districts and Uses, including section 2.03.06 Planned Unit Development Districts; Chapter Four — Site Design and Development Standards, including section 4.02.12 Design Standards for Outdoor Storage, section 4.02.16 Design Standards for Development in the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area, section 4.02.37 Design Standards for Development in the 2 Golden Gate Downtown Center Commercial Overlay District(GGDCCO), section 4.02.38 Specific Design Criteria for Mixed Use Development Within C-1 Through C-3 Zoning Districts, section 4.05.02 Design Standards, section 4.05.04 Parking Space Requirements, section 4.05.09 Stacking Lane Requirements, section 4.06.02 Buffer Requirements, section 4.06.03 Landscaping Requirements for Vehicular Use Areas and Rights-of-Way, section 4.06.05 General Landscaping Requirements; Chapter Five—Supplemental Standards, including section 5.05.08 Architectural and Site Design Standards; Chapter Six— Infrastructure Improvements and Adequate Public Facilities Requirements, including section 6.06.02 Sidewalks, Bike Lane and Pathway Requirements, section 6.06.03 Streetlights; Chapter Ten — Application, Review, and Decision-Making Procedures, including section 10.02.15 Requirements for Mixed Use Projects Within the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area; Section Four, Conflict and Severability; Section Five, Inclusion in the Collier County Land Development Code; and Section Six, Effective Date. [Jeremy Frantz, Senior Planner] 9. OLD BUSINESS A. Discussion concerning deviations [Wafaa Assaad] B. Discussion concerning exotics in the Estates [Stan Chrzanowski] 10. NEW BUSINESS 11. PUBLIC COMMENT 12. ADJOURN CCPC Agenda/Ray Bellows/jmp 3 April 21, 2016 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples,Florida,April 21,2016 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Wafaa F. Assaad Stan Chrzanowski Diane Ebert Karen Homiak Charlette Roman Andrew Solis ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V. Bellows,Zoning Manager Eric Johnson,Principal Planner Heidi Ashton-Cicko,Managing Assistant County Attorney Scott Stone,County Attorney's Office Tom Eastman, School District Representative Page 1 of 54 April 21, 2016 PROCEEDINGS CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning,everyone. Welcome to the Thursday,April 21st meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If everybody will please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) COMMISSIONER ROMAN: And then here's Andy. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Just in time for roll call. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll wait for Andy to get up here. Welcome,Mr. Solis. Will the secretary please do the roll call now that everybody's here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. Good morning. Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Chrzanowski? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Solis? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Here. Ms. Ebert is here. Chairman Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ms. Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr.Assaad? COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And,Ms. Roman? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we have a quorum. Addenda to the agenda. We have four items for today. Two of--the last two items will be review of the Land Development Code amendments that have been--some have come back and forth a couple of times. Prior to that we have two normal hearings.The first one would be Heritage Bay,and the second one will be Highview Roost Road. Are there any changes to anything, Ray,that you have? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Assaad? COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Some time ago I requested that we have a discussion about deviations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: That didn't make that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it's--no, it's not on the agenda,neither is Stan's request for exotics. I had gotten, I think,an email from Stan indicating he wouldn't be at the Planning Commission meeting,but he's here. So I didn't put it on for that reason. And until last week I didn't know if I'd be here. So I was concerned at--the agenda has to be organized weeks before the meeting, and I thought it would be better if we were all here when we had that. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: As long as it's not forgotten,that's okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I wouldn't forget such a thing. Planning Commission absences. The next meeting is May 5th. Does anybody know if they're not going to make it on the May 5th meeting? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That takes us to approval of the minutes. There were two minutes supplied from March 3rd and March 17th electronically. Does anybody on the March 3rd one have any Page 2 of 54 April 21, 2016 questions or concerns? If not, is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Move to approve. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Charlette, seconded by Stan. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Aye. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. Second packet was March 17th,same question. Anybody? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: One. I already--my name is spelled differently a couple times,which is not unusual. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But isn't that intentional, Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I know. I don't think it's important either. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that clarification, is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: So moved. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Charlette, seconded by Stan. Stan actually seconded a motion with a document with multiple names for himself. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Aye. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. BCC report and recaps, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. On April 12th the Board of County Commissioners heard three items. The first was the Buckley PUD amendment. That was approved 5-0 subject to Planning Commission recommendations. Then the Abaco PUD rezone was approved 5-0, and they had an additional change to the stormwater management provisions. I don't have that exact language. I could provide that to you at a later date if you'd like. And then on the summary agenda,the Board approved the Goodland rezone that went from C4 GZO to VR GZO. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,Ray. MR.BELLOWS: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Chairman's report. There is one issue on today's agenda I just want to make Ms. Homiak aware of because she's going to end up dealing with it. 9A is the Heritage Bay PUD PDI for a RaceTrac that's going to be proposed--or it is proposed for the front part of the activity center. I will not be Page 3 of 54 April 21, 2016 participating in that because that was moved from my office to here. So,Ms. Homiak,at the time we get to 9A, I'll step down. You'll,as vice-chair,monitor and manage the meeting,and then I'll come back up for 9B. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's the only item on--there is no consent agenda,and with that I'll turn this over to Karen Homiak,who is our vice chair,to handle it from here. Oh,one item. I got a phone call a few minutes ago. The applicant and their party can't--are caught in traffic, and I should have--I was hoping we'd be able to delay long enough to get them here. They're not here yet. It will take them a few more minutes to get here. So with that in mind, I don't think it would be fair to start without them, and I think the time frame for them to be here is not going to be very long, probably five or 10 minutes more. What's the wishes of this Board? We could go on to the second agenda item. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Yeah,we can do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's the-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I think we should find out if the public's here-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, speak of the devil. I don't mean that literally. MR.YOVANOVICH: Yes,you do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I'll leave the rest of the meeting on this item to Ms. Homiak. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay. On to petition--Agenda Item 9A, Petition No. PDI-PL20150001083,Heritage Park PUD for RaceTrac. Is the petitioner here? Oh,you're the--for Heritage Bay? COMMISSIONER EBERT: That's a change. MR.YOVANOVICH: For the record, Rich Yovanovich. Actually, I'm here for it, but John Wojdak is going to do the presentation,and I'll answer any questions he can't answer. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Swear us all in? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Is there anybody--yeah. And all those wishing to speak on this item,would you please rise and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay. Did anybody have any contact with the petitioner or--Stan, did you speak to anybody? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: No. And,unusually,no one has talked to me about this at all. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Andy? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No contact. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Staff. Quite a bit with staff. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay. And I didn't speak to anyone. Wafaa? COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: No contact. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: No contact. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay. MR. WOJDAK: Good morning. For the record, my name is John Wojdak with DeLisi Fitzgerald. I'm here on behalf of RaceTrac Petroleum and--for the petition today,which is a PDI amendment to the Heritage Bay PUD. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Could you zoom in? MR. WOJDAK: So the affected area of the PUD is in the southwest corner of the overall Heritage Bay PUD in the activity center area,and it's the property on the corner of Immokalee Road and Bellaire Bay Drive. This is our master concept plan for the specific site,and it is a convenience food and beverage with fuel pumps. There's a 5,500-square-foot convenience store with a canopy parallel to Immokalee Road with Page 4 of 54 April 21, 2016 eight MPDs,or 16 fueling positions,and parking in the front of the building and on the east side. The landscape buffer--I'd like to point out that we have right-of-way frontage on three sides of the property. It fronts Immokalee Road.Bellaire Bay Drive was originally a private internal roadway to Heritage Bay. It has been turned over to the county for ownership,so that is now a public roadway,and then Sage Avenue is an internal road to the activity center,platted right-of-way,but it is private. And what I'd like to do now is briefly go through the deviations that are proposed from the Heritage Bay PUD as part of this application. And if you're kind of following along, I'm going to do them--if you don't mind,I'd like to go through the deviations in groups rather than numerical order,the ones, landscaping related,architecture related. It's just easier to discuss with exhibits, if that's okay with everybody. So the first two deviations that I want to talk about are Deviation 1 and 10. Deviation 1 is related to the west project buffer. And what we're asking for is to use the code provision that allows what they call a joint project plan where you're sharing infrastructure on a property line,which we are doing. We're proposing a shared access drive straddling the property line. And under that code provision,you can reallocate one of the buffers internal to the site so all of the landscaping required for the RaceTrac side,which is a 15-foot,Type A buffer,has been reallocated internally. And on the west,basically,because we're coming in--the code contemplates that two projects come together to use this code provision. We're coming in on our own. So to mitigate that,we're providing now the buffer that would be provided by the adjacent property. So basically,all the landscaping that's required,we're putting in. And we worked a lot with staff on this to get it figured out. And, like I said,all the code landscaping provided;we're just coming in independently of development of the adjacent site. And then the other landscape deviation is 10 for the buffer along Immokalee Road. Here. And, again,because we front three rights-of-way,the code requires that for gas stations, a 25-foot buffer on those three sides. And what we've done is provided that buffer on the north where our parcel would be visible to the residential sections of the PUD and push the site forward with the reduced buffer in width only all along Immokalee Road. So all of the required plant material,part of the gas station,buffer is provided. It's just in 15 feet instead of 25 feet. And I'd also point out there's a 100-foot canal right-of-way in front of our property such that the--from the travelway the site is over 130 feet away from the pavement. The next two deviations are architecture related, and they're Deviations 4 and 7. So Deviations 4 and 7 are from the same code section related to primary facades. So the code allows a--requires a primary facade when you are fronting a road,and it allows only one that's not facing a road. So,essentially,what we're requesting is at the back of the building,which faces the internal private roadway,to be considered a secondary facade,and it would also be a second secondary facade. As you can see,the back of the building is heavily landscaped. The building is tucked up tight to the buffer so that there's really no view corridor to see the back of the building,and I have a little visual of the landscape. This is a rendering of the back of the building from Sage Avenue. And as you can see,the back of the building is completely shielded by the required berm and buffer. And we've also,in working with staff, agreed to increase the height of the trees that are planted from 14 feet to 16 feet at time of installation. And with the reallocated buffer that I talked about earlier,we're using some of that material in this buffer to further shield the back of the building. The next three deviations, 5,6,and 9,relate to signage. And Deviations 5 and 6 relate to the canopy. And basically the code requires,or allows, 12 square feet of sign area on the canopy on any face that faces the road,which we face two roads, Immokalee and Bellaire Bay,and we're requesting an additional sign on the west so that it's visible from Immokalee Road. And then we're also requesting that the area be increased from 12 feet to 50 on the front and 30 on the sides. And the rationale for that is that it-- 12 square feet is just not visible from approximately 150 feet away at 50 miles an hour.That's 80 feet per second when you're traveling down the road,and you need to be able to see the sign,maneuver,and 12 square feet is not legible at that distance and speed. Page 5 of 54 April 21, 2016 The other sign deviation is the monument sign. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: John,did you say 8 feet a second? MR. WOJDAK: Eighty. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Eighty. MR. WOJDAK: The proposed monument sign is right here at the corner when you come in off Bellaire Bay Drive, and this is the canal here. And,again, same rationale on the distance and offset from the roadway; we're requesting 118-square-foot sign. This is consistent with other deviations on other RaceTracs in similar scenarios. A similar deviation was granted on the site at Rattlesnake and 951. It's not constructed, but it is approved,and there you have--it's not a canal,but a large drainage ditch alongside the road where the property is offset substantially from the roadway. So we're increasing the sign proportionally so that it's basically the same visibility as if it were closer to the road in a typical section. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: This is the price sign? MR. WOJDAK: That's correct. I have a graphic of it. So the sign is only a little over 11 feet tall,and this area here, even though it's shown kind of a brown color, it would actually be the stone that is on the building. So it's architecturally identical to the building. And then the last deviation--I'll just use this landscape plan. Ease it in a tiny bit there--relates to parking. We're asking for a relief of one parking space. And with--the previous RaceTracs that have been approved in the county were considered automobile service stations parked at a rate of one per 250 square feet. Automobile service stations kind of went away as a category with the recent LDC amendments. So now the site is parked at the convenience store rate of I per 200,which obviously increases the parking required. And our rationale is that we've obviously been doing quite a few RaceTracs in Collier County and Southwest Florida, and RaceTrac knows how many parking spaces they need to serve their customers and the--using the new rate basically overparks it for what they need. And while we could potentially accommodate that, RaceTrac likes to provide a very convenient experience for the customers, so the drive aisles are a little wider than the bare minimum,and the parking spaces are 10 feet wide instead of 9 feet wide. So they're easier to get in and out of. And so we're asking for a relief of one space to get down to basically the rate that we typically have been parking these at. That's all the deviations. I'm happy to answer any questions. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Anybody? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. I have a lot of them. The shared driveway that you plan on,these are all out-lots,correct? MR. WOJDAK: That's correct. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And is Carrabba's going to be next to you? MR. WOJDAK: I don't know the answer to that. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So this is a shared driveway to nowhere,to the canal? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It's to the lot next door. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Could you just zoom out just a little bit on that so we can see this site plan. MR. WOJDAK: So here's the shared drive,and,you know, it doesn't,you know,go through. Our buffer extends to the end. So it's not access to the canal. And the adjoining owner would,you know,based on their site plan,connect to that versus having a separate driveway right next to ours. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, if these are out-lots, Sage Avenue is there--I drove the site because I live by this site. And they can very easily just come in Sage Drive(sic)on this. To me, looking at the plans in going over this,you're overbuilding for the lot size, it looks like to me. I think you could maybe take one or two pumps away and get within the Land Development Code. We just did all this work for gas stations this last fall. This is a new area,and we are redefining it. You do not meet the setbacks. You want all your signs changed, and landscaping. And I'm going,wait a minute,we just devised this thing and you don't want to adhere to anything. Page 6 of 54 April 21, 2016 So I did some checking,and we have a cell station at the Strand which is behind the 100-foot canal that you keep talking about,the variance.They are in code. You have the 7-Eleven on Interstate 1-75 and Immokalee. They are in code. You have the Mobil station also on Immokalee on the north side of the canal. These are all on the north side of the canal,and they have--they follow code except for the setback of the ground sign, which is because Longshore Lakes protruded, so they made a slight adjustment there. Then we have the town center. Everything was fine there. And I'm going,wait a minute. Then you also--which is not on Immokalee Road,you also have your Pine Ridge and Whippoorwill,which is according to code. And this is new for the county. We have not really had a chance to implement this. And I'm seeing already--and you brought it up--that you're going to expect these deviations because it was granted on another site. That bothers me when you start expecting. Each site is different,and it should be taken that way. I think you should probably reduce the amount of your canopy. You could take one or two pumps off to be within these limits. There is--from what I was reading in here,that your back door was going to be delivery. If you're putting that much landscaping in there,who's--how are they going to deliver stuff?Where is their trucks going to go? MR.YOVANOVICH: May I? For the record,Rich Yovanovich. I want to address a few things that were said there. First I'll go on the last one. On the delivery,they're all going to be hand delivery.The trucks--there will be no truck traffic in the rear of the store. So it will be-- it's a rear access point for some deliveries--for delivery people,which will all be on foot. So the bigger trucks will not be going back behind there in any way. But going back to the sign--the sign deviations,RaceTrac has done several projects in Collier County,and they have their typical sign package that you see on all of their existing stores. We don't--we certainly don't cite as a basis that you need to give us this deviation the fact that that sign package has been approved on multiple occasions in the past. But it's a sign package that has proved both to be-- I don't think there's any question that RaceTrac in Collier County has been the leader in architectural standards for convenience gas delivery in Collier County. I don't think--I've heard a lot of things about RaceTrac,but the one thing I haven't heard about RaceTrac is that they're unattractive,that they're not clean,that their signage is distasteful. The signs that we're asking for are consistent with the other properties. Comparing Whippoorwill and Pine Ridge when that was approved in the'90s is dramatically different than-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: I know,Rich-- MR.YOVANOVICH: --what's going through the process. COMMISSIONER EBERT: --but guess what--guess what? Everybody knows where the RaceTrac is on Pine Ridge,and it isn't just because of the sign. MR.YOVANOVICH: What I'm saying,though, in this particular case we're 100 feet back. And just by way of history--and another thing that I think is kind of unique is we sent out 3,000 letters to the neighborhoods,and we have support from the community for what we're requesting. So there's not objection to the RaceTrac with the deviations that are before you from the neighborhood. Your staff is recommending approval of every one of the deviations that we're requesting. This site is different. It's further back. The signage on the canopy is necessary for it to be visible. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Rich,what did I just talk about about the other gas stations that are set back behind the canal? They--they went to their sign codes. There was not a problem. And so the setback-- I mean-- MR. YOVANOVICH: The question isn't what the other people did. It's not. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: You say to me in one instance you can't use as precedent what someone else got approved, and now you're saying because someone else didn't ask for a deviation I shouldn't be allowed to ask for one. Page 7 of 54 April 21, 2016 COMMISSIONER EBERT: No, it's their justification. They always use the canal as their justification for asking for it. So I went and checked out the other gas stations that are also set back from the canal just like this. They're all on the north side. And they don't seem to have a problem. This one just--and I understand it's new,but we have not really had much of a chance to implement this,and all of a sudden--when I started reading this, I thought,wow,they're telling the county exactly what they're going to do each time, and--to me, it just kind of set me off. You know,I said to myself,who's running this,the county or RaceTrac? And,first of all,the setbacks for the property line, it's supposed to be 50 feet,which the north side isn't. It's supposed to be 50 feet for the--all the way around. And you're asking for a 25-foot rather than 50 and a 20-foot because of the shared driveway. I--actually,they should buy Lot 3 and rearrange this so that it fits within the deviation pattern. I mean,we made these deviations and-- last fall. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Madam Chair, perhaps would you like to focus on questions that the Board might have for the applicant at this point and then hear staffs recommendation and then get into the positions of each of the Planning Commission members? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Sure. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't know how I would buy Lot 3 and solve your concern about-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Setbacks. MR.YOVANOVICH: --the setbacks. And if I can,when we initial--we started this process with staff, staff didn't consider Immokalee Road--because of the canal,they didn't consider that frontage. They then realized that in the description of--because not all of the road right-of-ways actually include the canal adjacent to it in the road right-of-way description. So what happened was staff said, oh,this is one of the rare times where the canal itself is in the road right-of-way description. It's now frontage,which added that additional requirement of a setback along Immokalee Road. So the question became,why? Why do I need a 50-foot setback from a road--a 100-foot road right-of-way canal from a pavement that's now about 150 feet or 140 feet away? And I guess we could have redone the site and asked for the setback reduction along Immokalee Road,but staff--staff believed that under the circumstances in the applicable way that this should be developed, it made more sense to push the canopy further away from Immokalee Road and have an enhanced landscape buffer along the rear of the building and ask for the reduced setback there. But to me it makes no sense to require a 50-foot setback from a 100-foot canal that separates the traveling public from that distance. So that's kind of how we got to where we are on that. And we took the required--the landscaping that would be along that entry road. We're not allowed to just avoid that landscaping. We still provide it. We put it in the other portions of the project, and we enhanced the buffer along the internal Sage road or boulevard. But--so we've worked very closely with staff and the adjoining property owner and the neighborhood through keeping them informed as to the layout of this site. I mean,this is--this is not in any way detrimental to the community,and the signage package is consistent with what you've seen in practice in Collier County for RaceTracs. And you know what,we may ultimately be the leader for others that may come in and ask for deviations, but who knows. But these are all sign deviations that make sense and are supported by your staff. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Is there anyone else? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I've got a couple of questions. With regard to the Deviation No. 1 --and as I understand that,usually that's a situation where the two property owners come in with an agreement relating to an access drive and the buffers. And as I read the staffs report, it says that one of the conditions is is that the owner of Lot 3 is going to disclose to a purchaser these requirements. The owner of Lot 3's not part of the application, right? MR. YOVANOVICH: But they've written a letter to the staff acknowledging that they have those obligations. The irony of it,the owner of Lot 3 sold us the property,so it's-- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. But let's--but what is--and what's going to be recorded that's Page 8 of 54 April 21, 2016 going to make that a requirement? Because a letter's one thing, but if the current owner-- MR.YOVANOVICH: PUD. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: --of Lot 3 -- let me finish. MR.YOVANOVICH: Sony. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: --sells the property to another purchaser,who's to say that that's going to be disclosed to another purchaser? So my question is,how is that requirement going to be formalized so that in the chain of title the subsequent owner of Lot 3's going to have to do that? MR. YOVANOVICH: It will be in the PUD document itself that they have the obligation.Zoning, as you know, is an obligation of every property owner. So they will have in the PUD--so if I'm the buyer of Lot 3, I'll go look and see,what are my zoning obligations within the PUD,and it will clearly say I have the obligation to do all these things. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And I guess this is a question for staff. Staff is comfortable that although this change to the PUD's going to affect Lot 3,they're not an applicant, but they're agreeing to it? MR. YOVANOVICH: Scott--you might want to ask Scott. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Or Heidi. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Yes. The letter that Mr.Johnson put on the visualizer will be made part of the record today. So he's consented to that requirement where he's got to notify any purchaser of these requirements. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And I must have missed that. Can you put that letter-- MS.ASHTON-CICKO: It's on the visualizer right now. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: On there now,okay. MR. WOJDAK: Mr. Solis,I'd also like to add that as part of the PUD,there's a requirement that the--that there be a shared access agreement recorded between us and the adjacent property owner. A draft of that is in the package. The adjacent owner has not only consented to us providing their buffering for them,that--we provided that early on when this came up,and then they recently provided this letter at the request of the County Attorney's Office that they would notify any purchaser. So we have a letter of authorization from them to--acknowledging that this is what we're doing. We have a draft shared access agreement that's required at SDP,and we have the letter from them addressed to RaceTrac and the county that they will notify anyone,and that will be part of the PUD resolution. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And staff--and Heidi,you're comfortable with everything that we have? MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Yes. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Can I ask a question? So you purchased Lot 3 also, so both lots are under your name; is that it? MR.YOVANOVICH: No. I said we purchased,from the owner of Lot 3, Lot 4. So the person who's next to us owned both parcels, sold us our lot. So they're fully aware,obviously, of the proposed joint development, and that's why there's the shared access and-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: That was Cameron Properties. MR. WOJDAK: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Anybody else? COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: I want to hear from staff first. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Not at this time. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Sure. Okay. Eric? MR.JOHNSON: Sure. Thank you, Madam Chair. For the record, Eric Johnson, principal planner. Just some housekeeping measures. Just for everyone's edification,the CCPC today will make a decision,and this will be the final --you guys will be the final authority on this matter. It will not be going to the Board of County Commissioners. Page 9 of 54 April 21, 2016 Staff did receive public comments,phone calls,emails. And in the staff report it's indicated,you know,the applicant rightly said that they were requesting 10 deviations. Staff is recommending approval of all deviations. I did want to point out--again,this is a housekeeping measure--that on some of the colored renderings that you have in your packet includes these things called window clings. Originally,the applicant had requested a deviation for 100 percent coverage or a greater coverage that is allowed by code and has subsequently withdrawn that--withdrew that deviation,but the elevation drawings that you have in your packet still show some of those windows clings. So I can--I have marked in my packet which drawings are inaccurate. If you want, I could put it on the visualizer. If not, I can proceed. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Anybody want to see them or-- MR.JOHNSON: Would you like to see them or--just for the record? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: All set. MR.JOHNSON: Proceed,okay. As I mentioned in the staff report,there is a deficiency in the number of trees. Staff has determined that there are 13 trees that the landscape plan is deficient on,but I would like to point out that the actual review of the landscape plan would be more appropriately conducted at the time of SDP should this be approved, Site Development Plan review. So that kind of matter can be hashed out later if this is approved. In your packet,as an attachment, I included an email from the applicant,and he notes that there is an issue with the overlapping of the water management area and the landscape buffer,and he's agreed to rectify that at the time of SDP. I noticed this morning,however,that he didn't acknowledge the 13 trees. So if and when he's asked to speak again, I'd like to get some clarification as to whether or not he intends to be able to comply with the Land Development Code at the time of SDP with respect to those trees. At the neighborhood information meeting there were comments/commitments that were made by the applicant,Mr. Tom Hardy. And those commitments and that narrative has been summarized in your staff report. So I just wanted to point that out. One thing that I needed to get clarification on was the commitment or the--I don't want to say promise, but the narrative that Mr. Hardy had with respect to Dark Sky's initiatives. Dark Sky's initiatives to me--I think we've all kind of heard that concept,but it's hard to quantify exactly what that means. So if and when the time comes,maybe we could have the applicant expound upon what he intends or intended by Dark Sky's initiatives. Some of the comments or--I would say more of the comments were talking about--from the public that is,was with regards to exterior lighting and landscaping. And,again,you have the summary of the NIM in your packet. You have my summary as I tried best to glean from listening to the tapes. I'm going to read the staff recommendation,and I'm only going to read part of it. So if you would, on Page 19 of 21, staff recommends that Collier County Planning Commission approve this petition subject to the following conditions to be incorporated into the final CCPC decision: And,number one,approval of Deviation No. 5.That's regarding the canopy sign area. That's--approval of that is contingent upon the approval of Deviation No. 6,the number of canopy signs,and then there are other recommendations that are in the packet,2,3,4,and 5,which were commitments made by the applicant at the neighborhood information meeting. So that basically sums up my recommendation. You know,the matter of who approves this, it will not be going to the Board of County Commissioners. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Explain to me,please,sir. MR.JOHNSON: Well,the way I understand it,is that--hmm. If an item is set to go before the Hearing Examiner and for one reason or another it has to be elevated to the Collier County Planning Commission,that it won't--it does not need to go before the Board of County Commissioners. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: So why didn't that go back to the Hearing Examiner? MR.JOHNSON: I really can't speak on that. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Excuse me? Page 10 of 54 April 21, 2016 MR. JOHNSON: I don't know the answer. Once it was determined that-- COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: By whom and why? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows,zoning manager. It's my understanding that the commissioner of this district requested it to go to the Planning Commission. Since this is an insubstantial change to a PUD PDI,those are historically approved by the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: And who's the commissioner of that district? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Hmm? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Okay. MR.JOHNSON: Finally,the applicant emailed me an elevation drawing of the canopy, and it's showing the height from--the clearance from the bottom of the canopy to the ground and then also to the overall height. And I apologize for not bringing that to this meeting. But that wraps up my presentation. I'll be happy to answer any questions. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Do we have the right to send it back to Commissioner Henning? MS.ASHTON-CICKO: No. Under the Land Development Code, insubstantial changes are heard--of PUDs are heard by either the Hearing Examiner or the Planning Commission. So today you are the final decision maker,and depending on whether this is approval or denial, if it were to go as a denial,then you're going to have to state your reasons for the record. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: But we cannot kick it back to the Hearing Examiner? MS.ASHTON-CICKO: No,you cannot. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: You just said that it's either/or. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Correct. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Per the code, it could be heard by the examiner or the planning board. Somebody decided that they want it heard by the planning board. My question is,why couldn't the planning board say, send it back to the Hearing Examiner? They made the first decision. They have the background. They should hear the second application. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Could I ask a question? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Sure. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Last time we heard something like this,there were a lot of members of the public opposed to it,and the item went to the Board anyway because they appealed our decision. When somebody asked if people would stand up if they had anything to say to be sworn in,I don't remember seeing any members of the public standing up opposed to this,and I--from the sound of it, is anybody opposed to this? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. And I think what happened,kind of in response to Mr.Assaad's question--I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER EBERT: There is a person out there. MR.YOVANOVICH: Okay. I think that with the number of people that were going to be noticed, the through might be that this might be one of those petitions that a lot of people might have concern over the--what we're requesting. And it turned out, I think,that that didn't show itself to be the reality,that since we were going into an established community,that established community might have concerns with what we're requesting. And it didn't play out that way. And it may--and,again, hindsight's 20/20. Had that all occurred first,maybe we would have stayed where we were, in front of the Planning Commission(sic). But I think by going this way,there was the opportunity for the public to come and voice their objection if they had objections to what we're proposing. I'm not going to tell you that everybody in that community--obviously, if there's one person here opposed or to speak, I don't even know what they're to speak for or against. But I think that was why we ended up here instead of staying in front of the Hearing Examiner,to see if the public would have a large Page 11 of 54 April 21, 2016 concern over what we're requesting. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Can I ask a quick question. Just procedurally,can somebody explain again to me what transpired? This--the application was made,was going to be heard by the Hearing Officer? Was it heard by the Hearing Officer? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: It was not heard by the Hearing Officer? MR.YOVANOVICH: It was not heard. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: The first-- MR. YOVANOVICH: This petition has never been heard by Hearing Examiner. It was submitted under the normal process,and I believe Commissioner Henning said, I would like to have this go the Planning Commission route versus the Hearing Examiner route because it's an either/or. And I'm only surmising that. I'm thinking,because of the location of this,the amount of residents who are around it,that the public notification process and people are used to the Planning Commission and coming and voicing opinions,this would give the public the opportunity to interact with the Planning Commission to say,hey, please don't do this. And this gave--that was the process more people are used to and are more familiar with,and I think that's why we're here versus the Hearing Examiner route. Again,that's Rich Yovanovich's interpretation of how we got to where we are. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Could-- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Are you ready to address the deficiency of the trees,the 13 trees? MR.YOVANOVICH: Yeah. I mean,we've already said,as part of SDP,obviously,we'll take care of the trees. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay. MR.YOVANOVICH: I believe John can-- MR. WOJDAK: For the record,John Wojdak with DeLisi Fitzgerald. If the specific 13 trees was omitted from my email to Eric, I do apologize. Our intent is to fully comply with the LDC at the time of Site Development Plan. And just to add a couple--touch on a couple of the other things that Eric asked about--it's a little--little hard to see,but this is an elevation of the building and canopy. And off to the right of the longer view of the canopy is a elevation mark noting that the underside of the canopy is 16 feet in height,and then the canopy itself is 4 feet thick with a maximum height of 20 feet. So if that needs to be conditioned, it is part of the code,so that was shown to comply with that. But to answer Eric's question,from the ground to the underside of the canopy is 16 feet. And then regarding the lighting,all of the lighting on site is Dark Sky's compliant. It's--any site lighting is fully shielded. The lights on the underside of the canopy are recessed, so they don't--they're not visible. They're tucked up in the canopy and shine down,so that's what Mr. Hardy meant when he made those statements at the public information meeting. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And is that consistent with what you've been doing on the other RaceTracs here in Collier County? MR. WOJDAK: Yes. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay. Is there anything--yes. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Yes. I have a question,first from the applicant and then from--then for staff. There was a comment made earlier by one of my colleagues on the board about delivery trucks. And the reply was made that everything is hand trucked in. That led me to think of where do the delivery trucks park. That's what I thought the question was. Where are those delivery trucks? MR.YOVANOVICH: No. I think--I thought the question was,would there be delivery trucks around the rear of the building for the-- COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I was saying,no,everything that will be delivered at the rear of the Page 12 of 54 April 21, 2016 building will be by someone physically walking it to the rear of the building and bringing it in. There will be, obviously,delivery trucks that come to the site. So John could tell you where they will park. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Okay. If he could clarify that. MR. WOJDAK: This is actually a sheet from our Site Development Plan,and the service drive is here where the dumpster is. And the deliveries besides fuel are all small, single-unit trucks. It's not semis delivering goods. So they're single-unit trucks. And here is our required loading space right here,and then there is basically a sidewalk from that area behind the building to the receiving area at the back of the building,which is tucked between the building and the toe of slope of the landscape berm that's required. So all that activity is fully shielded by the buffer. So the truck would park here and then hand truck--as Rich was referring to,would be basically like a dolly and they,you know,take it into the back of the store. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Okay. Thanks for the clarification. Eric, I had a question regarding the landscape buffer. Having observed two RaceTracs in East Naples that were constructed,their appearance is very,very attractive in the amount of landscaping that was added around the structure. So I would like to ask you specifically about the landscape buffer that is facing Immokalee Road in that water retention area. What is the requirement by code? MR.JOHNSON: Madam Chair,Ms. Commissioner, I'm going to defer that question to Mr. Smith. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Okay. MR. SMITH: Hi. Daniel Smith,principal planner,zoning. There's three buffers,or actually there's four buffers, but there's three that are going to have the landscaping that you normally see along the right-of-way. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: If you could just address the one facing Immokalee Road and that water retention area for right now. Just focus on that. MR. SMITH: Well,those are two different areas,though. One's a water retention along Bellaire. That's the water retention area. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Okay. MR. SMITH: The other one's Immokalee, which is--they're asking for a deviation of--instead of 25 feet, 15 feet. Those are 5-foot shrubs along with smaller shrubs and trees roughly in clusters 20 feet apart. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Okay. Now,what I'm reading-- MR. SMITH: And then--and the one on Bellaire--just to clarify,the one on Bellaire is going to have the berm. The one on Immokalee they're asking for a deviation to not put the berm. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Okay. That was one of the points. So the berm has been left out. MR. SMITH: Correct. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: And, secondly, I'm reading from this site landscape calculations,and it says--is Immokalee Road the south buffer? MR. SMITH: Correct. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Okay. It says,south buffer section is 15-foot Type D with 5-foot shrubs. A Type D,according to our code, is trees 30-foot on center and two rows of 3-foot-high shrubs. So it--that's what I'm looking at,a page in the code. MR. SMITH: Yeah. It's not a Type D. It's just--the landscape code for gas stations is its own buffer. It's not really--doesn't have a name to it. It's not an A, B,C,or D. It's only--it's its own enhanced buffer and has its certain language on the type of plant material and how much plant material,and it doesn't-- it's nothing close to what an A, B,C,or D buffer is. So wherever you're reading the D,that's incorrect. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I'm reading out of the code. MR. SMITH: Okay. Yeah. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: And I'm also reading from my packet. MR. SMITH: Okay. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: So what I don't have,which is a key data point for me today, is what Page 13 of 54 April 21, 2016 exactly that buffer's going to look like along Immokalee Road. MR. SMITH: Right. It's actually in the new-- it's in the automobile or facilities with fuel pumps, it's in that portion. Because you're probably looking at the wrong portion. Let's see. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: All right. MR. SMITH: Okay. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Because I know the berm's been omitted,and we know that we're short, I understood it was 13 canopy trees,not just trees,but canopy trees, according to staff. MR. WOJDAK: And the 13 canopy trees that are short,we basically did an SDP level landscape plan-- COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Okay. MR. WOJDAK: --to verify that we could meet the reallocated buffer area and not overlap all of these areas. We worked extremely close with staff on that. There are a couple overlaps that need to be corrected. There's plenty of room to do that,and we will fully comply with that at time of SDP. So the 13 trees was just when we did the initial SDP level to--staff,you know,made a good point when we were talking about this. They're like,we need to see more detail to make sure that this all works when we get to SDP. We don't want to agree to it in theory and then get to SDP and it not work. So we basically went ahead and did the SDP level landscape plan. It needs a couple tweaks,but it showed and got staff comfortable that we can make it work, specifically to the-- COMMISSIONER ROMAN: If you could zoom out a little bit here so I--I can read this. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Deficiency in the trees is not in that area,correct? MR. WOJDAK: That's correct. And to--kind of to Dan's point,the--when you have a gas station, we generally refer to it as the gas station buffer,which is the 25-foot. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: And that's what I'd like you to cover,and I appreciate that. MR. WOJDAK: Sure. So what we requested relief on was the width in the berm. And in response to the berm,you're basically coming up from the bank of the canal. So you have the,you know,visual appearance of a berm anyway because you're coming up the bank of the Immokalee Road canal. There's--there is no reduction in plant material requested here. So basically the plantings that are here are the plantings from the quote-unquote gas station buffer. There's no reduction in size,quantity,type. So in terms of plant material, it's fully compliant with the gas station code. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: So there's no reduction,and there's no enhancement,other than the fact that the reduction is(sic)the berm is missing? MR. WOJDAK: That's incorrect. We actually, similar to the north side, have agreed to increase the heights of the trees from 14 to 16 feet. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: So those will be 16-foot trees. And this might be a question for Dan. Dan,when they look--when you look at a palm substitution for canopy trees,what's that equation? MR. SMITH: The equation is the royal palm and the date palm,which are the larger palms,meet the definition of a canopy,the canopy requirement.Anything lesser than that, it's three to one. So in the case--we have a native sabal palm,you have to actually plant three of those to equal one canopy tree. Foxtail palm,the same way. Some of the smaller palms have to meet the three-to-one ratio. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Okay. Thank you. MR. SMITH: Okay. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: In going along the eastern side of the property,could you cover that, too. MR. WOJDAK: Sure. And just to add,that this graphic here was basically created to memorialize the buffer and is included in the resolution as what we have to provide. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Thank you for clarifying that versus the Type D. Okay. That was--thank you. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Dan, I have a question for you. Is--are we going to create a new buffer for facilities with pumps? Is it going to be a complete new Land Development Code? Page 14 of 54 April 21, 2016 MR. SMITH: Well, I can only address,you know, each individual project as it comes forward. Each of them have their own little-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: But you're saying this is not A,B,C,or D. MR. SMITH: No. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So this is completely different. MR. SMITH: Well,you have to look at the intent when the code was originally written. And it talks about clustering. It talks about no more than 20 foot for the clusters. If a landscape architect who does a design comes in for similar trees and he has the clusters going 15 or 10 feet, I'm going to look at that plant material to make sure it's going to meet and it's going to survive in a long-term solution. I'm looking for sustainability over the course of 10, 15,20 years. And so each one may have a little uniqueness,but I'm making sure I meet that intent of what the code was originally written-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. MR. SMITH: --by the--the intent for what the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners had in mind, so... COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Well, it was just because you said,well, it's not A, B,C,or D, and that's why I was wondering,are we going to have a new code for-- MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, planning and zoning director. Just a point of clarification. We adopted the new standards for automobile service stations with fuel pumps. We created a new buffering for those specifically. That's why it's not an A,B,C,or D. Those--that buffering was specifically crafted for automobile service stations,and that's why it's a little outside of the traditional buffers that we have expressed within our Land Development Code. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: It was just my document said Type D,and then they were changing things. Okay. MR. BOSI: So there's the clarification. And that is codified. That is part of our Land Development Code. It's just outside of the traditional buffers. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Some of the landscaping here is from working with the neighborhood,correct? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: That was the rear,as I understand it. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: The rear. MR. WOJDAK: Yeah. Basically what we did,because there were deviations related to setbacks, and--we basically enhanced the buffers where the property--you know, it doesn't directly abut,but where the residential part of the Heritage Bay PUD is behind us. So kind of following along, going around the property line,here's the buffer we just talked about,and then the gas station buffer,as we'll call it, is provided in full along the east side,and it wraps around. Again, we've tucked it up tight to the parking so,you know,you're--there's less of a view opportunity behind the buffer. And there was also--because of the curve in the road,there was concerns about all that plant material creating a sight distance problem around that curve. So we tucked the buffer tight up to the parking. And then,again,we took the material from this reallocated buffer and enhanced here,and then some of that is also distributed out here for more landscaping along Bellaire Bay Drive. And then on the rear of the site,again,the full 25-foot gas station buffer is provided with the berm enhanced in itself with larger material and further enhanced with reallocated material from the west buffer. And then it doesn't show on here, but when we were talking about the first deviation with the joint project plan,there will be a 10-foot Type A buffer also provided here. That is essentially the neighbor's required buffer,but we're planting it now. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay. Thank you. Oh, go ahead. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Would somebody explain to me the difference between the main elevation and the secondary elevation? MR. SHAWINSKY: Peter Shawinsky, staff architect. The--this being in a PUD,the code requires four primary facades on a building. It does allow for Page 15 of 54 April 21, 2016 one secondary facade. Those primary facades are typically facing public right-of-ways. In this case it would be Immokalee,Bellaire,and Sage. And the difference between a secondary facade is it does not have to meet the primary facade requirements. The primary facade has five design elements that are typically incorporated into the building. As a secondary facade, it would not have to meet that requirement,but there are 22 additional design elements that apply to all facades. So in this particular case,they're asking for the second secondary. So there would be two primary,two secondary. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: I have more questions. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Okay. On the staff report on Page No. 3,under the purpose and description, starting on the second line, it reads, RaceTrac is requesting deviation to the PUD standards in order to develop the site to their preference; is that correct? MR.JOHNSON: That is correct. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Why is it to their preference and not according to the county codes? Where does it say that every applicant that comes to Collier County will have their own preferences? Collier County has codes particularly having to do with signs, setbacks,all of that. Collier County came through a long, long,hard work experience of developing codes to maintain our lifestyle, our appearance, our community image which created the beauty and the desirability of doing business in Collier County. So now you have newcomers who like Collier County because it's a likable community,but when they come in they tell us,we don't like your setbacks,we don't like your site limitations,we don't like your site requirements or your buffering requirements or your parking criteria,and we would like 13 deviations. That tells me something is wrong here. One of them is either the site is not suitable for their purpose and they should look for another site,or they should look for another county. I hate to say that because we like to welcome people with good development standards to come to the county. But I'm--I, for one,would like to maintain the image that made Collier County great. Part of that is the long, long,hard work and code enforcement. I look at the Planning Commission function as an enforcing agency. We enforce the codes. And then you hear statements like Mr. Yovanovich made a second ago when he was talking about setbacks. He made a statement,and I quote, 50-foot front setback doesn't make sense to me. Well, I couldn't find anything in the code that said setbacks have to make sense to Mr.Yovanovich or any other applicant. I know he has his opinion,and I have mine. Then you go through the staff report,and it seems to me like double standards. They want a waiver from the primary facades,but they want the bigger signs that goes on the primary facade. So it should be either/or. If you want the primary facade,you get the bigger sign. You want the little facade,you get the little sign. And then when you buy property that faces three streets,then you understand that you have to comply with the code. The fact that you have three streets abutting the property doesn't mean that you get waivers here and there and you can waive this and waive that. And then you're asking for more height for the free-standing sign. Why? Why is a taller sign better? Years ago Collier County had no sign regulation, and you can drive through the Tamiami Trail or any major road and you find taller signs,bigger signs on every lot,and it created a proliferation of signs that wasn't appealing. So they created the sign ordinance that gave a grace period for everybody to comply. And after 15, 20 years,now we have a beautiful county with mostly compliant developers,but every once in a while you get somebody who wants to break the rules,and he wants to ask for many deviations-- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Do you have a specific question? COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: --because it doesn't suit their formula. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr.Assaad,do you have a specific question about this petition? Page 16 of 54 April 21, 2016 COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Excuse me. I-- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No. We need to focus on this petition here and these deviations. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: I am focusing on that. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Which ones don't you want? All of them? COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: I am. I am. Excuse me.You can't cut me off. And also--and also, in the staff report you make references to previously approved deviations, and I want to ask, if they don't have precedence, if they don't mean anything,why are you citing them in the staff report? It's a point in history. It's--I don't know what's the value of reminding us that--that you approved this and that in prior applications some time ago. One can say,excuse me, I have sent(sic)-- I have granted too many deviations in the past,but I think from now on we should adhere to the code unless there's a very strong argument,not a matter of preference of liking,or liking. Then one would grant and consider a deviation. But to get the small development like that--and you're asking for 13 deviations; it's just un-comprehensible. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Heidi,do you have something? COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: I cannot--I cannot in good conscience approve or recommend approval of anything like this. Going back to the signs for a second,you have a lot of illumination,okay. You have a big,big,huge canopy, and I don't think a big sign will enhance your visibility. People can see the lights and the height of the canopy,and everybody knows there is a gas station here. So giving exemptions for bigger,taller,higher signs doesn't do it for me. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Heidi? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I'd like to place on the visualizer for the Board the section of the Land Development Code that the applicant is proceeding under, because this is a planned unit development. I have highlighted the language that will take you into the request for the deviations and the reason for that section. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Sure. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. And I think we also have one public speaker, if you'd like to hear from that person-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: --before you get into discussion. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes,yeah. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: It's cut off on one edge. If you can zoom out a little bit. MR. BOSI: This is Section 2.03.06,planned unit development district from our Land Development Code. It says the--the terms and provisions of this LDC in the GMP may depart from the strict application of setback height and minimum lot requirements of conventional zoning districts while maintaining standards by which flexibility may be accomplished and while protecting the public interest in order to,and it goes through the process of the five things that the PUD is intended to accomplish. Provide a creative approach to improving the quality of the built environment contiguous tracts; create a more desirable environment providing for a consistency and visual harmony that would be possible through strict application;encourage patterns of land use that support economic provisions of infrastructure revolving--resulting in small networks of utilities, streets;evaluate the impacts of particular PUD on the present and projected population,economy, and land use patterns,traffic,or tax base, street systems; and ensure that the development employs techniques featuring amenities in excellence in the forms of variety--of variations in city, mixed land use, and a variety of dwelling units. Essentially--essentially that provision in the PUD was specifically crafted to allow for flexibility within the proposed development. Mr. Assaad,you're correct. You as that individual are required to see the deviation,evaluate the justification that was provided,and come to your own individual conclusion. The prior deviation that was--that was approved should have no bearing,you're correct, should have no bearing. Maybe the staffs included that only to say prior--in previous-- in previous determinations that there was justification that was provided for. Page 17 of 54 April 21, 2016 Each individual justification has to be substantiated for each individual variance and can't stand upon a past granting. You as an individual make a subjective evaluation upon the deviation that's being suggested,the rationale that's being provided for,and you reach your own determination. Each one of the planning commissioners does that on an individual basis. And then the majority of vote--of the Planning Commission will make the determination as to whether we feel that deviation is appropriate or not based upon the justification. The task is on the individual applicant to provide the justification that would substantiate that deviation. It's an expressed allowance within the PUD process. The valuation from staff had made that determination as an individual,as a--an individual with experience within the planning field. Each Planning Commission member is asked to make that own individual determination,and that's the basis for how the deviations are to be granted,per the code and per the individual evaluation. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Madam Chair,we do have one speaker that has to leave for a doctor's appointment and has asked if he could speak before he has to leave. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Sure. Have you been sworn in? MR.TATRO: Yes. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Oh,you were? I didn't see. MR.TATRO: The public one you did at the beginning of the meeting. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: And Mr. Frank Tatro. MR.TATRO: Good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to speak. I find it particularly troublesome that RaceTrac is back for a second time looking for deviations. They did a hearing,that gentleman chaired it at a church on Immokalee Road,and several variations were presented and presumably passed then. I don't understand why they're back again looking for deviations. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: There's nothing been passed yet, sir. This is--this is the hearing here. MR.TATRO: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: That was just a public meeting where everybody could voice their opinion. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: He's talking about the Hearing Examiner. MR.JOHNSON: No. To clarify, he's talking about the neighborhood information meeting. MR.TATRO: I'm hearing deviations here I didn't hear there, so I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. This gas station is highly visible from the Quarry community. I'm a resident of the Quarry community,and I'm also an owner in the golf course that directly abuts this gas station development. As a matter of information,the berm that faces our community is going to be four feet high.They keep referring to it as a--they were granted or they're looking for a reduction in the space behind the gas station,and it will be masked by a four-foot berm with plantings on the top. I'm afraid that just isn't going to do it. I mean, it's going to be as visible now and once it's constructed as it will once they put the berm up. The Dark Sky's initiative only refers to in the lights that have downward illumination. The signs they're looking for are not Dark Sky's compliant. They will illuminate all the way out to Immokalee Road and all around the gas station.That kind of defeats the purpose of the Dark Sky's overhead lighting. And, in conclusion, I just--I just don't see--I agree with Mr. Assaad. I mean,you have variations. You have regulations to control the signage and the structure of gas stations in the community. If they don't-- if they don't have enough room for the gas station, make it smaller or find another location. I mean,the rules you have in place now are not at the whim of the people doing the construction. The construction should comply with the regulations,not the other way around. It seems like the tail is wagging the dog. Thank you for the opportunity to speak,and have a good day. Thanks. Page 18 of 54 April 21, 2016 COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I'd like to ask one question and maybe it, in a different way,goes to what Mr. Assaad is raising,and that is, is there,and if there is,what is the standard for us to review the deviations,the legal standard? I mean,we're sitting as a quasi-judicial body here. This is a public hearing, and our decision is going to be the final decision on this petition. So maybe that--understanding that would be helpful. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. You'll be looking at two things. One is whether what they're requesting is detrimental to the health,safety,and welfare,and then you'll be looking at your original rezone findings to see if, as a result of the request,any of those findings are no longer acceptable. And on the break I'm going to make a copy of the rezone findings so you-all can look through the findings,you know,before a motion's made. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: May I respond? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay. Was there one--wait a minute. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: May I respond? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Was there another speaker,or is he-- MS.ASHTON-CICKO: There are several speakers, and there are some people in the audience that would like to speak but haven't submitted a speaker slip. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay. Well,we'll take a 15-minute break right now and then come back and hear the speakers. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. (A brief recess was had.) COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay. Are there any other speakers that haven't been sworn in? Because I didn't see--okay. Anybody that wants to speak on this item now,would you please rise and be sworn in. MR. JOHNSON: Madam Chair, so far I have two cards. One from Mike Minor,the other from Frank Tatro,but I believe Frank already spoke. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay, sir. You could--you can come up and speak. MR. MINOR: Excuse me,but my voice doesn't work very well. I had a bout with throat cancer a few years ago, so I have trouble sometimes. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Oh, sorry. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: If you just want to speak a little bit closer to the mike, it will pick you up better. MR. MINOR: Mike Minor,Heritage Bay. I'm one of the board members for Heritage Bay. I'm sorry that I didn't realize or didn't know the procedures when I first walked into the room. I have talked to Eric on the phone. I was a little bit taken aback,to be honest,with you. When we got this letter from you people,my constituents went ballistic because we were--basically the letter showed that you were getting ready to let somebody do something in our preserve.And my phone just lit up from emails. If you looked at this map that you sent out,or Eric sent out or whoever sends out, it shows that it's actually--I don't know. I don't know how you do this,but it's actually in 11 --Lot 11 and 12,not in 23. And that's where all our people were upset. Anyway-- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I'm sorry. I think we're--the two lots are Lot 4,and the adjacent one is Lot 3. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Could you get somebody to translate that for us? Do you know what he's-- MR.JOHNSON: Madam Chair, if I may explain.Mr. Minor is referring to the property owner notification letter that was sent out. And the property owner notification letters, I think it says site location and project location,and it points to really just the PUD boundary. It wasn't meant to point to a specific parcel within the PUD,and I think that was one of the main concerns of Mr.Minor and probably the people who contacted him. Page 19 of 54 April 21, 2016 MR. MINOR: That is true. I mean,that's correct. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Oh,okay. MR. MINOR: But, I mean,the letter just was not very specific,and that really upset me and a lot of my constituents. The only other thing that I wanted to say was--and I have to agree with Mr.Assaad and Ms. Ebert--if you're going to make rules,then why don't we stick to them? I mean, if you're--like I told Mr. Eastman a minute ago,I'm on three boards, and we're in the process of doing an $8 million improvement to our facilities, and we have to stick by the rules. I've got 1,250 people,or 1,250 doors that I have to answer to. And if we're going to set code,as Mr. Assaad was talking about,the only people that I see that are getting any benefit from this is RaceTrac. I mean, I don't see how it's going to improve Immokalee Road or Sage Avenue or Sage Road,whatever it's called. I realize that you've got the--whatever that things called,that Cocohatchee Canal or whatever run down through there. And anything they do is going to make it look better. But, anyway,that's pretty much what I wanted to say. I just feel like the only people benefiting is RaceTrac,and I don't know why we need to change our rules just to be able to pump gas. Thank you. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Thank you. Eric, did you have something you wanted to get on the record? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. For the record,Ray Bellows. The handout that you were given concerning the PUD rezone findings,there was a reference in the staff report that Eric had prepared referencing this section. Basically it references Section 10.02.13.E.2, which asks the question, does this petition change the analysis of the findings and criteria used for the original application? The response was no, it doesn't. And I asked Eric to take it out because I thought it was kind of redundant,but it really should be in there from a legal standpoint. And then the findings that were made part of that record were given to you as well. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Can I ask-- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Scott, did you have something you wanted to add? MR. STONE: Yes. In the proposed resolution under Section 1.11.A,which relates to the deviation for the joint project plan,there are three conditions,three subsections under A,and the second one relates to the obligation of the owner to record a shared maintenance and access easement with Lot 3. There's just a minor change to some of the language in that paragraph,and Eric has provided those changes on the visualizer. And I can read that into the record,those changes, if acceptable to you. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Why don't you go ahead and do that. MR. STONE: We will be removing the proposed language "parking or"and in place of that adding "access, ingress,and egress by pedestrian traffic and by motor vehicles on to Sage Avenue,and for such,"and so the remainder of the paragraph will remain the same. And the purpose of this is just to specify the purposes of the access easement in a little more detail. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: And we made that change because the owner letter had this language. That's why we want to mirror it. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Could I ask Mike from transportation to come up,please? MR. SAWYER: For the record,Mike Sawyer,transportation planning. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. Good morning, Mike.Bellaire Bay Drive. They're talking about a sign facing the west area. Is Bellaire Drive--can they make a left turn from the eastbound lane going in there? MR. SAWYER: The intersection of Immokalee and Bellaire,that actually is a full opening Page 20 of 54 April 21, 2016 currently. COMMISSIONER EBERT: That is full open? MR. SAWYER: Correct. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So you could go right or left out of there? MR. SAWYER: Correct. Currently,yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: What is--what is Goodland Drive; is that-- MR. SAWYER: Goodland, I believe that--I would have to double-check,but I believe that is channelized. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Because according to the picture,Bellaire is closed off,and I thought I came out that way and could only turn right. So if--there's going to be openings that you can make a left on? MR. SAWYER: Yeah. I think if you look at the visualizer,you can see that the one access that we're actually looking at right now is a full opening and that the-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: So you're going to let people turn left to get out of here-- get out of there to go eastbound? MR. SAWYER: Currently,that is the condition that we've got on Immokalee,yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: But there will be-- MR. SAWYER: We are constantly looking at these types of intersections and are making changes. Now,there is a substantial change that is now going to be occurring at 951 and Immokalee,and we will probably hold off doing a major study of this area until that gets completed so we know what the final ability of those road segments are going to be to adapt to that traffic once that change is actually made. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. And so the county owns that road but Sage--Sage Avenue is privately--is private within this? MR. SAWYER: That is my understanding,yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah. Okay. Because it is in. They just kind of have it blocked off now. But that street is already in. All right. That's what I wanted to know on this left and right turnout. Thank you. MR. SAWYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Will this concept plan be part of this resolution? MR.JOHNSON: Madam Chair,no,the concept plan will not be. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: It will be part of the PUD. MR.JOHNSON: It's a part of the PUD backup material,and it's part of this hearing,but it's not going to be part of--go ahead, Scott. MR. STONE: If I may,the only two exhibits being added to the actual PUD will be the Exhibit El which shows the affected area location map and Exhibit B2 which depicts the proposed enhanced buffer relating to the buffer deviation.All of the other material is backup material for informational purposes. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay. Rich? MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't know when we get to get back up but, I mean, if it's something that you-all would like to become an exhibit to the PUD, I don't believe we have an objection to that. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well, personally,I'd like to see it in there. MR. YOVANOVICH: That would be fine with us. When appropriate, I'd like RaceTrac's representative to come up and speak,and then I would like to address some comments that were made. But I wanted to jump up and address that one while that was fresh. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Sure. Well,he can come up and speak if he has something to add. MR. HOPKINS: Good morning. For the record, my name is Corey Hopkins. I work for RaceTrac Petroleum. I want to kind of address a larger narrative. I know we're focusing on the details of this particular site, but I just want to address a couple of comments that have been made during these conversations. The greater narrative is that RaceTrac Petroleum has actually been a business partner in Collier County for quite a long time. We're not a newcomer. We've been here. And I would say that our innovative approach to our industry has helped set the standard and really upped the game for development standards for Page 21 of 54 April 21, 2016 this particular use. We've brought value to the community that I think was not there before in terms of the offers that we provide and the value to our guests. So that said,what we do is--has made us experts at developing these gas stations. Now,that's not to say that that puts us above your code,and that's--I would never suggest that. What I would say is that the PUD exists for specific purposes like this. When there's an opportunity to increase the value to the community,you're not restricted by that code. And so, in a thoughtful manner, you redefine the code. And I guess,the tone I'm hearing is that RaceTrac Petroleum is here to try to take advantage of that opportunity,to try and take advantage of the community, and nothing could be further from the truth. The reality is we want to partner with the community. We've worked very diligently with staff. We took the time to hear the community and their concerns and believed,honestly and sincerely believed that we had addressed those concerns with this development plan. Now,we understand that new concerns can be raised,and so we want that dialogue to constantly be open. So more than anything, I want taken away from this hearing not that here's a new business trying to come take advantage of the community,but here's an existing business partner that has shown,you know, adding value to the community,that truly shows concern for its guests and wants to improve their experience and can help the county move the needle in terms of what they can demand of other businesses. So I certainly appreciate your time. I appreciate the community's time. And I'm willing to answer any questions you have about the business. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Corey,I have a question for you. On the canopy,you said it's 16 and 20 feet; 16 on the underside,20 on the top. Have they always been that tall? MR. HOPKINS: No,ma'am. Our standard is 18 feet on the bottom and 22 feet on the top. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So you're telling me you're lowering this-- MR. HOPKINS: Yes,ma'am. COMMISSIONER EBERT: --two feet? MR. HOPKINS: If I can add to that,too,the architecture of the canopy, if you've seen any of our others,it's quite enhanced. It's specific to the area. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: What's a standard highway overpass? MR.HOPKINS: If I'm not mistaken, I think FDOT requirements are 14'5",but I'm not absolutely positive on that. John? I'm not absolutely positive. But I will say that the driving force behind our 18-foot canopy is the fact that we've had issues before. And what happens is people do actually hit an 18-foot canopy. Now, it doesn't happen all the time, but it's happened enough for us to justify. COMMISSIONER EBERT: What's taller than 18 feet? What truck is taller than that? Because the fire engine is--can go under 14, so I'm--and I believe 15,your semi-trucks can go under? MR. HOPKINS: Yes, ma'am. Now,these are unusual circumstances. We have construction crews with flatbed trailers and rubber-tired backhoes on them is typically what seems to be our biggest issue. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. I guess my big concern on this is we spent a lot of time;the BCC spent a lot of time. This particular new facility with pumps is all new. Gas station is out. Stan and I,they said,are just too old to understand that there's no more gas stations,so we have to have facilities with pumps. But because we spent so much time on this--and it really was because of RaceTrac,I think, in a different location--I'm looking in here and where I see a bad pattern is you already-- since this new thing just went through,you have now built two new facilities with pumps. And you start out with deviations right away. Are you telling us our Land Development Code is going to have to change on signs right away because you're--you don't want to--I mean,the pattern is,you're asking for deviations for this one,and you've already had two other ones,your two new stations, and my problem with this is it's going to be expected. We got it on this one. And you mentioned the two that you got it on. And that,to me, is setting a bad pattern for these service stations. Page 22 of 54 April 21, 2016 You have one on Pine Ridge. That followed code. Everything was fine. That's my problem with this one. MR. HOPKINS: And I can appreciate that. I will say that as codes evolve and then also as industries evolve,we have to determine what we can do to try and meet the needs of both. And I will say that for as much thoughtful intent that goes into the crafting of these codes,they cannot apply to every single circumstance that we encounter in terms of real estate development. And so the understanding that deviations,the protocol exists,or PUDs,they exist simply for these opportunities to create a new rule after thoughtful consideration that applies specifically to that one piece of property because it's justified, because sound judgment was employed in developing the proposal. And I understand your responsibility of protecting the community from the standpoint of we need to make sure we get like-for-like value. If we have any cause to deviate from this code we've worked so hard to establish,we need to make sure we get like-for-like value. And so what I'm telling you is the source of these deviations,again, is not for us to build something that is gaudy or inappropriate. The purpose of us building this gas station here is to serve the community and a need that we, as experts of this business,know that the community needs. We're in a position to provide that value. You encounter certain circumstances that then justify a potential deviation from code,and I firmly believe that this is one of those;the fact that the property is pushed back,the geometry of the property,and then also our objectives to make our guests'experience at these stores as positive as possible. Nobody likes a tight gas station where you feel like you're going to run into a car that's backing up while you're trying to drive though where it's difficult to maneuver a vehicle through a canopy,or inside the store,a real tight, cramped,dirty feeling convenience store. And so for that reason we have really worked very,very hard to improve the entire quality of our facilities and the entire guest experience. That puts us in a position to where,yes, sometimes we have to ask for exceptions because what we're doing we feel like is driven by the needs of the consumer,and that's why we're here today. Yes, sir? COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: You've been very eloquent and definitely represented your point of view very nicely,but I've got to ask you a few questions. What if you reduced the number of pumps? You have a smaller facility. Wouldn't that allow you to comply with the codes so,therefore,you comply with the setbacks and everybody would be happy?You don't have to have tight driveways. You can still have your generous driveways if this is your philosophy in doing business,but you don't have to have umpteen pumps. You can have maybe six less or eight less or two less or something, so... MR. HOPKINS: Can I answer that one? COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: The point is--yeah. The point is the site could be developed under the existing codes. MR. HOPKINS: So-- COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Do you agree? MR. HOPKINS: No, I don't, simply because our challenge is not the width of the property. Our challenge is the depth of the property. So the most meaningful deviation we're asking for here is the rear building setback. We cannot alter the configuration of the canopy in any way to make that conform to code with our current building prototype. We've looked at tons of alternatives. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Then maybe the site is not the best choice. MR. HOPKINS: Well,the location-- COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: You should pick up a site which is deeper than the one that you selected. MR. HOPKINS: The site selection mentality that we employ is not necessarily a part of this discussion in that we're trying to provide the value because we know that this is the-- COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: I understand the value and the fairness and all of that,but that Page 23 of 54 April 21, 2016 doesn't-- MR. HOPKINS: Okay. But part of that conversation is where you can actually build a store,where you can come to terms with a property seller, where that store really can reach the most people and grant the greatest value. So,again,that's where I say our expertise drives us to select locations that we believe we can do that, and this happens to be it. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: But if your expertise and selection method leads you to a site that is not appropriate to comply with the code,then that's the choice that you made. MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I add something,Mr. Assaad? COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Of course. MR.YOVANOVICH: This is-- 1989,the county changed its Comprehensive Plan and went to an activity center designation. This property is in an activity center. This property was rezoned to PUD,and this PUD absolutely permits gas stations within the PUD, okay? Your Comprehensive Plan says this is where you want gas stations to be,at major intersections, which are where your activity centers are. Your Growth Management Plan directed us to this location as an appropriate place. The PUD says, it's an appropriate location. The PUD predated the most recent changes in the Land Development Code. That's where the--kind of the conflict has come about. There have been some recent changes to the Land Development Code that predate the original PUD adoption. So now we have--we do have some--we're going through this right now. We have some conflicts that weren't contemplated when the original PUD was adopted. So if the new provisions didn't exist and we applied the old-- COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: How does that,as an example, affect the height of the sign? MR. YOVANOVICH: You didn't ask me that. What I'm trying to focus on,right now the focus was on the setback issue, is what I'm trying to refer to,when you said,well,then go to a different location if the site's not deep enough. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Forget--the sign issue's a different issue. I'm focusing on the new--the new code provisions putting us at odds with now we need a deviation. And what I said about the 50 feet was I don't see the need for a 50-foot setback when you have an existing 100-foot canal. I didn't say,generally, I don't see the need for a 50-foot setback. So I just want to make sure what we're saying-- COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: I listened very carefully to you,because I want to see how did you develop the idea of asking for the deviation. What is the logic behind it? MR. YOVANOVICH: The logic behind the setback--setback-- COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: I listen to every single word that you say very carefully. MR.YOVANOVICH: But you can't quote back everything I said in response to the 50-foot and why we needed a setback deviation. The setback deviation down to 25 feet in the rear was related to the fact that later in the game we were told we were considering Immokalee Road to be a front because of the canal,and now I had to be 50 feet from the canal versus--and I said I didn't see why we needed to be 50 feet when I already had a 100-foot canal in that place. So to us it seemed to justify the need for a 25-foot variance for the Sage setback,which we were making up for with enhanced landscape plantings and the like. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Then maybe the code should say if your property fronts on a canal. MR. YOVANOVICH: You've been around a long time. I've been around a long time. There's no chance that a code is going to anticipate every instance when you write a law. I wrote enough code ordinances back when I was in the County Attorney's Office,and I'm sure Ms.Ashton has and Scott has. There's no way we get it all, and things come up,and this is one of those instances,and that's why you go through this process. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: I ask you another question. If in your business and the gas station business you have accomplished this knowledge and you're advanced above others,why don't you come to Page 24 of 54 April 21, 2016 Collier County and tell them your code is obsolete and I want you to amend the code to accommodate the following points? Instead of asking for a deviation,you convince the county to amend the code. This way it would be fair for all of the businesspeople in your line of business. It would be fair to Hess, it would be fair to Shell, Exxon,everybody. So all of you in this business can enjoy the benefit of the knowledge that you have accomplished in your field. MR.YOVANOVICH: Take the signs out of the equation for a moment, if you will. Who do you think you patterned the current code after? COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: I don't know. MR.YOVANOVICH: You patterned it after RaceTrac,because RaceTrac was going through the process. And people were saying,you know,we really do like the way the Airport Road store came about, how it looks,the setbacks. We had actually submitted an application on a totally different piece of property that you may or may not hear at some point that had these enhanced setbacks and these enhanced buffers. That code came from RaceTrac submittals. Now,that didn't include signs. But I will tell you the site stuff all was partnered with RaceTrac. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Wonderful. MR. YOVANOVICH: So RaceTrac has--now, I will tell you, it is so difficult to amend your Land Development Code,because the natural reaction of people is,you do a global fix and people worry about the unintended consequences of a global fix. So I think people are more comfortable with the approach like we're doing when you look at it on a site-by-site basis to say,does it make sense,instead of the global fix. I'm flexible. I'll do it any which way you want to do,but my experience has been most recently I tried to amend the Land Development Code for another,quote,standard deviation,and Ms. Ebert will know, it was--we were always getting sidewalks on one side as a deviation. I proposed a Land Development Code amendment to codify a standard deviation,and it didn't go very well. People said, let's just do it on the old--we like the deviation process. We're comfortable with that. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: I can tell you that if you proposed to amend the code and you make sense in many of your own points and your own view, I would be a big supporter of you or your request. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I believe you. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: The idea of deviations,deviations,deviations is--I'm opposed to that. You can tell that. I'm very passionate about it. And I can tell you that to grant you those deviations is--number one,erodes the code that the county developed,because you're nibbling at the codes, and it creates a precedent. Whether staff would agree to it or not,they tell you each case is different,but when you do it so many times, it creates a precedent. Staff cites it in the report. They continue to remind us of the deviation that was heard and granted. And I ask them, is that the precedent?They said no. I said, does it apply here? They say no. So why is it in the staff report? I don't know. But you're eroding the code. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: We need to-- COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Number one, it's not fair to your competition. If you get all of those benefits and the other gas station companies do not have the same benefit-- MR.YOVANOVICH: Well,first of all,there--we're playing--I don't want anybody to think we're playing outside of the rule book. We are totally within the rule book. We're a PUD. PUDs are allowed to come in and ask for different development standards. I know you're philosophically opposed to deviations. But the code allows for the deviation process,and we're going through that process. Now, most recently the Board of County Commissioners heard two petitions,and the discussion of why haven't we changed the code to codify these standard deviations came up. And I will--I will paraphrase what I heard. And Mr. Bosi will correct me if I'm wrong--was basically that staff doesn't have the resources at this time to accommodate doing the Land Development Code changes they believe would be appropriate Page 25 of 54 April 21, 2016 based upon the fact that a lot of these deviations have really become standard; road right-of-way widths for private roads, et cetera; 64 square feet to 80 square feet on signs. Those have become more standard deviations,but staff hasn't had the time or the resources to change the code yet. That's why you see a lot of these,quote, standard deviations. Any other--Hess,who you brought up; Hess can go through the same process and ask for deviations on a site-by-site basis. We're not getting any competitive advantage. They can go through the same process we're going through. You may grant it;you may not grant it. This site is different. This site--it was a PUD that was approved prior to the new standards. It has a 100-foot canal that is a factor and,because of the new standards,makes the site too narrow. I think we have more than justified the deviation for the rear setback. Your staff--it's not detrimental in any way to the public health, safety,and welfare. Your staff has reviewed it.They're professionals,and they're recommending approval of all of the deviations. And I know you're philosophically opposed to deviations,and I understand that,and I respect it. I don't have to like it, but it is; it is what it is, and we're going to have to play within the rules. MR. HOPKINS: Can I close the loops on signs? MR.YOVANOVICH: Sure. MR. HOPKINS: And I just want to close the loops on the signage. The intent behind what we're asking for is directly driven by that hardship,the fact that we're pushed further away from the traveling public. There is a limitation on visibility of signage,the length of visibility. And so what happens is the further away you get away from the viewing public,the harder the small signs are to see. And the last thing you want to do is confuse the traveling public where they have to be looking at something else for longer than is safe or necessary because they can't see it. So that's the drive behind the signage,not because we want to put something inappropriate on our property. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Corey, I'm going to ask you a question. Because we just did this last fall for these facilities with pumps,did you participate in that? Your company participated in that,and we had other fuel companies also participate in that? MR. YOVANOVICH: He wasn't involved in that process. MR. HOPKINS: I'm sorry. I wasn't-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Oh,he wasn't in that process? MR. YOVANOVICH: He wasn't. But,yes,Tom Hardy from RaceTrac,who I'm sure you're familiar with,we were involved,and we commented on the provisions. A lot of what we said was incorporated. Some of what we said was not incorporated. I don't know if any of the other competitors,who I'm not going to name by name and give free advertising,participated in the process or not.They certainly were aware of it,and I think they even spoke at the LDC amendment adoption. So there was some input on that,and we were active in--recognizing that,hey,you know, it impacts us. And we truly believe we have stepped up the game-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: I know. MR.YOVANOVICH: --for that,and we're happy to have others come along and step up their game,too. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah. And that's why the code was changed for these places because they're becoming so large. Actually,most of the people thought that with that many it should be on the freeway. But the signage was not part of that,was that,Rich,at the time? MR. YOVANOVICH: And it wasn't, because nobody was ready to talk about the global signage deviations necessary. You take--you take things in bites that people can handle, okay. And when we were participating in that process,we were discouraged from involving signs in the discussion. Let's talk more about--if you remember, it was distance from residences and buffers. Let's get what was really important done, and we'll come back and worry about signs in the deviation process, because it was working. The deviations process was really working for signs. Let's go with what was--the bite that people could handle,which was enhanced buffers, distance from residences,things like Page 26 of 54 April 21, 2016 that. So we took it in bites that people could swallow. MR.HOPKINS: Any other questions for me? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Anybody have a question?Because we're going to close the public hearing now. You all set? Okay. MR. HOPKINS: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Thanks. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I have a comment. I saw the artist's rendering you put up of the facades,the different facades. None of those looked all that onerous. I mean,the signs don't look out of scale. Nothing looks tremendously out of scale. It looks normal. Were those things drawn accurately to scale, everything? MR.YOVANOVICH: Can I add one other comment on that? You brought that up,and I apologize forgetting to bring that up. Some of it is based upon the structure, like the canopy,the sign we're asking for is really more aesthetically appropriate for the size. And I'll give you an example,not mine. But,you know,the new--the shopping center that was redone by the shopping center--I mean by the mall? If you--where you have the PGA super store and you have the new Publix and you have all of that? They went through the City of Naples.You may have been on the Planning Advisory Board at the time. And they went with bigger signs. And one of the rationales for the bigger signs was it just aesthetically made more sense to have the bigger sign on those facades because it looked more appropriate as to scale. And I think what Mr. Chrzanowski's saying,the signs that we're proposing on the building are appropriate in scale,just like the signs on the canopy are appropriate in scale for the structures that they're on. And part of that-- COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: You remember the reason they cited that they needed a bigger sign? I can remember that. MR.YOVANOVICH: I'm sure you can. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: The sign maker said that he hates sign ordinances because they limit his ability to be creative. And if you leave the sign people to be creative and exercise all of their abilities, they want to make it bigger and higher and funkier and everything else,and this is not what the community wants. We want less signs, smaller signs, informative signs,but not bigger,higher,billboards. MR.YOVANOVICH: And we're not doing billboards. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: That was the reason behind that. MR.YOVANOVICH: Now, he may have said that as the reason,but he didn't get that approved as the justification. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay. That's-- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I've got a couple of questions for staff,but I don't know if--we probably should keep the public hearing open until we finish those, at least. One is in the staff report--and I'm asking this question because I want to make sure that I understand what's going on now that this change has been made that references facilities with fuel pumps. In the staff report, in regards to Deviation Number--which one was it--2,the setback,the staffs analysis--excuse me--says that--this is on Page 6--no. I'm sorry. Where did I go?On Page 7. Right. I'm sorry. It's the next deviation. It's Deviation No. 2. In the staffs analysis it says,the subject property which is located in the activity center on Heritage Bay PUD master concept plan is considered having frontage on three of its property boundaries. Because this PUD does not have exemption language specific to gas stations,the minimum required setbacks for this use is regulated under LDC Section 5.05.05,which is the provision that relates to facilities with gas pumps,okay. Do--and I'm assuming that that provision was adopted to apply to gas stations,right? That 5.05.05.B.1? MR. BELLOWS: For the record,you're correct. The--that's a modification from the old gasoline service stations. Now it's facilities with fuel pumps,but... COMMISSIONER SOLIS: But that--so my question is,what is the reference to exemption language specific to gas stations? Do--are PUDs that are adopted post the adoption of the change to 5.05.05, Page 27 of 54 April 21, 2016 are they including in those PUDs language that exempts them from 5.05.05? I'm confused by that. MR.BELLOWS: For the record,Ray Bellows. If I understand the question Correctly, some PUDs have specific standards for automobile service stations with fuel facilities or gasoline stations,and that would supersede the LDC provisions in regard to what they require for buffering and things. Other PUDs allow the use but are silent to any development standards, so those LDC provisions would apply. That's the purpose of today's amendment,to adopt specific standards for this particular location. MR.YOVANOVICH: So to answer your question,Mr. Solis, since these have been adopted,when I've come through with PUDs with gas station,and in them I usually ask for deviations from 5.05.B.1 (sic)-- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. MR.YOVANOVICH: --because I'm aware of some of the limitations that occur based upon these changes to the code. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Was--are the standards in the PUD--I'm looking at the chart on Page 7 where it says PUD document, it says 15 feet,LDC 5.05.05 says 50. The PUD document--those standards in the PUD document that predated the current 5.05.05,was that consistent with what the old service station standards were? I'm trying to educate myself as to the history here. We don't know? MR. BELLOWS: I don't recall what the old standard was. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. It's not a trick question. MR.YOVANOVICH: The irony is if we looked at just the convenience store itself, I only have a 15-foot setback, but it's because we're now a convenience store with fueling opportunities or facilities, whatever the right word is,the convenience store now has a 50-foot setback versus a 15-foot setback that the PUD would require if it were just a convenience store. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right. And I think I just maybe heard--overheard Mr. Bellows discussing that the PUD setbacks that are in the chart are the--just basic setbacks for a structure. MR. BELLOWS: Correct. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. My other question is, looking at the aerial--let's see if I can get back up here. Looking at the aerial photograph, Sage Avenue is bent(sic)on both sides by outparcels. I'm--am I correct in assuming that all of those are commercial? All of that's commercial area? MR.JOHNSON: What I'll do is I'll put the location map on the visualizer. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. MR.JOHNSON: So you're asking the question if all these over here-- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No,no. On the north side of Sage,behind. MR.JOHNSON: I believe they're all in the activity center. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: That's all activity center,okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: They're all outparcels. MR.YOVANOVICH: They are commercial. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right. It's all commercial,okay. Have any of those been approved for anything?Any site plan? Do we know what's going on on those other parcels? MR.YOVANOVICH: I don't. MR.JOHNSON: Yeah. I don't know. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. Fair enough. Okay. My last question relates to the second sign canopy request for deviation. And I understand that you--under the code you're entitled to one sign canopy--I mean one canopy sign, sorry, and it would be on--the deviation asks for a second one,doesn't it? MR. WOJDAK: The code allows for a 12-square-foot sign on the facade if it faces the street. So we would be allowed two, Immokalee Road and Bellaire Bay. We're asking for a third on the west side of the canopy that would be viewable from Immokalee Road,but it would be on the west face of the canopy. But the code allows-- Page 28 of 54 April 21, 2016 COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Two. MR. WOJDAK: --two. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. I'm sorry. So you would be entitled to one on Bellaire and one on Immokalee Road, and you're requesting another one,essentially,along that shared drive access that we've been talking about. MR. WOJDAK: Correct. MR.YOVANOVICH: So you could see it as you're driving along Immokalee Road. Heading east, you'd see a RaceTrac sign on that canopy instead of it being blank. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And what happens when they build on Lot 3? MR. YOVANOVICH: What about--what do you mean? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Will you see the sign? MR.YOVANOVICH: I don't know until I know what they build on--my guess is,yes,because they're going to also have some setback from the canal. So I believe you'll probably still see that canopy sign. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No other questions. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Is that it? MR.JOHNSON: Madam Chair? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes. MR. JOHNSON: Just some housekeeping measures. In your staff report on Page 7 of 21 and also 8 of 21,those are the two charts that Commissioner Solis was referring to. The east front setback requirement as per LDC Section 5.05.05.B.1,that should be 50 feet rather than 40 feet. And then the west side setback, per LDC Section 5.05.05.B.1, should be 40 feet. So it was flip-flopped,but that doesn't change any of the analysis. Also,with respect to Deviation Request No. 5,the applicant makes reference to the speed limit being 50 miles per hour,and it actually may be less than,between 45 or 50. I cannot recall which,but that doesn't change our analysis of it, and we'd still recommend approval of that. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Now I'm going to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: I move we close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I just closed it. Okay. Staff is recommending approval. And we had language added to the shared maintenance section of this resolution. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: I move for denial of the application. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I second. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: We'll need to have,for the record,the basis of the denial. I handed out the rezone findings, so you have to mention the ones that it doesn't meet. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Do you want me to cite the reasons? MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Yes. Yeah. This is a final decision here,so we have to have a basis for the denial. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Okay. It is not consistent with the proposed goals,objective policies, and future land use and the map element of the Growth Management Plan,whether it is going to-- it does, in my view,adversely influence the living conditions in the neighborhood. There are no substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with the existing code. In my view, it is not impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use. It is unfair for the competition. I find the signage excessive. I find it detrimental to the nature and character of Collier County,and it erodes the value of the development codes and ordinances that we have. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Thank you. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Madam Chair,discussion?Discussion? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: There's a motion and a second,and then discussion? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Okay. I have a couple of comments here. Page 29 of 54 April 21, 2016 I was a part of the Planning Commission during the time that we painstakingly went over the Land Development Code amendment for facilities with fuel pumps,and I don't think any member of this board at that time took that discussion lightly. I seem to recall two or three meetings that we discussed it,and we discussed it for hours of what we saw as requirements for facilities with fuel pumps. So at least, in my view, I'm seeing deviations coming into that--those standards that we recently looked at and passed,or the Board of County Commissioners passed with the first application,and that troubles me because we just spent hours developing those standards. But at the same time I have to admit that each parcel of property is unique. That's what makes real estate what it is. In some cases I feel that maybe this parcel isn't suited for that particular use;however,having traveled Immokalee Road going out to Corkscrew or Ave Maria,that area is underserved in terms of opportunities to fill up. And so if RaceTrac has the opportunity to build there and to do this plan as it chooses to do,word is going to get out quickly that there is a new fueling station there,and folks are going to fuel up,especially with all of those housing communities that are going in along Immokalee Road. I don't think larger signs is necessarily the answer to get people's attention and to bypass all the work we did on the actual facilities with fuel pumps. I do see, because of the uniqueness of the property,some rationale that the staff has put forth in working with the petitioner on those buffers and those enhanced buffers. But when I look at the amount of feet in terms of the setbacks,we're looking at over 50 feet that we're granting in setback relief. And I'm sure when you calculate that in square footage,that's a considerable amount of land. But those are my comments. MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I--are we allowed to respond? May I ask the chairman for permission to respond? COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Public hearing is closed. COMMISSIONER EBERT: The public hearing is closed. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Respond to the sign? MR. YOVANOVICH: To the comment. I mean,I'd like to-- I mean, I'm assuming the reason the issue was raised was-- COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Why don't you wait till you see if there is a second for the motion. MR.YOVANOVICH: There was a second. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: There was a second. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: That's why we're having discussion. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: You can decide,or you can make,you know,a motion among the group to see whether you want to allow. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Would you like to hear the comment from the petitioner? Yes? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Go ahead. MR.YOVANOVICH: I don't want to give up the sign deviations,but I don't want the project to go--we don't want the project to go down over the size of the signs. So if it makes sense to the--to Ms. Roman, if that will address the concerns you have with the petition--and I'm trying to pare it back and make sure I understood the concerns, is that the variance for the distance,because of the canal, I didn't hear that as a concern for you. That was--that was an acceptable deviation that we're requesting. It was just the signs that are a concern for you. If that's the question--if that's your only concern,we'll drop the deviation request regarding the size of the signs if that would address the concerns of the Planning Commission. My question is,do you have an objection to the additional sign on the canopy as long as it meets the size requirements of your code? You know,the one for the sign on the west side of the canopy. I heard you talk about size,but I wasn't sure about that one deviation about the additional sign. I don't know if that was a Page 30 of 54 April 21, 2016 concern or not for you,Commissioner. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Was is the monument signs? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I'm looking at the signs in general. My comment was in general. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Are you dropping--are you dropping your request for the height of the free-standing sign and the size of it? MR.YOVANOVICH: My understanding is the size of the signs appear to be the concern,not the number. It was the size of the signs,as I understood it. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: And the height? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well,that would--to me that goes to size. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: The gentleman behind you is shaking his head. MR. HOPKINS: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. That goes to the size,so yes. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Which deviation was that, staff,so we're sure we're talking about the same one? MR.JOHNSON: Deviation No.9 is the monument sign area. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: And Deviation No. 5 is the canopy. MR.YOVANOVICH: Correct. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: So are you talking about both of those? MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm trying to understand. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. MR.YOVANOVICH: I knew the size issues,but there was a request for additional canopy sign. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Rich, I guess I'm going to ask you,are you saying that the setbacks on the property, it's the size of the signs and everything, if they went to code,would we be fine with that? MR.YOVANOVICH: Would you be fine with my project if I dropped the size of the sign deviation? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Deviations,yes. MR.YOVANOVICH: Is that right? Did I get it right? That's what I'm--that's what I-- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: But then the question was,does that include the additional canopy sign? MR.YOVANOVICH: See,that was--but that was--nobody raised that as an issue regarding--nobody said, hey, I don't like the fact that you're asking for an additional canopy sign. The focus seemed to be on the size of the signs. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Speaking for myself, I'm objecting to all of the deviations, particularly those about the signage. MR.YOVANOVICH: I understand. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: The height,the location,and the number. So if your understanding is that you didn't hear somebody objecting to the size or the location, I want to correct that understanding. MR. YOVANOVICH: No,I heard you,Mr. Assaad, loud and clear. I was talking about what Ms. Roman was saying. She seemed to say she was okay with the development. She just didn't like the sign deviations. That's what I thought I heard. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: What I'm saying is that went beyond what we had painstakingly-- MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: -- spent hours and hours on saying that we wanted in terms of the Land Development Code. MR.YOVANOVICH: I understand. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And I'm a little concerned with the extra canopy sign. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. That's what I'm asking. I'm asking the question. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I'm answering your question. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: So that would be all signs,then. MR.YOVANOVICH: I don't want to solve--I didn't want to not solve the issues to move this forward. MR.JOHNSON: So for the record,Deviation No. 5 is the canopy sign area,Deviation No. 6 is the Page 31 of 54 April 21, 2016 number of canopy signs,and Deviation No. 9 is monument sign area. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No. I was just-- I don't know if we're there yet,because there's a pending motion. We probably have to deal with the pending motion first. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Because I would make another motion,but I guess we need to deal with the first motion unless it's withdrawn? MR. YOVANOVICH: Or the second. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: What about the second? Is the second withdrawn? COMMISSIONER EBERT: If Mr. Yovanovich will go back and take all the sign deviations out,I would be okay with this. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: So you withdraw your second on the motion? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Withdraw your second? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Withdraw my second. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: We've got a motion maker,though,right here. MR.YOVANOVICH: But he doesn't have a second. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Withdraw my motion. Let me make another motion. I'd like to recommend approval with the application as presented except for all of the deviations regarding all signs. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: So that would be No. 5,No. 6,and No. 9? COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Whatever the numbers are. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Is that correct, Scott? COMMISSIONER EBERT: And I'll second that. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Discussion? Nothing? (No response.) COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Aye. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Opposed, like sign? (No response.) COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Is it time for another break? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yeah. Well,here comes Mark. (Chairman Strain returned to the dais.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ***The next item up is Item 9B. It's PUDZ-PL20140002809. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item,please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. If you want to--if you're here,members of the public,to address this issue,you need to be sworn in. So please stand. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures from the Planning Commission. We'll start with Tom on the--my right. MR. EASTMAN: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Nothing. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: None. COMMISSIONER EBERT: None. Page 32 of 54 April 21, 2016 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I've had numerous conversations with the applicant and yesterday with staff. Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Nothing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Assaad's gone,okay. Charlette? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: No contact. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There has been one issue that was discovered about a week ago. Had discussions yesterday with staff and had discussions this morning with the applicant,and I think that they are seeking a continuance. MR.VANASSE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that in mind,does anybody here have any objections to the continuance? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now,as far as--before we vote on the continuance,the members of the public that are here,there were some issues discovered that were in error. They may or may not be issues you're here to discuss. If you cannot be here when this is continued to,which will be the next meeting, Patrick? It will be the May 5th meeting. If you cannot be here for the May 5th meeting,we can hear your issues today. But I need to know that now. And one gentleman who was sworn in,would you be able to come back and talk to us on the next meeting? MR.NAUGHTON: No, I won't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then if you'd like to address the issues today,they can be addressed and put on the record, and then when it does come back,we'll have that on the record to refer to. So we'll accommodate that. Heidi,does it matter sequentially if we have the comment from the citizen before we continue it,or we go ahead and make the continuance? Because it's been requested by the applicant. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: I'd go ahead and hear the speaker and then continue it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, if you'd like to address us,please come on up. MR.NAUGHTON: My name is Patrick Naughton. I'm on the board of directors for Marco Shores Estates. And,basically, our community is wondering why we have a mobile home park on one end,and we're a mobile home park. You want to change the designation from a mobile home area to residential where we are single-level homes on both sides,and you're going to put two-story homes with a height of up to 40 feet between us. And that is our whole complaint,that it's zoned mobile home. Leave it zoned the way it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now,your development is to the north or south? MR.NAUGHTON: North. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that's the development who provided the contract and has-- MR.NAUGHTON: No,no, no. That is our previous owner. He kept that name for his company. We bought him out in 2007 where we are,but that piece of land on the other side of the lake is his. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,the piece of land--okay. So--I thought--there is an agreement and I'm--where did Patrick go? Patrick,are you familiar with your applicant's agreement for this project? There is a--there is some agreement for use or treatment of that lake that was provided by what entity; do you recall? MR.VANASSE: For the record,Patrick Vanasse,certified planner and the representative for High View right now. With regards to legal matters in that agreement, I'm not a legal expert; however,I do know that the entity--there's a homeowners association with the Marco Shores name,and there's also a separate company with that,with a name very close to it. They're two separate entities. MR.NAUGHTON: Yes,they are. Page 33 of 54 April 21, 2016 MR.VANASSE: The seller of the property is a separate entity and distinct from the HOA. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. And the seller of the property is Marco Shores Estates Homeowners Association. MR.VANASSE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They signed a proprietary lease on October 1,2007,regarding the lake and other matters involving the property to the south. So you don't represent that group. That group's a former owner? MR.NAUGHTON: That's--the former owner kept that piece of land. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Okay. And I appreciate the clarification. We'll certainly consider that when we come back on May 5th. Is there anything else you'd like to add involving your--I encourage you to, if you have any specific issues that you develop as the next week or two goes on,please send your comments to Nancy Gundlach, if you'd like, and she can make those part of the record at the meeting itself if you can't be there. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Mark? MR.NAUGHTON: See,one of the problems with this is we have a lot of snowbirds in our park. And everybody's going home now,and you guys are going to have the meetings in May,June,or whatever. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,we don't-- MR.NAUGHTON: There's no way of continuing this till September,October? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's--we--yeah.That's just not part of the way the--we're here 24-- 12 months a year,and I--we have to continue on. So, Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: There were a lot of people here. Were they all with you? MR.NAUGHTON: Yes,but they had doctors'appointments. I've got one,too. I've got to go,too. That's why I wanted to speak and be done. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Maybe if we put this first on the list. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,it will be first. It's a continued item. All continued items start at 9 o'clock on May 5th. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Nine o'clock? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. It will be first so you won't have to go through another long period of waiting. MR.NAUGHTON: Thank you. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: If Ms. Gundlach receives written objections, she'll make that part of the record at the next hearing. MR.NAUGHTON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, sir. Any other members of the public wish to speak on this matter, okay. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that,there's been a motion to request a continuance to a date certain of May 5th. Any comments from the Planning Commission? If there isn't, is there a--so moved. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Motion to continue to May 5th. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Karen, seconded by Diane. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Aye. Page 34 of 54 April 21, 2016 COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. Thank you. And with that,we'll move right into our next agenda item. There actually is two agenda items left. ***The first one is the Item 9C. It's for the 5.05.08,the architectural and site design standards. Now, these are elements that we have reviewed two or three times before. The architectural committee has been kind enough to spend additional time to review our concerns and then reply to us. This has been boiled down to a table format that Jeremy has carefully put together that focuses on those items that are remaining and the differences between the two groups. (Stan Chrzanowski left the boardroom for the remainder of the meeting.) Now,the Board can approach this a couple of different ways. Some of the comments that we supplied,the architectural committee agreed to. Some of them they slightly modified,and three or four of them they could not agree to. Since we have talked about these a couple of times before or more,those that we agreed to,I'm not sure if there's a need for us to get involved with them again if we've already agreed to them and they agree to what we previously sent them. It would seem to save time just to go forward. The changes in the language, if no one has any objections to those--and I have reviewed those--most of them I don't have a problem with. In my review there were three, I think,maybe four elements that the architectural committee did not concur with our recommendations on,and they basically are saying,no,they don't agree,and this is where they want to go with them. It's-- I'm content moving just to those,but I don't want to--I don't want to bypass any concerns the rest of you have. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: That's fine with me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well,then,Jeremy,why don't you take us to the ones where the disagreements lie. I have them highlighted on my table,but I know you do,too, so let's just let you narrate it and go forward. MR. FRANTZ: Sure. And if you do have any questions about any of the other sections, I'll be happy to answer those. The first issue would be on the first page of the table. It's labeled Section B.1. The Planning Commission had requested that nonresidential PUD zoning districts be added to Section B.1. The committee's consensus was to keep that removed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And in this particular one, if this applied,the architectural criteria would then apply to commercial zoning district and commercial components of PUDs business park zoning districts. But if there are other--any other nonresidential elements that don't fit those two categories,that language was requested to be struck and would no longer be valid. MR. FRANTZ: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I think the committee, if you want to jump in--I know that each time we've talked about these you've expressed your ideas, but we're certainly here and more than willing to listen to you if you want to jump in on these. I do like Mr.Assaad's comments earlier that we have a character in this community that has been derived because of the various standards we have. And I look across this county and see the articulation of our architectural elements,and we're number one in the country or in the top 10 for numbers of various reasons, all which have to do with the character set by both our landscaping and our architecture. And this particular one would take too much out of the architecture,and I still would like to see us stick with our original recommendation,and that is to leave the--put language in that adds nonresidential PUD zoning districts so it applies to everything that's nonresidential. And I don't know what the rest of you feel,but I'm--it's certainly time to discuss it. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I concur and have voiced that position as well in our previous discussions of this. Page 35 of 54 April 21, 2016 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it looks like we would go forward with our--with the No. C reading, nonresidential PUD zoning districts. And I don't--after listening to the discussion that you-all had earlier this morning,I don't see the need to have an exemption after 300 feet. I mean,why? It doesn't make any sense. And if a PUD wants to do something internally,they have the option to ask for a deviation to that, and I know some have. But I think for the most part,we're better off leaving it like it is. Jim,did you have--you look like you're about to jump out of your seat. More than welcome to participate, sir. MR. BOUGHTON: Good morning. My name's Jim Boughton,and--architect and member of the ad hoc committee. And I guess my question would be,to the commission, is if we're listing commercial components of PUD zoning districts,what type of projects or zoning districts are we--if there's a subdivision of nonresidential,what would that be that's not covered under PUD zoning districts? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Assisted living facilities,CCRCs, government facilities,churches. For example,we have some churches that went up in Golden Gate Estates that were metal buildings. If you leave up metal buildings,they're going to look really bad. When you have to do additional trimmings and detailing on them, I'd like to make sure they're caught in any web of detail that we can. MR. BOUGHTON: But don't a lot of these type of projects go through a conditional use process? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. But, I mean,we don't normally, in a conditional use, start articulating all the details of an architectural standard, especially when we have one already written. And there may not be an opportunity all the time to see that those are followed through because of the process they go through to get through a conditional use. And it doesn't hurt. If you're saying we could do that during the conditional use,then why don't we just do it anyway? Why do we need to wait for that standard--or that process to kick in? And I know you're an architect,Jim,and you and I have worked together,and I know the detail you go into in your projects. This is just assuring that some of that detail gets there. MR. BOUGHTON: Okay. I--I thought we were covered by listing PUD zoning districts,basically all PUD zoning districts. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I don't think we are. MS. CILEK: The language is commercial components of PUD zoning districts. MR. BOUGHTON: Correct, I understand that. Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Go ahead. Andy? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Were you saying that you would be in favor of removing the 300-foot provision? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes,just leaving it-- COMMISSIONER ROMAN: No. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Because that was something that we--I think that was something that the Planning Commission brought up. MS.CILEK: And we're looking at B.1. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: B.1. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: B.1,right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Yes,we did,but we did that as a compromise to the architectural group. They say,no,they don't--so I'm not sure we need to put that carrot out. It's still better as a nonresidential PUD zoning district flat out. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Can I just refresh--someone refresh my recollection as to what the issue was? Because it was--had something to do with whether or not a portion of the PUD would be considered an interior portion that might be seen or something. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. This is for nonresidential PUD. Page 36 of 54 April 21, 2016 COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right. I'm sorry.Nonresidential PUDs,but it would be interior or something. What was the--what was the reasoning behind the 300 feet? MR. FRANTZ: Yes. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: That was our own idea? MR.FRANTZ: The--when this came to you last time,the committee had provided some additional discussion about why they had removed that portion,and I think that a part of that discussion was that the--especially on the interior of a PUD,that it wasn't necessary and that it would be better to have the standards apply to the exterior of the PUD, if at all,and so I think that this was part--that was part of that discussion,or that compromise came about as a part of that discussion. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So we're going to take out our own suggestion of the Planning Commission where--the suggestion of the 300-foot used throughout the section determining when a building is interior to the project? MS. CILEK: If I may,this provision has been discussed at every single meeting that you guys have had,and your initial recommendation was to keep it in as it existed today. And so you actually were referring back to that original recommendation. You had sought to compromise. That didn't get fulfilled so,you know,perhaps looking at your original recommendation is where you want to go today. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. So we're going back to the original one completely? MR. FRANTZ: And that language is on the visualizer now. MS. CILEK: (Nods head.) COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the recommendation from this board would be to go back to the language that's on the visualizer. Is everybody content with that? COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Heidi,on the remaining elements on this, can we make one--since they're all under the same section of the code,at the end of this discussion can we make one motion to--if we're all on the same page,to recommend approval as we discussed? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes, if it's unanimous. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Jeremy, let's go to the next one that is,you know, in disagreement. It looks likes it's on Page 4. MR.FRANTZ: Correct. So that takes us to what used to be old--or what used to be Section C.3 dealing with facade and wall height transition elements. The committee's original proposal was to remove this section completely. The Planning Commission had asked for it to be retained. And,again,the committee has just reaffirmed that they would like to remove this section. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll stand by my previous statements. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I would support that. I find this a highly important portion of the architectural code considering that we'll be transitioning for many years between older structures and newer structures,and I've stated that before,and I just want to go on the record again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then we're in agreement. We'll go--we'll leave with the Planning Commission's suggestions to leave the language in. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Jeremy,the next one will be the following page,on Page 6, I believe. MR. FRANTZ: That's correct. And in this section it's dealing with projections and recesses.The committee originally proposed removing several of these sections,everything below 20,000 square feet. Planning Commission requested that it be retained. The committee brought back to you a revised proposal that only removed the 5,000-square-foot Page 37 of 54 April 21, 2016 section and had changed some of the depths of each of the projections and recesses. At your last meeting that you heard this,the Planning Commission recommended that the original language be retained,and the committee is now reaffirming again that revised recommendation of just removing the 5,000 square feet and changing the depths of the minimum projection and recesses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I would agree that the depths of the projections and recesses could be modified and still we wouldn't lose the articulation,because they are a little deeper in some cases need be. So for ii, iii,and iv, I don't have a problem with their suggestion to reduce those areas,but on v,which is what we originally requested to be left in,I don't see why we would want to take it out. In fact,you have zoning districts where 5,000 is the biggest you can go. We have a lot of C3 zoning in Collier County with that kind of limitation,so that would mean we'd be off the books with this issue. So I just as soon we kept that standard as well,but we modified the transition depths as they had suggested in the first three. And I don't mean to speak for you-all. I'm just trying to summarize to move through it quickly. If you're all happy with that,then we can move to the next one. Is everybody okay with that? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Yeah,because I think that 5,000-square-foot building or smaller is just as important. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,we have the potential to have a lot of them. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And --then,Jeremy,where's the next one? MR. FRANTZ: That would be the next page, Page 7,and we're looking at Section D.8.c. This one is--was previously--the section was--excuse me. I'm trying to speak clearly. This last sentence of this section was proposed to be removed. The Planning Commission asked for that to be retained, and the committee has agreed to retain this section but suggested changing the word from "adjacent"to "abutting"outparcels, so this would change--would limit when this applies. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Didn't we start with the word "abutting" on this one before,and then-- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Different. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, ironically,one of your earlier codes,and I think it was 91-102,or maybe 82-2,I had to do some research on the words "adjacent" and "abutting." They were the same definition at one time,and when we switched codes,they split out into two separate definitions. But they're almost so similar it may be a moot point,and that's--I didn't--I don't necessarily disagree with the committee to allow the word to be changed,but I'm certainly looking for your input. So I think with that-- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: We did this same thing, I thought-- COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Yes. We had a lot of discussion about abutting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes,we did. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Maybe we need to do adjacent slash abutting. I don't know what-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,that would mean two different things today,unfortunately. Our code has two separate definitions for each one of those,unlike the previous codes. We split them back out. I don't see where it's harmed by using the word "abutting." I'm comfortable with that. Is the rest-- COMMISSIONER ROMAN: As long as we have the right word. That's the key to what we want to communicate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Jeremy,the next one was on Page 9 where there's differences? MR. FRANTZ: Yeah. I'll quickly go through on Page 8,though,on D.9.b. The committee is in agreement with this change to retain the roof edge and parapet treatments. You-all had suggested including the ability to do vertical and horizontal changes on roof lines,and so there's some new language there that gets to that recommendation. But,again,the committee was in agreement with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. FRANTZ: The next actual disagreement--actually,before we get to the next disagreement.On Page 9, F.2.b.i is a section that you-all had asked for some additional information specifically regarding how the additional landscaping is calculated or what exactly is required. Page 38 of 54 April 21, 2016 This section is--currently refers to LDC Section 4.05.04. And just give me a moment. So in Section 4.05.04,the requirement is that whenever a--whenever parking is exceeded by 120 percent,that double the landscaping required for interior vehicular use areas is required. And the landscaping requirements is then found in Section 4.06.03 where the current requirement is--or the normal requirement is,at least 10 percent of the vehicular use area shall be devoted to landscaping, and one tree shall be provided for every 250 square feet. So the doubling would apply to those two things. So it would become 20 percent of the--of the vehicular use area and two trees for every 250 square feet of landscaping. MS. CILEK: Jeremy, do you want to put that on the visualizer so they can follow. Yeah,we have some notes on it,but you can see the language. MR. FRANTZ: So here is-- so this first one is the requirement in 5.05.08 that refers you to 4.05.04. And here you can see the requirement for double the landscaping as required in 4.06.00.That takes you to 4.06.03 where 10 percent of the vehicular use area and one tree for every 250 square feet. MS. CILEK: And then those are doubled. We just wanted to share that with you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we recommended just a clarification. You have provided that. They didn't have to change anything in response to that. MR. FRANTZ: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any questions with the clarification other than the fact it's extremely confusing? Section on this runs a section on that,and a section on that runs to another section. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: You've just got to hang in there and stay with it. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: We're taking out that sentence because all of this gets you there anyway? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's correct. That's what was-- MR. FRANTZ: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --that's what we asked to have. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Bottom line. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay. MR. FRANTZ: Right. The standard that was--that is currently in the architectural section applies to all parking lots that exceed 120 percent. The section that we showed you in 4.05.04 only applies to parking lots with over 80 spaces. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Eighty. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 9 is the next one. MS. CILEK: If I may,would it be easier if we just stated the requirement? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I mean, it depends on-- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --what you consider easier. If you think anybody's going to figure the line of reasoning we just saw to get from the three different sections to get an answer and then compute it on top of the way it's written in that section,that definitely is not simple. But yes-- MS. CILEK: We would propose language that would-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --if you could succinctly mention it there, I think that would be an advantage to anybody reading this section of the code. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Because then they don't have to refer to the documents involved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MS. CILEK: That's what I'm getting to,yeah,absolutely. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Follow the yellow brick road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's Page 9,the bottom of that. The difference between the two was the percentage of what was wanting to be relocated to the--allowed in the front; is that a fair statement,Jeremy? MR. FRANTZ: Yeah. Originally,the committee had requested for this section to be removed entirely. You-all had asked for it to be retained. So they've retained this section but have changed the percentage of parking that can be located in front for interior lots. And so now the percentage for interior lots Page 39 of 54 April 21, 2016 and corner lots would be the same. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now,the interior lot means exactly what? Interior lot to a planned unit development or to a commercial area where it doesn't have external exposure. MR.FRANTZ: I see that it's a defined term, and so I don't want to say what I think it means,but maybe we could come back to that,and I could give you the actual definition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wafaa? COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Interior lots means lots fronting on one street. They're not corner lots,they're not cul-de-sac lots. It doesn't matter whether or not you're in a PUD or out on the street in Naples Park. MR. FRANTZ: Yeah. I think that sounds like what I think it means. I'd like to have the opportunity to just read that definition-- COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I'd like to check the code. MR. FRANTZ: --to you just to be sure that it's clear. MS. CILEK: And we're obtaining the definition right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So am I. Isn't that amazing? Integrated phased development, infiltration impervious--must be lots interior,not interior lots. Lot interior. A lot--other than a corner lot with only one frontage on a street. So "interior lot" means interior to a block,not interior to a zoning district or interior to a PUD. That's what I was trying to find out. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it would only be,then, interior to a block, so it could still be a street with--on a main arterial outside the PUD, so one of our main streets. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the suggestion here is to reduce the amount of required parking to go to the back and leave more in front. And we had suggested leaving it alone. They had come back and said, instead of striking it completely, leave it in. They had come back and said, instead of requiring 50 percent--no more than 50 percent in the front,we could go up to 80 percent in the front. What's the feelings of the panel? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'll be honest, if you look at a lot of these parking lots,who parks in back is the employees. So having more up front,I feel, is good. I mean,there are situations here where there's no parking in front or back. So it's--if we can keep mainly the employees at the back of the lot and the customers in the front. I like the 80 percent,Mark, I guess is what I'm saying. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I think under the walkable streets, isn't there a provision where more parking is towards the back and around on the street versus in the front of the building, and the storefronts are moved forward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Dover-Kohl also strongly recommended that and--Jeremy, and I believe you reviewed that. MR. FRANTZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Why is parking in front not desirable? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just reiterating what we--the studies we've done. I'm not sure-- I can't--I could pull up the Dover-Kohl study and we could probably hear their argument. MR. FRANTZ: Yeah. I could go to that page. This is from one of our previous packets. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Because large parking lots in front of buildings is really an older approach. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Not really. They are safer. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I don't know about that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Wafaa,she's a lot younger than us. That could be the problem. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Well. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: You'll see that in smart growth models and-- Page 40 of 54 April 21, 2016 COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: What have they done tastefully with landscaping and lighting and all of that? MR. FRANTZ: So if you have your packet from February 4th,on Page 11 of that analysis of Dover-Kohl,the Dover-Kohl report talked about the visual impact of bringing buildings closer to the street and creating a more walkable,pedestrian-friendly street environment. And so the goal was to move parking lots behind the buildings and not just--not maintain those same setbacks for buildings on the street but bring them actually closer to the sidewalks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know,with our landscaping requirements--because we do have more parking lot landscaping requirements than I know other communities. The only one I've seen similar to ours is West Palm Beach,because they do the same thing. They have a lot of islands and a lot of landscaping. I think we soften the parking lots quite substantially when they're in front of buildings. So I don't necessarily disagree with-- in this case with the 80 percent, so... COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: If you look at Tamiami Trail South closer to downtown Naples,the City of Naples has zero setbacks, so you can have your four-story office building right at the right-of-way line,and all of the parking is in the back. What this does,it crowds the street. It gives you image that you're closed in. It doesn't give you the open vista. When the parking is hidden in the back,you don't know if there are parking spaces available. In my view,they are not as safe as parking in front because of the lighting and the police patrol and the visibility. So I see a lot of advantage into parking in the front unless the owner wants to do maybe a limited amount for employees in the back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm fine with the 80 percent recommendation from the committee. Is that all right-- COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I mean,I don't necessarily agree with everything Wafaa is saying,but I don't have a problem with the percentage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I think he wanted to speak. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you want to snatch--what do they call that--snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. MR. BOUGHTON: Well,you know what, I'm going to sit down. We felt like,whether it's 50 percent or 80 percent in front of the building, it's not going to make a substantial difference in how these buildings are set back,and that parking for employees is probably 10 percent so we bumped it to 20. And that was basically the rationale for why we thought this was a good compromise. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it works. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I think it works. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think we're all on the same page then,which takes to the next and last item,which is the number--Page No. 10. It's talking about pedestrian pathways. MR. FRANTZ: Yes. And,again,this section was recommended for removal. You-all--the committee had--or, sorry. The commission had recommended that it be retained,and the committee has again reaffirmed that they would like to remove this section. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And your response to the retention is the Attachment 1 that's on Page 11; is that-- MR. FRANTZ: Well,yes. Also at the last Planning Commission meeting you had asked about what is required by ADA, and so that attachment shows you the Florida Building Code which mirrors the ADA requirements requiring at least one route. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: This becomes more important when they're walking through larger parking lots. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. I--with its coverage in ADA, I think we're okay. I don't really have a big issue with it. Anybody else here? (No response.) Page 41 of 54 April 21, 2016 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So with that,that's the issues that remain for the third review or fourth review of this. Is there a motion to forward to the Board of County Commissioners with the go-ahead, Caroline? MS. CILEK: We would like the opportunity to share with you an updated narrative. It is going to incorporate what the Planning Commission has discussed in the past couple of meetings and identify how the amendment would be presented to the Board. We're currently working on that narrative and we're hoping to get it to you on May 19th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But for the approval of the--for the narrative to go forward,we're going to be putting the motion on the language that's going to be struck through and changed in the LDC itself. So as your--are you going to include that as a backup to your narrative? MS. CILEK: The LDC text? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MS. CILEK: Yeah,of course. It will be included with the narrative. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. CILEK: There are a couple of things I did want to just touch base on. I believe when we were going back and in looking at the narrative and the LDC language,we wanted to, again,bring up some of the--one of the exemptions to make sure that we had followed the direction of the Planning Commission a couple meetings ago, and that was dealing with the Immokalee over--urban overlay and whether that was to be exempted or not. Do you,perhaps,have your old copy of the full narrative? If not, I can put it up on the-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have mine,and it said that it should--that they won't be exempt until the CRA adopts a new code. MS. CILEK: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Otherwise they'd be codeless. It would be like the Wild West for building out there. And I remember it was in my notes,and I made a comment. MS. CILEK: That provides--that provides clarification. Thank you very much. I do have one additional question before we move to look at the--make a motion on the language, and that is on Page 6. It was one of the last provisions on that page under A,D.3.a. a.v where you guys were seeking to retain No. 5;however, I wanted to make sure if you wanted to keep the minimum depth,the second to last line,the one above it has been changed to two feet,which you approved. So perhaps we want-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a good point. We wouldn't want it to be greater than the one above it. It's a smaller building. I would have to suggest the ratio compared to the one above would be probably appropriate,and that's between 5-and 10,000. The committee is--the architectural committee committed--or suggested two feet in lieu of four. That's half of what was there. And they did that consistently without the rest. It wouldn't seem unreasonable,then,that 5,000 would be half of what was previously required to match up what they had suggested for the ones that they compromised on. MS. CILEK: So we're looking at one and a half. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Eighteen inches. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: What is that; shutters?I mean,when you think about that,that's not very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's a small building,though,too,but 18 inches would be more than shutters,wouldn't it? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Oh, I thought half of two was what you were suggesting. One-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Half of three. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because--and it would be-- it would be articulate--a movement in the building's facade, so yeah. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Exactly,because,we--you know, I've been focused on those 5,000-square-foot buildings or smaller because we don't want them to look like boxes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This would give it enough,I think. Page 42 of 54 April 21, 2016 COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Caroline,are you satisfied? MS. CILEK: Yes,thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we will --the formal vote on this will happen when you bring the narrative back with the attached strikethroughs. MS. CILEK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. As long as we all remember what we did today. And what I would do is like to take a 10-minute break before we go into the final session because it's been almost an hour and 40 minutes since the court reporter had a break. MS. CILEK: That's just fine. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. Were we doing a motion on this architectural-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think we need to until the language actually comes back in strikethrough format with a narrative. Heidi,do you see-- MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Is that what you're going to do is bring it back? MS. CILEK: Yes,absolutely. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that okay? Okay. With that, let's just take a 10-minute break,and we'll go back to the remaining LDC amendments that are not the architectural ones but the next phase in 9D when we come back. Thank you. We'll come back at 12:22. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ***The next item up is the Cycle 2 Land Development Code amendments, and there are a series of these. There's actually, I think, 10 of them. I've read them all, and I'm sure all of you had. And I would normally go through these one at a time, but if there's no questions, maybe we can just--Caroline can call them out,and the ones that we have questions on we can stop at; otherwise,we'll continue to move on to the next one. Some of them are basically administrative corrections,and there's a few real simple ones here,so we may not need to spend a lot of time on them. So,Caroline,why don't we approach it that way. MS. CILEK: Absolutely. We'd like to start off with the agenda and looking at No. l and 2.Those are going to be presented by Steve Lenberger. So the first one is 3.05.04 and 3.05.07,which is to add flexibility to the preserve signage requirements. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I have a few questions. MS.CILEK: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's good, because otherwise Steve would have been here all day with nothing to say. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Hi, Steve. MR. LENBERGER: Good morning. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I have questions on the changes. There are five different elements to-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What page are you on,Charlette? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I'm on Page 1. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,okay. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Let's see, Page 1, and--this wasn't the first one in my book, but 3.05.04. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: You're proposing five different changes in this Land Development Code amendment. And I can understand the first one and 4 and 5, but No. 2,you're asking to clarify when permanent installation of preserve signs are required. Could you elaborate on that on why you're proposing Page 43 of 54 April 21, 2016 that change? MR. LENBERGER: For the record, Stephen Lenberger,engineering and natural resources department. The installation of preserve signs is currently, as stated in the code, required at the time of construction. But the code also has safeguards for different types of construction activities. Mainly you're required to have some sort of protective barrier in place in areas that you're not going to have construction or adjacent to preserves. And these types of barricades are sufficient. We've had-- I've had dialogue with several people since this code was written,and it's been quite a while. They said,why do we have to have preserve signs up initially when we have these construction barricades? Sometimes they get knocked down. Different cases may happen like that. And so we thought about it and said,the protective measures for the barricading is sufficient and, really,you don't need your preserve sign to identify the preserve when the subdivision is complete until you have subdivision acceptance or your first CO on a development. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Well, I could understand that you don't want them to put the nice permanent signs up during construction, but it may be because those signs were there that the protective barrier is sufficient, so I'm not sure which precludes what. But I was surprised that you didn't recommend some kind of temporary designation of that area. MR. LENBERGER: We spoke with our construction people who do inspections,and they haven't had issues with this. The only-- COMMISSIONER ROMAN: It could be because the permanent signs are up. MR. LENBERGER: Well, I can't say they are. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Okay. That,too. MR. LENBERGER: There really has been issues. They had one developer actually go in clearing without following protocol, but that was a totally unrelated thing. But as far as protective barricades, it's been sufficient,and they haven't had any issues. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Because that's--you addressed my concern that with all of the subcontractors working on a particular project,you know, maybe it's because the signs were there,or if they weren't there,this protective barrier. If it's the barriers that I often see that are in disarray, I don't know how good those are either. MR. LENBERGER: Well,we could put temporary signs there. I don't know if they're necessary. You know, I've had dialogue with a few people. Some people actually just said,you know,write it right on the silt fence or whatever the case may be. You have all kinds of suggestions. And,you know,that could be something we could add if you wish. Right now we haven't seen any issues with it, so I didn't include it. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Yeah. I support your recommendation to not have them put the nice permanent signs up during construction, for sure,but I thought that there was an intermediate step rather than just removing every designation. And maybe there weren't issues,but we don't know what reasons those issues didn't occur. You know,we don't want--know why. It's just a thought for you to consider. But I agree with the two inches in lettering. I thought that many of these recommendations were positive to the markings that you suggested. It was just,you know,doing away with any type of description of that area during the time of construction was a little bit of a concern. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I--without having had any instance where there's been a proven problem, I would hesitate to suggest we need to require the temporary signs that would actually increase the costs,which is probably something we're trying to avoid when we are requiring the permanent signs to be put in later,because we reduce the cost for them being destroyed and having to be replaced. So,Charlene, unless we have some shown reason,would you be comfortable leaving it like it is,and if it doesn't warrant-- if it proves to be problematic in the future,we could always amend it with putting the temporary signs in as a requirement? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Well,you know, I'm open to that. My only comment to you would be that we might not have had a problem because permanent signs were required. Now,whether or not the developer put those permanent signs adjacent to the preserve is another Page 44 of 54 April 21, 2016 matter. But what this amendment,as I understand it, is doing is removing the requirement for the developer to put the permanent preserve-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's correct. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: --sites(sic)up during construction. And I think that's a little much,I would agree with you. But I'd like to monitor this--and I could support this,but I would like to monitor this to see if there-- COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: That doesn't prohibit somebody from putting signs? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. It would be to their advantage if they--because they would be-- COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Feel strongly about it. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,they'd be protecting what they would have to replant if they didn't. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: And you don't have to ask for a deviation from that. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Well--but here's the other thing that--my only concern would be, Wafaa,that in some of these areas they may have some pristine habitat that is designated as their preserve, and I'd hate to see it destroyed and then after the fact we get new plantings than just protecting what we have there to begin with. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Steve, I have a question for you,too. It's kind of along the lines of Charlette's. And I have seen the barriers. They are--those--that black stuff is turned over. Nothing is done. I mean, I have seen where they just push dirt into the preserves. There is no barriers. So the permanent signs, I don't have a problem with putting up right away,by any means. In fact,we didn't get our permanent signs until about four years ago. And it says--it was absolutely crazy. We've been in existence since 2000. And for them to put them in,and all it just says is, "Preserve area. Do not enter." And the signs are so different. I do like the one on Page 4 where it just says, "Conservation and preserve area." I think that is fabulous. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I think,you know,the intent, Steve, is to protect or preserve that from getting accidental damage. I guess that's the main thing. And what I saw when I read your recommended code change is I just saw removal. I didn't see an option to protect from accidental damage. And so that's what I question. But I'm willing to support this provided that you accept the charge to monitor it to see what's going on out there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we're all on the--we're all supportive,basically,of this--the changes you're recommending at this point. Okay. So what are the--what's the next item up? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I didn't hear Steve say that he's going to monitor it. And if I could have-- see if that's a reasonable thing to ask. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know what the answer will be if you don't say that? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: No. I just--I feel it's important,Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,no. I'm not saying it isn't. I'm just saying,he's--it's almost a given that it's going to be monitored at this point. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Well,he may say he can't do it. He may say that it's too much to do. MR.LENBERGER: No. Well,I don't do monitoring. I do permitting. And we have staff--appropriate staff to do that and supervisors to handle that. But I understand the monitoring for the activity given that the signs are not going to be posted and also of the barriers that are in place to make sure that they stay up,and that is a concern of this commission,and I will bring that to the attention of the construction inspectors. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Thanks, Steve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Did you have any other item to discuss here today so we can Page 45 of 54 April 21, 2016 let you get back to your office? MR. LENBERGER: The next amendment was identification of preserves. I didn't know if you had any questions on that. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I was unclear, Steve,when I read the staff summary,what are we trying to fix here? MR. LENBERGER: Right now the code requires that preserves be identified at time of first development order submittal. First development order--well,development order includes a lot of things. It includes Comprehensive Plan amendments. It includes rezones. And we don't want site plans approved, generally speaking, for straight rezones. We don't want them in the Comprehensive Plan either. We have Future Land Use map. Obviously, I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about individual site plans for particular sites. So that was an issue. If we have a rezone come in, straight rezone or Comprehensive Plan amendment that says you have to identify preserves at time of first development order,technically it requires that a site plan be required and a preserve be identified, and that's really not what was meant by that provision. It was meant where the site plan is required or a conceptual site plan in the case of a PUD is required, that at that time when you have your site plan,you show the preserve. So this is to clarify what is meant by that provision,and that's why it says site plan or conceptual site plan in the amendment language itself. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: So will the Planning Commission still be able to look at preserves when the PUDs come forward in the master plan? MR. LENBERGER: That's correct. Nothing will change as far as the conditional use,the PUD zoning that you normally see. But when you receive most of your straight rezones,that's just a straight rezone. There won't be a site plan associated with that. That will be approved with the resolution unless it's required by the administrative code. There is one provision in there. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions on that one? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none,thank you, Steve. MR. LENBERGER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Caroline, let's move to the next ones. MS. CILEK: Great,thank you. The next amendment is 5.04.05 and 5.04.06,and this is looking to amend the temporary use section to address community markets on private property as well as some proposed sign--temporary sign changes. And this is the bottom of your binder,one of the tabs down there. And Jeremy will be presenting this amendment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody have any specific questions in this particular amendment? This is the temporary markets and flea markets/garage sales one. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah,I have a couple. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And I was involved in the situation out at the Golden Gate Community Center when that came up. So there's a provision now that says that the Board of County Commissioners can terminate the permit at any time for any reason. Is there any other provision in the Land Development Code that is like that? MR.FRANTZ: I can't answer that off the top of my head. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I mean--and is there--if so,the next question of that is,how does that happen? Do they have to do that at a meeting,at a noticed public meeting,or--I'm just trying to get a sense of-- MS. CILEK: Heidi,you can go. Page 46 of 54 April 21, 2016 COMMISSIONER SOLIS: --how that would work for the Board of County Commissioners to get involved in revoking a permit. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah. If the Board of County Commissioners is the one terminating it, then it would have to be done at a board meeting. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Public. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: And they're saying it doesn't have to be noticed,so it could go on either a regular agenda or consent agenda, but if someone wanted to speak on a consent item, it would be moved to regular. But it would have to be done at a board meeting,but they're saying it wouldn't be an advertised hearing. It would just be part of the agenda. That's what it says. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I mean, is there any other provision that you're aware of in the code that--where that can happen without an advertised hearing? MS.ASHTON-CICKO: I'm not aware of any. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: That just seems like-- MR. STONE: I could provide a little additional insight into that. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah. MR. STONE: There--I'm not aware of anything specific in the code,but there are several types of agreements brought before the Board for their approval that do contain that type of provision which allows for unilateral discretion by the Board to terminate. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: But that's a specific--that's not a permit. That's a specific agreement to do it that way. MR. STONE: Sure. It's--I was just referencing other agreements. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah. No, I understand. I'm just trying, in my mind,figure out--think of what the distinction would be. And how would a request to terminate it be--it would be brought by staff? It would be brought by--do we have any idea how that would work?Would it be brought by code enforcement? I mean,who would be-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think part of the concern would be--and I like your reasoning,because if someone on the spur of the moment wanted to add something to the agenda-- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --you could have people whose livelihoods and operations are dependent upon that permit,and all of a sudden they're cut off.That's not a good idea. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Which is--which was one of the concerns as to what happened with the Golden Gate one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I understand that. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I mean,there is some investment. The owners of the property probably have some commitments in that regard as well. It seems to me that there would at least have to be some notice provisions for revoking somebody's permit,unless they agree otherwise in a contract. So, I mean, I wouldn't--I'm not in favor of-- I'm not against,obviously,the Board of County Commissioners being able to revoke a permit,but there has to be some provision for notice of the--you know,of the permittee and the landowner or whatever--whoever's involved in it has to have some notice that that could happen. It's due process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would-- MS. CILEK: I appreciate your comments,and we can definitely take a look at this section. I am going to go back and look. I do believe staff received some direction to include a provision like this in the amendment probably maybe even a year ago when we were looking to bring this forward again. I can see more over what they were specifically looking to do and perhaps there would--would be okay to have a notice requirement in there. I will say also that the section dealing specifically with Collier County property, so the community events on--at the location you're speaking of-- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right. MS. CILEK: --would be addressed in a different provision than this one. Page 47 of 54 April 21, 2016 COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well--right,and that's my concern. And I think if it's the county's property,that's--that's even a different thing. And I'm not sure how that's dealt with if it's county property, but I could understand if it's the county's property, if it wants to--well,I'm not even sure that it makes that much difference.There just seems to be a due process issue with--I mean, it could--theoretically, it could be revoked in the middle of an actual market. MS. CILEK: Well,we'd be happy to work with the County Attorney's Office to develop some language that would get to your concerns. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I remember this one,too. I think the Golden Gate one was a little bit different. Most of them are farmers market,but these people wanted used things. They wanted--and they wanted it all the time, if I remember; is that correct? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: It wasn't all the time. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I mean,they wanted it--all year long,you know,every week. MS. CILEK: And that very well may be. The provision addressing events on county property is later on in this section, and those are really between the county now and the market organizer,and they are creating a contract. So that conversation is really outside of the Growth Management Department at this time. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Could we have an example of what would--what would cause that to happen?What is it that they did that causes the county to shut them down? MS.CILEK: You know, I personally did not follow that. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I mean,I'll tell you what happened was that,you know,one of the commissioners brought it to a County Commission hearing and that there was some objection to signage, which I think is what's being dealt with in this amendment;that it wasn't appropriate;that it was an eyesore and that sort of thing,and that's how it--and I'm not saying whether it was or whether it wasn't. But I think the issue was how does the county go about terminating something that people rely on in certain parts of town? Because that was the big issue in the Golden Gate community was that actually people relied on it for getting their food and other things. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: I would think if there is any violation,whether it's health reason,bad food,poisoning, a ride in the--that went bad and somebody was injured, stuff like that,which is--you know,they can shut those events down, but sign violation,they can ask them to remove the signs and continue with the events. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Someone serving liquor when they shouldn't have,they can ask them to stop or remove that vendor out. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: There are plenty of remedies,but to shut it down is severe. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right. And I think what you're getting to is most, if not all,of your examples are things that affect the health, public safety-- COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Yeah. Safety and-- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: --which is understandable. This says that it can be--it can be terminated for any reason. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: No. That is not right. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah. So that's only my concern is-- MS.CILEK: We'd be happy to bring that language back. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So there's really--for me,there's a couple of issues. One is what's--who brings it forward and then what's the process for the commission to terminate something. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's a multiple--quite a few pages of this one. Does anybody have any other issues on any of the pages? For example,No. 8 on Page 11,I wonder if we can just strike that whole section. It's coming up to an election period,and between the national and local, I'm sure that every corner,every open space in the county's going to be covered with a sign. It would be real nice if we had Page 48 of 54 April 21, 2016 none. But I know, freedom of speech. We can't do that. But it was worth just a thought. Anybody have any other issues in that open --well,the market-- MS. CILEK: We would like to bring one suggestion forward,and Jeremy can go through our conversation with some of the members of the public. MR. FRANTZ: Sure. So we did invite stakeholders,some operators to some of our previous meetings, and we met one on one with others and got comments from some of those stakeholders,and we've tried to incorporate some of those recommendations,but we did just hear from one individual this week and, especially--this was regarding Section A.2 on Page 5. And they were just asking to make it very clear exactly who is responsible for displaying licenses,obtaining business tax requirements. And so I think that we can reword some of those sections to make it a little more clear that it's the responsibility of each vendor. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think that would be a good idea. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What's the next one? MS. CILEK: All right. Moving forward, I'm going to ask that we continue the next amendment, 9.04.04, which is addressing after-the-fact variance glitches. We have some issues that we want to address before we present it to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. CILEK: All right. Next up is LDC Amendment 10.02.03,and here we are allowing for architectural improvements through a Site Development Plan insubstantial change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions from the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER EBERT: To be honest, I didn't read through it, but I'll be honest-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if--you didn't read through it, but you've got questions. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, it's just only because of the insubstantial change that we just heard. I don't think that was insubstantial. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is an SIP. It's not the same thing. The--what you heard this morning was a PD1, and that's defined in the code. This is an SIP. It's a different form of process completely. It's administrative. They can go SDPs, SDPAs, or SIPs. And they're just trying to clarify that the SIP and SDPI(sic)process is being--some changes to that. It's not the same process. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you read it,you would-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: I didn't--I told you I didn't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. That's what I mean; if you read it,you would have figured that out. COMMISSIONER EBERT: There was a couple that I did not get to. MS. CILEK: We'd be happy to answer any other questions. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'll read it and talk to you later. MS.CILEK: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that takes us--does that--what else is--that takes through the last one. MS. CILEK: Oh,we have a couple engineering amendments on the agenda. The next one is an update to the NAVD/NGVD requirements. LDC Amendment 3.02.10 and 5.03.06. It's the first amendment in your binder. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Can you explain what the NGV--no, I'm joking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's a really confusing system, I can tell you. MS. CILEK: Ultimately,this amendment just seeks to bring us up to current standards. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anything else, Caroline? MS. CILEK: The next one is LDC Amendment 6.02.06 and 6.02.07,and here we're doing some cleanup items with our level of service sections. We are simply cross-referencing to appropriate standards. The ones in the LDC are very out of date. Page 49 of 54 April 21, 2016 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yep. MS. CILEK: Any questions? (No response.) MS. CILEK: Okay. The next one is addressing a conflict with the streetlights being prepared by an engineer versus an electrical engineer,and we are seeking to bring it up to--consistent with the Florida Administrative Code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only problem I have--and I do have a master electrician's certification. There's a big difference between an engineer and an electrical engineer. And I wouldn't--I mean,the guys that design water to flow downhill don't understand necessarily all the differences between amperages and wattages and voltages that occur. And I know that street-lighting is somewhat simpler,but it's also dealing with higher voltages and different power supplies than we would have other times. I'm not sure it's a good idea to change this. In the end,I don't know if an engineer who is not understanding of the electrical components of it would want to put his seal on something electrical for the liability that's at stake. So they probably just sub it out anyway. And if they're doing that,why don't we just leave it like it is? MS. CILEK: Well, I have a couple of things that we have identified in the amendment that I can relay, one being that according to Florida Statutes and the Florida Administrative Code,the professional engineer is responsible for ensuring that what he is doing he is--he knows how to do,ultimately. And in Florida,they are allowed, as an engineer,to sign and seal electrical plans. It is my understanding at the county that we're not running into any issues with engineers that are providing stuff that they are not knowledgeable about. And in Collier County there are few engineers who have become specialized in this arena,and they're the ones that are being utilized to provide their plan--to provide the streetlight plans. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So I mean-- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: What is the Florida Administrative Code? What's the provision that we're wanting to become consistent with? MS. CILEK: Well,when we do our LDC amendment research,we do look into what other codes grant the permissions for engineers to do different types of work. And so we did look at both the Florida Statutes and the administrative code. If you'd like,we can pull those references for the next meeting and provide those to you so that you can review them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would be helpful. MS. CILEK: Okay. We'd be happy to do that. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And I would just say that I think if it's an electrical engineering issue, I would be in favor of having an electrical engineer approve that. I mean,you know,there are engineers and then there are--there are civil engineers and then there are civil engineers. And--yeah,I would be in favor of that. MS. CILEK: Well,we'd be happy to bring back materials that would support the change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. CILEK: Not a problem. Okay. The next one is to allow for a new section,4.05.10,addressing neighborhood mail kiosks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now,this is as a result of a requirement from the U.S. Postal Service. This isn't something the county's trying to initiate on its own. MS. CILEK: Correct. In 2013,we received a letter from USPS requesting that we work with developers to institute basically a central location for mail delivery and collection. And so we've put together a new section that we hope will help facilitate providing some parking and some lighting and making it accessible to people picking up their mail. COMMISSIONER EBERT: This is so sad. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you read this? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Oh,yes;oh,yes. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Don't want to deliver the mail? COMMISSIONER EBERT: That's right. They want to--it's fine if--this is fine-- Page 50 of 54 April 21, 2016 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One at a time. COMMISSIONER EBERT: --if you live in a condo,okay,where all the mailboxes are on the first floor and they slide stuff in,and you can put mail to go out,but when you have--this is going to be interesting for some of the bigger communities. It was okay, I believe, if they already had been okayed and they haven't built, but there is a problem where you get 500 people in a community,and they don't want to deliver to your mailbox. They want you to pick it up at the clubhouse or somewhere else. And I just-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you give her the number of the Postmaster and let her have her discussion with the Postmaster. I mean,the county is kind of caught between a rock and a hard space. COMMISSIONER EBERT: They are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We didn't enforce this for a few years after the U.S. Postal Service notified everybody they're going to start doing this because it hadn't been put in hard format yet,and now it's become a reality. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: How did they put it? Did they ask you to consider it,or did they ask you to implement it? MS. CILEK: I mean,at the end of the day,the USPS is most certainly requiring slash requesting slash--you know,they are trying to work with developers to get this done, and it is happening. Larger--communities are putting in,you know,central mail kiosk locations. And this amendment is trying to be proactive to make sure that you,going to go pick up your mail,have a place to park,and you can do it safely during the morning time or at night. I think this will help facilitate a communication between the developer,the UPS(sic),and,you know, Collier County to make sure that it is an amenable place to go pick up your mail. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: It's different if you live in, like,a high-rise community in Pelican Bay. Then you can have a mailroom,and everybody goes down to the mailroom. In my building we have 140 units,and we have a nice mailroom,and I go pick up the mail every day. But if you live in a single-family community,why would somebody drive two miles to get--to pick up their mail? I think the post office people are lazy. They want more money. They want to do less. They're not providing a good service. And it's just unbelievable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tell us how you really feel. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I did. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Never mind. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There's a lot of--I think there's some frustration in some of this issue. MS. CILEK: Any questions on the meat of the amendment addressing--or proposing standards, rather? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody? COMMISSIONER EBERT: It's going to be interesting for rural lands west. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,then the--part of the process to get an approved SDP or permitting is to show you've got acceptable mail delivery. So the hook comes when they walk into the post office to ask for that letter and all of a sudden they don't have the resources that the post office is looking for. So we're trying to give everybody a headsup-- MS. CILEK: We are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --because it's been coming up slowly, and it's getting blindsiding to everybody. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: I would support that deviation anytime. MS. CILEK: Many people take note of that. You may have to take that up with the USPS,though. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Just as a rule of thumb, right, across the board? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I can see the mail in a pile now at the front entrance. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: First time he's said that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there anything else,Caroline? MS. CILEK: We have one amendment that will be hopefully brought back to you at the next meeting or the following meeting relating to utilities. Page 51 of 54 April 21, 2016 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is this--this is our first reading, so we're going to have a second reading on these? MS. CILEK: Yes. We intend to come back at the next meeting on May 5th,and then should we need to continue any of these amendments,we will be back on the 19th as well. You will be receiving additional amendments for this LDC amendment cycle on May 5th,and those amendments are--many of which are changing permitted uses,conditional uses,prohibited uses,and so those will require two hearings, one of which will need to be a nighttime hearing, so we would like to talk to you about that today. I know that Jeremy has been in contact with you regarding scheduling that night hearing, so perhaps we could kind of wrap that up and figure out what date and time works for you-all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, give us some dates. MS. CILEK: I believe Wednesday,May 25th worked for the majority of members. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does everybody-- COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Wednesday on? MS. CILEK: Wednesday, May 25th. COMMISSIONER EBERT: At 5:05. MS. CILEK: At 5:05,yes,ma'am. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Wednesday. I cannot be here on Wednesday. That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Put that deviation one on that night,will you? MS.CILEK: I will say that all the amendments will be presented before that date--all the amendments will be presented before that date so everyone will have an opportunity to weigh in on them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I--there's going to be a point--I might miss--I'll miss a meeting at some point in May, but I'm not sure which one, so this one may not--this one may be fine. MS.CILEK: Okay. I would like to request that we continue this--these amendments to the next meeting, a continuation of these amendments to the next meeting so I can bring them back. I don't have to readvertise. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. Is there a motion to continue these to the next meeting? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: So moved. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Diane. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Aye. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. Make the record note,by the way, Stan's not here. He left--had to leave early. And is that it,Caroline? MS.CILEK: Real quick. Do we have a continuance for 5.05.08 amendments? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's to read the final narrative? Is there a motion to do that? MS. CILEK: May 19th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: May 19th. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Charlette. Page 52 of 54 April 21, 2016 Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor,signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Aye. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. And what we'll do on the 19th, we'll look at any cleanup issues we have and try to get everything put together in one package on that date. MS. CILEK: That sounds great. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because I think the 5th--we've got a few things piling up for the 5th, so I'm trying not to keep Andy too long on these days. MS. CILEK: All right. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Caroline,was the 5.05.08 that you-- MS. CILEK: Yes,the architectural section. We would like to bring back the full narrative on May 19th. Does that work, Heidi, for advertising?We would not advertise it again. I think that meets the requirements. And then one final note is that with the 5.05.08 amendment, in a previous packet we had cross-references that we are seeking to add in various locations to help coordination of meeting the requirements, and we would like to review that with you-all on May 5th,and we will make sure that's in your packet to discuss. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well,that ends that particular item,and we're on to old business. There is no old business scheduled for this meeting. There is going to be those same two items that we had talked about before. We'll fit those in either on the 5th or the 19th,whatever meetings looks like it's going to be least congested. New business,there is none scheduled. Anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not,there's no public comment,or if anybody's here. Nobody here. Motion to adjourn. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Wafaa. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Diane. All in favor,signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Aye. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're out of here. Page 53 of 54 April 21, 2016 ******* There being no further business for the good of the County,the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:59 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK STRAIN,CHAIRMAN ATTEST DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on , as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. Page 54 of 54 May 5,2016 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples,Florida,May 5,2016 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Wafaa F. Assaad Stan Chrzanowski Diane Ebert Karen Homiak Charlene Roman Andrew Solis ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V. Bellows,Zoning Manager Heidi Ashton-Cicko,Managing Assistant County Attorney Tom Eastman, School District Representative Page 1 of 47 May 5, 2016 PROCEEDINGS CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning,everyone. Welcome to the Thursday,May 5th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If everybody will please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Will the secretary please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. Good morning. Mr. Eastman here? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Chrzanowski? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Solis? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ms. Ebert is here. Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ms. Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr.Assaad? COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ms. Roman? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That brings us to the addenda to the agenda. There are a couple of changes. The first one I'd like the Planning Commission to consider is a continuation of Item 9A to the June 2nd meeting. I think it's June 2nd, isn't it,Ray? Is that the first meeting in June? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes,okay. The package was distributed, but it was missing information, and it hadn't had final review by the engineering staff,so that just needs to get done. Is there a motion to continue 9A? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Charlette. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Karen. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Aye. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. The second item is the applicant for 9C and D,or the applicant's representative,asked if they could go first after 9A, or whatever we did with 9A today. They have a time constraint for late this morning. And I had no problem with it as long as they got the approval of 9B,which is Mr. Mulhere's client. Mr. Mulhere, I understand that that's satisfactory. MR. MULHERE: Yes. Yes,it is. Page 2 of 47 May 5, 2016 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. So unless there's a concern with the Planning Commission,we'll move C--and 9C and D are companion items. We'll move those up first. If there's no--hearing no concern,then that's how the agenda will be amended,and 9B will be right after those. 9B is the Naples Heritage. 9C and D is the storage facility at Radio and Davis,so we will hear Radio and Davis the first thing up on our call out for cases. Planning Commission absences. I've talked with staff,and the only item left for the 19th would be one LDC amendment that we hadn't heard, but we are scheduled on the 25th,as required by law,to have an evening meeting for a couple LDC amendments. That one could easily be added to that schedule. So, in essence,we really don't need to have a meeting on May 19th. Ray,there is nothing,then, needed from a hearing viewpoint for May 19th at this point;you've nothing scheduled for cases, right? MR. BELLOWS: Let me just double-check real quick. The 19th? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct,there's nothing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So with that,the meeting on the 19th will be canceled,and we will hear what we need to do for cleanup for LDC amendments on the 25th in the evening, and then the next meeting that we will have is June 2nd. That's after 5/25. So,first of all,does anybody know if they're not going to make it to the May 25th evening meeting? And hopefully it's not going to be too long. We don't have a--there are certain LDC amendments that have to be discussed due to their nature involving zoning,and that's what will be limited to at that meeting other than some cleanup items. Does anybody know if they're not going to make it in the evening? COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: I'm not going to be able to make it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, sir. That means we still have a quorum of six,so we're good to go. The June 2nd meeting,that's the first meeting in June. Does anybody know if they're not going to make it to that meeting? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We've got a quorum again. We're good. Approval of minutes. There were no minutes available this time. So, Ray,that takes us to BCC report and recaps. MR. BELLOWS: I don't have all the updates just yet,so I'll have to present that at the end of the meeting, if you don't mind. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. I mean, I just--it's normally on the agenda because you always have added something to it-- MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --but that's no problem. Chairman's report. There are a couple items that I do want to discuss today,and it's involving the processes that we are dealing with. First of all, I'm going to wait for Heidi to come back for one,and--oh,what were you hiding under the desk for? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: My computer's not working,so I was trying to fix it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,you surprised me on that one. Okay. We've--there's a couple of issues involving scheduling with the packages that come before the Planning Commission,and Highview Roost--Highview Road, it's on Roost Road, is one of them,the PUD that was continued first off this morning. It was 9A. When the package was distributed last week,I noticed that the issue involving its original continuation was not included in the package,which was the whole purpose it have being continued. The response I got was that it had--it's going to be coming in and going through engineering,and engineering will get a review of it and get to us before meeting. Well,that's not the way we should be doing things. And I've got to ask staff,when you have an Page 3 of 47 May 5, 2016 incomplete package, for whatever reason,we need to look at quality over expediency. And I know that staff feels that they're under pressure to get things out rapidly, but I have yet to hear the Board--any board member, Board of County Commissioners,suggest that we should sacrifice quality over expediency. So unless you-all come back with some finding from the Board that says just push them through, I'm asking that you take your time and make sure the packages are complete. Which leads me to another concern why I needed to make sure Heidi was here. Legal review. There are some issues in the legal review that aren't resolved by the time the package gets advertised and sent out, and that needs to be resolved. Legal review is important. If something's not consistent with the County Attorney's Office,that review--that package needs to be held until the County Attorney's Office says it's legally sufficient and everything's done right. And, Heidi, I'd like to ask that from now on your department take a look at that,and if something's missing from your behalf,don't go forward with the advertising until it's complete. Is there--do you see that as a problem to follow in that rule,or is that something that would be problematic for your department to do? MS.ASHTON-CICKO: No. We can follow your direction,certainly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think that would help us make sure we got complete packages. And then the last thing is there's a series of reviews in developmental services that apparently seems to be getting missed,and it's because we have--we have a building that's kind of got two sides to it,and then in one side we still have two more sides. Zoning and Comprehensive Planning are one element,and then there's the SDP review element.And there's--it seems that the engineering people that review are under the SDP side of the building,so they don't get to see the packages where they may offer some really valuable assistance,and that's occurred in two areas. Number one is,for example,the Code of Laws and Excavation. That's what the Highview PUD's all about. That's the issue that we discovered there.The engineers hadn't gotten it,hadn't seen it.They had knowledge about that project,and I'm imploring county staff to include that other element in the other piece of that other side of the building in some of these PUD reviews where it's obviously more complex and needs to have engineering review. At the same time,transportation. I know that we have a transportation engineer under the SDP review side. We don't have a transportation engineer under the zoning side. I'd like to ask that when you get into some complicated matters involving transportation,take a look at the--take a look at bringing in the transportation engineer we have,and that might be helpful in making sure we've got the best of all things addressed when we have either transportation or engineering issues. It's not being done consistently now. I just want staff to kind of look at that in the future. It might avoid some of the continuations we've had lately. I went back and looked since January,and case after case after case after case has been continued. And Mr. Assaad made a comment about it when he first came on the Board. He noticed it,too. He's absolutely right. We have way too many continuances,and I hope we can try to avoid some of those in the future by checking the packages out more thoroughly before they get scheduled for this board. So with that in mind, I'll move on to the consent agenda. There is nothing indicated for that today. Which brings us to No.9,and I hope Judy Puig's watching. Judy,when you look at your form, "advertised" is spelled wrong. But No. 9 is for advertised public hearings. The first Item,9A, has been continued,and 9B is going to be heard after 9C and D. ***We'll move directly into 9C and D. We'll hear those as companion items and then vote on them separately. 9C is PL20150002541/CPSS2015-4. It's the small-scale Growth Management Plan amendment for the Davis/Radio commercial subdistrict located on the south side of Radio Road west of Davis Boulevard and Radio Road intersection. The one that's going to be companion to it is the rezoning element. It's RZ-PL20140002642. Same location, same project. This is zoning from a C3 to one limited use of a C4. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item,please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. Page 4 of 47 May 5, 2016 This is for the self-storage area at Davis and Radio. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And disclosures. We'll start with Tom on my right. MR. EASTMAN: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Oddly enough,none. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: None. COMMISSIONER EBERT: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oddly enough--no,un-oddly enough, I've had quite a bit of communications as recently as yesterday with the--and I did call the applicant. I've talked to Rich. There's been some language cleanup that was--I had caught,and they have been working on it. I have talked with staff about it as well. Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Nothing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wafaa? COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Charlette? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, Rich, I guess it's yours to go forward with. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. Good morning. For the record, Rich Yovanovich on behalf of the applicant and petitioner for both items. With me is Fred Hood,who's the planner on the project,and Bob Morande,who's the property owner. What you have in front of you is roughly--are two petitions,the Growth Management Plan amendment for roughly 4.81 acres. On the visualizer, it shows you the location of the property. We're right next to the Collier County CAT transportation facility,and we're on Davis Boulevard almost at the intersection of Davis and Radio Road. As we were going through the process of rezoning property to what I will call C4 minus to add indoor self storage, it was determined that a concurrent small-scale Comp Plan amendment was also necessary because this property was originally deemed consistent with the Comprehensive Plan by policy because it was basically existing commercial at the time that the Comp Plan was changed in 1989. And staff considered picking a C4 use,which is indoor self storage,as an intensification,although indoor self storage has been approved in a lot of areas next to residential. And like I said, it really is a low-intensity, low-traffic-generator use. So Comprehensive Planning felt that this was an intensification because it's a C4 use in a C3 zoning district, so we added the Comp Plan amendment to the process. Your staff is recommending approval of both Growth Management Plan amendment with a cap of 105,000 square feet of commercial or indoor self-storage use. They are also--they have-- I think staff is going to hand out or has already handed out some changes to the rezone petition that they want to talk about, but otherwise they're recommending approval of that. I have some comments to the proposed staff language on the rezone that I'd like to make,and I don't know if you have it in front of you yet or not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I received it. Did the rest of the Planning Commission receive something that should have been on your space or passed out by Mr. Mulhere after you got here? Okay. Could you put that on the overhead if you have an extra copy. MR.YOVANOVICH: Now,that was something I would do is I'd put it on there like that,and then I'd ask you to read it. The intent of this application was basically to keep the C3 zoning district allowed uses as well as the conditional uses that already exist in the C3 zoning,add the one use,which is indoor self storage. So my comments are, some of these recommended revisions are intended to address,I think, some Page 5 of 47 May 5, 2016 unintended consequences of both the application and the staff comments. The change that staffs recommending regarding the indoor self storage is generally fine with us; however,the--and I hate to give publicity to other indoor self storage,but I don't know how to explain this other than talk about the Lock Up self-storage projects I've gotten approved in the past. Your code allows--does not allow any roll-up access on the front of the building but does allow roll-up access on the sides of the building and the rear of the building. And the intent is to basically be just the same quality as Lock Up; pretty much everything is indoor access except for there are some allowed roll-up units on the exteriors,on the sides,and the rear. The way this language is written, it basically prohibits those side and rear storage units that have been approved in other similarly office-looking type indoor self storage of a high quality. So our desire would be to make the clarification that we'd still have to meet the code requirements for the side access but allow those side-access units to occur in other similar indoor self-storage units. Then we get down to No. 7,which is the cap on trips. And I'm okay about that cap on trips if it relates to the indoor self storage,because that's all we were really adding new. Today we would have the right to do any other C3 use on that property,and I would probably assume that many if not all of the C3 uses may trip a higher trip cap than 47 peak-hour trips. I don't think the intent was when we went through this rezone was to take away our ability to do something--a different C3 use and go through the concurrency management system that typically occurs on straight zoning. Now,this is kind of--you know,we usually do PUDs,but we're not large enough to do a PUD, so we did straight zoning minus. So I can understand how we might applied some PUD concepts. And I would just ask that you limit the 47 trips to the indoor self-storage option and that we leave the regular C3 use process in place for concurrency management for other C3 related use. The 105,000 square foot cap in the Comp Plan, I'm okay either way, but I thought we were getting away from, in the Comp Plan, including development standards. We were going basically to,uses would in the Comp Plan,and then development standards would find their way into the zoning applications. I don't object to staff,you know,putting that in the Comp Plan. If that's going to be the new process, I'm okay with that. I just--I would just want to-- I'm just trying to understand the process. I thought we were going with the Comp Plan being less--less development-standard oriented and just more use oriented, and then the development standards would find their way into usually the concurrent application for rezone. Other than that,those couple of changes to the staff recommendations, I don't think this is a very controversial or difficult rezone application,and we request that you recommend approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm sure there'll be questions. Any of the Planning Commission members want to start with any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Wafaa? COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: You're asking for a rezoning from C3 to C4? MR.YOVANOVICH: C4--only one C4 use. The only C4 use we're asking for is the indoor self storage. So it's C4 minus for--I don't know another way to describe it. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Thank you. You're asking for rezoning from C3 to C4,but you're picking and choosing the use that you will get from the C4 district. MR.YOVANOVICH: I'm only picking one use from the C4. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Yes. And you're asking for an extra height. MR.YOVANOVICH: No. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: No. MR.YOVANOVICH: I'm meeting the C3 development standards. We're doing--the only thing we're getting out of this petition is the right to do indoor self storage,which is a C4 use. All the C3 uses--base permitted uses is all I get. The development standards for C3 is all I get. If I want to do a conditional use that's in the C3, I have to come back through the conditional use process. And that's basically what the Comprehensive Plan says we can do,and that's what the zoning application says. Page 6 of 47 May 5, 2016 COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: My question to staff is--my understanding is that if you're asking for a conventional zoning district, like C3 or C4 or whatever,then you're only subject to that zoning district requirement. You cannot add;you cannot make conditions;you cannot alter it in any way, shape,or form. MR. YOVANOVICH: Unless you have a concurrent Comprehensive Plan amendment that tells you you can do that, and that's why we did the concurrent Comprehensive Plan amendment. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: The Comprehensive Plan tells you what? You can-- MR.YOVANOVICH: It tells me I can come in and ask for zoning that allows C3 uses plus indoor self storage. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Then why wouldn't you pick up the PUD route-- MR.YOVANOVICH: I don't have enough-- COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: --and create your own Planned Unit Development? MR.YOVANOVICH: I don't have enough acres. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Excuse me? MR.YOVANOVICH: I don't have enough acres. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: You don't have enough acres. So is that--is that legal? Is that correct about the conventional zoning? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: We have rezoned to a zoning district and added conditions of approval,and we commonly do that. So in this case you have the same thing where he's agreed to rezone--well, he's requesting C4,but he's really only limiting it to one use,and it's conditioned on retaining the C3 development standards. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: You're saying he has to apply for a conventional zoning such as C3 and ask for one or more additional uses? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Where do you get that interpretation from? What basis allows the county to do that? MS.ASHTON-CICKO: What basis says you can't? COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Traditionally,and the court upheld, and it's been a planning practice ever since I was in business,that when you apply for a conventional zoning district,you're limited to that and you cannot even enforce additional conditions on the applicants. This is why everybody started using PUD, because it's a negotiated zoning. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah. We've done conditions of approval for a very long time, and the applicant generally agrees with the conditions of approval. If they don't,then they can get a denial and go another route and do a PUD or another option if they want. But in this case he's not seeking any deviations and he's actually agreeing to a more restrictive development standards of the C3. MR.YOVANOVICH: Mr.Assaad, I will-- I'm aware that there are differences of interpretations by municipal attorneys. For instance, in the City of Naples,the city attorney has opined that we can't do straight zoning minus or with conditions and all that. There are other jurisdictions where municipal attorneys don't agree with that interpretation. Collier County is one of those. It's been that way for a long, long time,back--I remember doing a straight zoning minus probably in 1996. But be that as it may, I also did a concurrent GMP amendment that specifically creates this subdistrict. And in this subdistrict, I put on--I didn't put all of it up there for you,but on the visualizer you will see that this specific subdistrict allows exactly what I'm asking for. So I'm 100 percent consistent with the Comprehensive Plan,and that's one of the reasons we also did the Comprehensive Plan,was to make sure we didn't run into an issue with someone potentially challenging this and saying you can't do C4 minus. That's why we--one of the benefits of the GMP amendment is it takes that issue off the table if someone were later on to challenge the county's process. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) Page 7 of 47 May 5, 2016 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's start with the handout for the recommendations. On No. 1 in the corrected language,after the--the beginning of the second line,you still have the word "and" in there. The intent, I believe,was to strike those references to the word "and"because it would open up to multiple uses and not restrict it to a single use. So I'd suggest,No. 1, second line, "and"be struck. The applicant has made a point about the access. I recall that that has been allowed. I would suggest that at the end of the sentence on No. 1 we add "except non-primary first-floor access is allowed,"and that would, I think, accomplish the ability to have some doors on the non-primary sides of the building,which would be the sides or the backs. MR. YOVANOVICH: Or if we were to just simply--if we were to just simply say"consistent with the Land Development Code," because the Land Development Code specifically says I can't have them on the front; I can only have them on the side. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If the-- MR. YOVANOVICH: Either way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --county staff thinks that would work,then I'm fine with that. MR. SMITH: Primary; is that correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Consistent with the Land Development Code. MR. SMITH: Fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I guess that will take care of it. Number 2,the word "and"towards the end of the sentence needs to be struck. Number 3,the second line of the first bullet,the word "and" needs to be struck. It's the first word on that line. Number 4,middle of the sentence is the word"and,"needs to be struck. And when we get to No. 6,of what value is limiting the peak hour two-way trips on this if the overall project has a higher peak value anyway?And I don't know what the theory was behind limiting it to 47 versus what it could go if it was all C3 commercial. Is that the same peak it had under C3 commercial? Because if it isn't,why would we care to limit it? MR. SMITH: Daniel Smith,principal planner. I'll have Mike Sawyer--he did the review for transportation. MR. YOVANOVICH: I can't--do you want me to answer that or-- MR. SMITH: I'd rather have Mike come. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, let Mike come up. Give him something to do. He's going to be sitting here all morning, so... MR. SAWYER: Thank you,Chairman. Mike Sawyer,for the record,transportation planning. Quite honestly, I did not actually do the review on this particular petition,but I do--I'm familiar with it,with the reviewer that did do the review on it. Because the TIS that we received was specific to actually two uses--and I could actually show you what those were. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,do you know what--if you were to take a look at the C3 only category and calculate out the most intense use allowed by that C3 for the amount of square footage that could be on the lot,would it be greater than 47 trips? MR. SAWYER: Quite likely it could certainly be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SAWYER: We did not receive that information, however,with the TIS that we received. So what we've got is a request for a conditional use for this specific use,and we reviewed it to that specific use. And, actually,as you see,actually,there's actually two uses in there, and we actually have a larger number being generated by that second use,and we're fine with that. We did not,quite honestly,intend to restrict in any way what could be,you know,allowed currently with C3 uses allowed in there. We're just reviewing this specific use with this particular petition. That's all we're trying to do. And if we need to add additional information--or additional language that makes it clear that all standard C3 uses are still allowed and not subject to this limit,we would be fine with that as well. Page 8 of 47 May 5, 2016 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think you missed the point of my question. If you can have a multitude of--first of all, it's 143 C4 uses. There's probably over 100 C3 uses. If you could have any one of those C3 uses and it's known--and it's acknowledged that those would be greater than the 47,why are we caring to limit it at all? It could be used for any C3 use. What good does the limitation do on just one use when the overall package could be greater? So why are we even going into this scenario that we have to articulate it like you're proposing on this recommendation? MR. SAWYER: Normally what we receive from the--with the TIS is the highest/best use. My suggestion,and I believe this was actually at--requested from the applicant,was to have both the highest/best use that would be allowed in addition to this,and that's normally what we receive. We get the highest/best use of the uses being proposed as well as what is being proposed with this particular petition. In this case it's a little confusing because we do have standard C3 uses that actually have much larger or potentially larger trip generation than what's being requested with the use that's actually in C4. Because we did not get that information from the applicant,we were requested just to,you know, review this,push it through;that's what we did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When did you ask for the information from the applicant,and when did the applicant refuse? MR. SAWYER: I would have to go back through the review. My inform--the--from what I understand,when it was requested by staff,it was on the first review. I may be mistaken by that,but I believe that's what-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who was the planner? It was you,right,Dan? MR. SMITH: Correct. I'm the principal planner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On the first review,did you send them back a review from your office that said that this traffic count was needed? MR. SMITH: I'll be honest with you, I can't remember what was said at the first review. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm just--you know, I can't understand how we can have a C3 retail commercial use on this property with a hundred--whatever number of thousands of square foot can fit there. Obviously, it's going to be more intense than 47 trips of a--or whatever the storage is. Storage is kind of a low traffic generator. So I'm sure why--I can't see the need to confuse the whole issue over putting a maximum trip count in something that is going to be--never be surpassed--never be-- it's going to be surpassed by many of the other uses anyway. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I just need to say something. I can assure you I have never refused to provide any information to staff under any application including a highest-and-best-use analysis when there's straight zoning on the property. As you know,you don't get a lot of straight zoning applications. They're mostly PUDs in Collier County. So one of the things we have to do is show you that the use we're adding isn't going to create any problems on your transportation network, and that's what that study shows you is that the use we're requesting is going to generate very limited trips and is not going to create a problem for you,unlike--unlike a PUD where we do a highest-and-best calculation. So there--this is an unusual application.There was some concepts that kind of crossed each other, and what I'm just simply saying, if there was a misunderstanding, let's clarify it here on the record. And I agree with you,Mr. Chairman,that since we know that pretty much every C3 use could be a higher trip generator,you don't need the cap of 47. But I'll leave the cap in if that makes comfortable--staff comfortable,as long as it's only limited to the new use we're adding. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well-- MR.YOVANOVICH: You know, I'm a lover not a fighter, so I try to--try to-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I just don't see the need to clutter this up with an item like this that is obviously not necessary when we know it could be substantially higher anyway. Everything--you're TIS Page 9 of 47 May 5, 2016 and everything is on record, so I'm sure that's going to be sufficient if there needs to be a challenge to the number of cars generated out of your storage, but I doubt if you'll ever get to a number that is close to what the retail's going to. And staff, not having any other option to show us,I'm reluctant to consider 6 as one of the recommendations. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So eliminate 6? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what--when we get to the stipulations,we'll see about going that route. I do have questions about-- let me start with-- it's not of you,Mike. Let's start with the GMP. Go ahead, Andy. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I was just going to have a question for Mike. And I apologize. What was--well,Mike just left. Maybe I wasn't completely clear then why staff was wanting this condition.Can you just explain what--can you say that one more time? I'm sorry. MR. SAWYER: No problem at all,Commissioner. What we were trying to do was to reflect the information that we received with the application and make sure that it was clear that that's what--that was the information that we received was the trip generation for this particular use,which is a C4 use. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right. So it's just--this is--relates to just the C4 use. MR. SAWYER: Absolutely. It should not-- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I mean,how do you--how do you separate the traffic from a C4 use or a C3 use in one project? I guess I don't--is that even possible? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think what staff--if this project is built out with 105,000 square feet,the maximum it could be,the most trips it would generate with this use is 47 peak-hour trips. And my--that's what the-- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Can that be--I mean,that can be determined? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what the TIS does. MR. SAWYER: Correct. That's the information that we receive as far as what the trip generation is going to be with that particular use with the square footage that's being proposed. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: For that particular use. MR. SAWYER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maximum building. MR. SAWYER: That singular use in this case. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The problem is, if you picked numerous of the other standard C3 uses,the number would most likely be higher. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But we have no evidence that staff has to provide that. Staff believes that the applicant was asked and refused. The applicant has provided testimony they have not. Planning staff does not recall if it was a specific request or not. So in looking at that,I would default to the applicant as this being not necessary for numbers of reasons. So I'm suggesting that Recommendation 6 just be dropped. It's not necessary, so that's what started it. Thank you,Mike. MR. SAWYER: No problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Back to the GMP. Mr. Mulhere,you're going to love this. You're not part of this one,are you? MR. MULHERE: No, sir. COMMISSIONER EBERT: But you're in trouble. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The Amerisite project is on a similar--I'm asking Mr. Mulhere as a witness to step forward. I don't have to subpoena. Page 10 of 47 May 5, 2016 MR. MULHERE: I gave him my time;now I have to help him up here? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Were you sworn in? Were you sworn in? MR. MULHERE: No,I wasn't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Raise your right hand. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I had asked--I think I'd mentioned to you the other day that the--this site was coming through,and I had caught something in their market analysis. Now, I don't hold a lot of credence in the market request,although it needs to be accurate.The Amerisite project on 951 that is similar to this,they went to a singular C4 use for self storage, like this one's asking for. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you get a conditional use on that project for that use? MR. MULHERE: Yes,we did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Subsequent to the rezone? MR. MULHERE: Yes,we did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I thought I found that. And the reason is--and that's all I needed you to acknowledge. MR. MULHERE: It actually all went--they all went at the same time but--same hearings,but yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it was this board that heard it. I remember it. MR.MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that's what I needed to understand. Thank you. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only reason I'm bringing it up is because the applicant's comparative analysis said that that site had not gone through the conditional use process to attain its ability to be self storage. It had. And I didn't know if that affected Corby's review from the market perspective, or the review. I'd emailed Corby this issue last week. And,Corby, if that impacts your position,I'd like to know it. If it doesn't,we're good. MR. SCHMIDT: You're good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Next thing, Corby, last week I also emailed you a concern over the word verbiage in the comp planning referencing the air conditioned and mini and self storage, suggesting that we dropped the words "and" in the various places of A and B that it's found. Do you have any objection to that? MR. SCHMIDT: For the record,Corby Schmidt with the comprehensive planning section of--for the county. No,we do not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. And for the--since you yelled from the back and--not yelled, but tried to indicate,you don't have any issues with the marketing even though that other item wasn't properly stated? MR. SCHMIDT: No,we do not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. That takes us to the rezone. And the recommendations have been changed, so I'm going to skip that section and see if there's anything else that we haven't talked about. I think we're-- I think we're okay. A couple more to check. Okay. We're good. Thank you. That's all the questions I have. Anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, is there a staff report? MR. SMITH: There's a staff report. Daniel Smith,principal planner. Just for the record regarding trip generation,that wasn't--I didn't know that was an issue until today, so I just want to put that for the record. But staff recommends Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition RZ-PL201400002642 (sic)to the BCC with a recommendation of approval with the following conditions that we stated with the Page 11 of 47 May 5, 2016 changes stated,and we're going to drop Item 6,the maximum trip generation for 47 peak hours. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Dan. Anybody have any questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, do I have any public speakers? MR.BELLOWS: No one has registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are any members of the public here that wish to speak on this item? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anything else, Richard? MR.YOVANOVICH: One small but significant thing. Your staff recommendation from Comprehensive Planning is to recommend denial of my request as I wrote it because I didn't include the cap of 105,000 square feet. They're recommending approval if I do agree to the cap of 105,000 square feet. Assuming--which is always a dangerous thing to do--I don't have any issues from the Planning Commission and I have a shot at getting unanimous approval from the Planning Commission, I must agree to include the 105,000 square feet in the--my language to avoid coming off of summary--not qualifying for summary agenda. So I will. And as I said, I don't care either way. I just want to understand how we're going to be doing amendments in the future. I don't want to-- I don't want to then the next one I submit I include a cap and then it gets struck and now I'm going back and forth. Because,as you know,we've done it both ways over the years. I would--again,assuming this is going to go unanimous for the rezone and GMP amendment, I will agree to staffs condition of 105,000-square-foot cap in the GMP amendment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,from my part,I wasn't suggesting that be taken out. I think it's worthwhile to leave in. So if you think in the future you shouldn't do that, I'm suggesting in the future you still should consider that. I think comprehensive staff was right in including that in the GMP language. MR.YOVANOVICH: And I'm fine with that. Just whatever the process is going to be,I will make sure I do that in the future. So I'm asking for your direction on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. And I think that wraps up the public hearing,so we'll close the public hearing for discussion. Each one of these needs to be voted on separately, starting with the small-scale plan amendment. If the desire of the motion maker is to recommend approval, I would suggest that it be done with the staff recommendation with the exception of the cleanup language removing the words"and" for the particular uses that are there. So let's start with that one. I don't have any other notes on the GMP. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Are we deleting 6? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,6 is a recommendation of the rezone. We're still on--we're going to do the GMP first. Does anybody have anything they'd like to add to the GMP discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, is there a motion? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Move for approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Charlette. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Karen. Further discussion? By the way,that motion for approval was subject to the changes of deleting the word "and" in the GMP staff recommendation? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that in mind,all those in favor, signify by saying aye. Page 12 of 47 May 5, 2016 COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Aye. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. ***Now we'll move on to the rezone. The rezone had a handout from staff. We had walked through the recommendations from staff that have been revised. There's been the dropping of the word "and" in several categories. There's been provision that would allow ground floor access doors subject to the LDC, and staff has withdrawn their request for the trip generation cap for No. 6. And I don't have any other notes that really pertain to that other than what we've already put on record for corrections. Is there anything the Planning Commission would like to add? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, subject to the change in the recommendations that we've gone over, is there a motion? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I'll make the motion to approve--recommend approval of RZ-PL20140002642, Davis/Radio rezone with the recommendations as corrected. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Diane. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor,signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Aye. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody oppose? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. MR.YOVANOVICH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you, Bob. ***The next item up is Petition PUDA-PL20150001416. It's the Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club Planned Unit Development. It's located at the south of Davis Boulevard and west of Collier. Actually, it's not too far from the one we just discussed. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. If you're here to talk about it or want to speak on this matter at all,please rise. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That takes us to disclosures. We'll start with Tom. MR. EASTMAN: None. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I had correspondence with Mr. Mulhere. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I also had some correspondence with Mr. Mulhere. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: No,just a letter from Mr.Mulhere. Page 13 of 47 May 5,2016 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I have had numerous discussions,emails back and forth with the applicant's representatives,Mr. Mulhere, Paula, I think we had a meeting as well,talked to staff numerous times, and we have a handout that has been reviewed a couple of times. It's now in front of us to discuss some of the changes to clear up some of the issues that came up during some of those discussions. Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Just email with Mr. Mulhere. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Assaad? COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: No,no contact. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Charlette? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Contact with Mr. Mulhere. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Oh, I take that back. I got an email from Mr. Mulhere, sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. With that, Bob,if you want to move forward and try to explain to us what all this new paperwork is. MR. MULHERE: Yes. Thank you. For the record, Bob Mulhere with Hole Montes. Here with me this morning is David Beiser,who is the president of the HOA for Naples Heritage,and Patrick Dorbad,who's the general manager. There are also several other members of the HOA that may speak. Gina Green is the civil engineer. She's here with me as well. Craig Smith is the ecologist that worked on this project with Dex Bender. Paul McMichael works with me at Hole Montes and worked with me on this project. Naples Heritage--Mr. Strain indicated the location. It is in East Naples and is accessible through Davis Boulevard. It's a-- it's a 799-unit residential golf course community. It's a very beautiful community, nicely landscaped. Very attractive. It is actually built out. So what transpired is over a period of time the parking demand at the--their amenity center became pretty significant, and so they began to look and see if there was an opportunity to somehow resolve that. This five-acre parcel,which is immediately adjacent to the PUD--5.2-acre parcel that we are incorporating into the PUD,was purchased for the purpose of relocating their tennis facilities;make it a tennis center. And then that area where the tennis centers are currently located will be additional parking and other amenity improvements and enhancements. We did have a meeting as late as, I think,about 4 o'clock yesterday afternoon to resolve some minor language issues and some corrections,and I would like to go over those for you. And I should mention that we did have a NIM. There were a number of emails received by staff and a number of folks at the NIM,all of whom were from the community of Cedar Hammock. And once they saw where the location was,pretty significantly far removed from Cedar Hammock,there were no objections. And so we didn't receive any objections to this request. The handout I gave you is--has in red the changes that were made that we discussed with staff yesterday afternoon. They're relatively minor,but they do clarify things. So on page--basically Page 3 of 6 of that handout,the first change,under Paragraph 4 of uses permitted,recreation area,we inserted "labeled RA on the master plan" for clarification purposes, because we do show that as RA on the master plan,and I'll show you that on the visualizer. Is this on? Yes. Right here is the proposed tennis court facility. It's labeled "RA." The actual 5.21-acre piece is this entire rectangle,although this piece here, .9 acres,will be preserve. This is an existing 100-foot-wide right-of-way easement that will be vacated,and the PUD requires that to be vacated. That will also be put into preserve. So this three acres plus-or-minus,plus the .9 is the four acres that the staff report referred to as going into preservation. On the next page under minimum yard requirements we have struck through the qualifications on the setbacks and simply made them very clear. The front setback is 50 feet,the side is 25,the rear is 25,and from a preserve is 25. And I'll show you in just a minute the site plan which is dimensioned. It's in the pages that we handed out to you. Page 14 of 47 May 5, 2016 As far as the lighting,there were a couple of paragraphs relating to lighting or a couple of sentences or subparagraphs. We've struck through those and simply said,all pole lighting shall be limited to flat panel fixtures with full cutoff shields and limited to 15 feet in height. At this point in time,there is no intention to light this facility, but we do want to have that flexibility down the road. It does get dark early in the winter, and maybe a couple hours of lighted playtime would be advantageous. The maximum height of any structures is limited to 30 feet actual. There will be a little refreshment and kind of pro shop; selling,restringing rackets,and those kind of things. The hours of operation will be limited to 8 a.m. to 9 p.m.,and we will be prohibited from utilizing any amplified sound that can be heard from the adjacent property line. They don't use any amplified sound anyway, but to be safe we put that condition in the PUD. If you turn the page to the landscape drawing,we are proposing to install a Type B buffer adjacent to the residential. Perhaps we ought to go first to the site plan. I apologize. Let me put this on the visualizer. So the--this is Colonial Court here. And as you can see,there are a few lots here that will be very close to and,this particular lot here,adjacent to the proposed facility. The dimensions here--this is actually 70 --boy, I can't even see that--75 feet, and it's 75 feet to the edge of the building. So that's the closest structure. Everything else is actually further than that. And,of course, once you go past this lot,these other lots are also separated by Colonial Court. This will be preserve,stormwater, and then the tennis facility with the little amenities building right there. This is parking. So what I was talking about was the landscape buffer that we will install along this area here. In the discussions that were had with these lot owners,unit owners--and the members of the HOA did talk to all of those lot owners--there was discussion about an enhanced landscape buffer there. There was not a preference to install a wall. And you have a little bit of a grade drop there as well. So our intention was to install a Type B landscape buffer,which would be 15 feet in width,with enhanced plantings, including hedges as required by the Type B buffer,which have to be 80 percent opaque within a year--they're significantly larger plant sizes--and then a midstory shrub,and then canopy trees. That will provide a very nice landscape buffer and, of course,there's a significant separation,as I said. I believe that addresses all of the issues in all of the--oh,there was one other minor change; I apologize. On the master plan,while we changed everything when we created the RA rather than the--thank you--the PUD,a clubhouse center, is actually permitted or located within the golf course tract,or Tract A on the PUD. At the request of staff,we actually created a separate district for this tennis court facility called RA, which we called out in the language that I just read to you. When we added that to this table,recreation area 4.3 acres,we neglected to subtract it from that 107.3 for Tract A and from the golf course acreage because we had added that 4.3 acres to that. So not to complicate things,but we need to subtract 4.3 acres out of the total of 107 for Tract A and out of the golf course acreage,and then the numbers will jive,because we added it as a separate RA tract. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait a minute. You're saying the 107.5 --okay. That's the new golf course calculation with the RA. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it used to be 5.21 acres less; is that correct? MR.MULHERE: It used to be 4.3 acres left, because we put the other .9 in preserve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Gotcha. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you are going--you--okay. I just want to make sure--we're going to attempt to get you through consent today as well,so I want to make sure that all the issues are resolved. MR. MULHERE: Well, it's pretty simple. This 107.8,we need to subtract 4.3 acres,which is the acreage that we have added below here under recreation area. MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Chair? Page 15 of 47 May 5, 2016 MR. MULHERE: When we added that,we forgot to subtract it out of that total. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Eric? MR. JOHNSON: Eric Johnson,principal planner,zoning. So if you were to look at the table,the golf acreage,which is now proposed at 107.8,would actually become 103.5,and then the tees, greens, and fairways would not be 90.2 but rather it would be 86.0, and that would be consistent with the last approved plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. MR. MULHERE: By the way, kudos to Eric because he pointed it out to me this morning,so thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. MR. MULHERE: That concludes. I'm open for questions and also have my team here as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Questions from the Planning Commission? Anybody? Mr. Assaad? COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Do we have any sidewalks going up to the tennis complex? MS. GREEN: Good morning. Gina Green,for the record;engineer. There is not a sidewalk on Colonial Court,but we are providing a sidewalk from Colonial Court to the tennis facility. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: So the tennis facility will have a sidewalk going up? MS. GREEN: It will just have it to the edge of the valley gutter or curbing on Colonial Court.The Naples Heritage project,when it was built back in the'90s,did not require sidewalks on cul-de-sacs of this sort, so the actual Colonial Court does not have a sidewalk on it. MR. MULHERE: So it's right here. MS. GREEN: Yes. The site plan that was handed out does show a sidewalk. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Could you point it out? MR. MULHERE: Right here. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have some questions,but it might help me understand,is there a Mr. or Mrs. Huber here in the audience? MR. MULHERE: No,they're not here,but I do know that there was discussion with them. Patrick could probably speak to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,that's okay. I first needed to know if they were here,and regardless of whether--since they're not here, I'm still going to be asking some questions. They are the most contiguous property owner with a house built at the very end of the cul-de-sac right there next to the property according to the tax assessor's website. So I had wanted to see if they were here to express any concerns they may have. Absence that,we'll still go into some of the questions. Why don't we start with the site plan you have up there then, Bob. As soon as I pull the right one up. The 25-foot landscape buffer that you have towards the bottom of the property in question,it looks like you're moving your drain field or your dry detention over into that landscape buffer area; is that true? And you're doing it right alongside the house that is going to be the most impacted? MS. GREEN: Actually,that area is going to be left as natural vegetation. That is actually just the toe of the slope of the existing ground that's there now. And we won't be filling it,and we're leaving the trees and everything. We're just--I'm just containing it. The house actually acts as the water management berm, the side yard of it does. So that area there will be treed. You know,they'll remove the exotics,but it will be left natural, and water will be allowed to go in there to store on the site. So it's a natural detention area,not a created one. MR. MULHERE: And I do want to add that we do still have plenty of distance in here,more than 15 feet within which to put the actual landscape plantings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,we're going to discuss that 15 feet in a minute. So you take that detention area,and you connected it by pipe to move the water north, right? Page 16 of 47 May 5, 2016 MS. GREEN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then it goes through that detention area on the north side,which means those trees are going to be taken out as well? MS. GREEN: No. In that area,too,we're leaving the natural grade. We want to leave as many trees on this site as possible because there's a lot of nice pines,palms,everything on this site, so we want to clean out the exotics; leave as much natural as possible. Only clear where we have to. So both of those detention areas will be left as natural--natural grade with trees detention areas. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why do you show contour lines,then,around them? MS. GREEN: Because I have to contain them with water management berm. So along the perimeter of it there will be water management berm, and I have to calculate areas so it's an approximate toe of slope. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, and I figured that, but that means you're not going to leave the trees and natural vegetation in place where the contour lines are,right? MS.GREEN: From the contour lines towards the property line,no,because that--we'll have to construct a water management berm in that area, so the trees will be removed in those areas where the water management berm lies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And you've got--your outfall from that area goes to a small, looks like,a detention area on the west side of the property; is that right? MS. GREEN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The 25-foot landscape buffer area,Bob had stated, and your--one of your exhibits shows 25 feet,but Bob stated it's 15 feet. A Type B buffer is 15 feet,but you're calling 25 feet out on your plan. So which it is you're intending to do,25 or 15? MS. GREEN: We're planning on doing the 25 to provide the extra enhancement to shelter those houses from this facility. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the enhancements being what,ten more feet of land? MS.GREEN: Well,the 10 more feet of land and creating--you know,the Type B just requires shrubs and trees. We're adding a midstory in there,you know,requiring a certain height plants,everything. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now,that 25-foot buffer,according to the site plan that's here, looks like it's outside the 5.21-acre parcel that you're here about today; is that true? MS. GREEN: Yes. That's in an existing buffer that was already in Naples Heritage between Colonial Court and the perimeter property line that's required prior. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're not really adding any 25-foot landscape buffer;you're utilizing one that's already there? MS. GREEN: Right. Well,yes. We're utilizing it and--utilizing it as an existing buffer because it was a perimeter buffer because the--the agricultural parcel next to it was not part of the PUD. That 25 feet was required in the original PUD. Now that we're putting this five acres into it, it's no longer on the perimeter.This is--the required buffer will become now an enhanced landscape buffer to shelter it from the residential properties. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you noticed on the south--well,on your plan it would be to the left of the last lot on the cul-de-sac. There's some verbiage that's not too legible on the plan you've got on the overhead,but it basically says,Tract C,conservation area,Naples Heritage Golf Course,Phase 1,Plat Book 26, Pages 71 to 80. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if you notice on the north side of the property,which is to the right of the plan that you have there,that's the same point--that's the same verbiage up on the top. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you go to the tax assessor's site between the verbiage on the top and verbiage on the bottom, it shows as all one contiguous parcel. MS. GREEN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So do you have anything with you today that shows that the piece you're going to put the landscape buffer in is not part of conservation easement? Page 17 of 47 May 5,2016 MS. GREEN: It actually is a conservation easement that will be vacated. We've already discussed this with the county and with South Florida Water Management District, and so it's going to be--that section is going to be vacated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So what's the vacation process for that conservation easement? Does it go before the Board of County Commissioners? MS. GREEN: Yes. It will be along with the--we're vacating the right-of-way tract also on the very south and putting that into preserve. Those will go in together. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When will you be doing those? MS. GREEN: They're--probably next week. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it will be going to the Board with this PUD modification? MS.GREEN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. GREEN: That is the plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because I--we can't prejudge what the Board's going to do. So I'm a little concerned that this hasn't been addressed with us. I would like to have seen the conservation easement,some of that language,because we're going to--you're asking us to vote on this plan and this site plan with conditions that are going to require the Board of County Commissioners to perfect some vacations in order for the zoning to be as it is as you've submitted. MS.GREEN: Yes. We've been dealing with South Florida,because it is a South Florida conservation easement,and that is why,with the vacation process,we have been having meetings with them regarding how to handle this 25 feet and crossing it with the driveway,everything. And so we finally got everything squared away with them so that we could proceed with the vacation process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And from the County Attorney's Office, Heidi,that--the methodology of this process, is there any issues there that we need--and the way we review this today, since it's going to be subject to two vacations,one for a conservation easement and one for a right-of-way,do we have to look at that in a different manner today in regards to passing it on to the Board?Our findings,then, I would assume, would be subject to those two vacations; is that fair enough? MS.ASHTON-CICKO: I'm not clear exactly what you're asking me. If you're going to have a condition of approval subject to the vacations or you're-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I'm suggesting is that we make a condition of approval subject to the two vacations that got to be attained in order to meet the commitments they're making on the--in the PUD change that they're asking for today. MR. MULHERE: And it's already conditioned on the one vacation. We would be adding the-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to be adding two. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, I'd suggest that they be companion items when it goes to the Board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what we just--they just said they're going to be. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah. As long as it's companion items when it goes to the Board,yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: How much are you going to vacate--are you going to--will you be leaving any shrubbery or anything going--after the sidewalk going north to the parking lots so the people across the street aren't just staring into a parking lot? MR. MULHERE: Yes,yes. This--this area here,we'll be leaving as much of the vegetation as we can once we take out the exotics,and also the same down here. And there's another natural area over here, and right there. COMMISSIONER EBERT: That's the area I was talking about. MR. MULHERE: And we're going to supplement that with the landscape buffer that we discussed. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Bob, I'm going to move into the actual document that you provided, the PUD format, and see if I have anything left after--I know you've cleaned up a lot of the stuff we've Page 18 of 47 May 5, 2016 talked about. On the staff report on Page 4,top of it,Conservation and Coastal Management Element,CCME, it seems to-- it indicates there's going to be four acres of preserve added to the PUD. It talks about the 252 acres as a total. I couldn't find how that's correlated with your acreage table on your master plan. MR. MULHERE: So the--let me go to the site plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you looking--do you know what language I'm talking about on Page 4 under CCME review? MR. MULHERE: Yes. I'm looking at it right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See the last line? It says, in total,approximately 252 acres,45 percent of the PUD,have been set aside as preserve. Can you show me how those numbers are--come together? MR. MULHERE: Yes. In Tract A-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you pull that down a little bit, Bob. MR. MULHERE: Sorry. In Tract A--I'm trying to find Tract A preserve. Right here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's 225. MR. MULHERE: It's 225.9,almost 226. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. MULHERE: Tract B. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you've--those two together. And then the four acres will be added to that once the vacation's completed on the right-of-way. MR. MULHERE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And this piece is brought into the PUD. MR. MULHERE: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think you've gotten all the issues that I know we had discussed at one time. I'm just double-checking. I have two questions of transportation staff while we're on the master plan that you're submitting,and that--where both--are you suggesting both of these plans that you've submitted and passed out be entered as exhibits to the PUD? MR. MULHERE: That would be fine with us. We would label them Exhibits Al and A2. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A2, okay. And for Mike's--for my question of Mike,could you put the site plan back on that shows the tennis courts. Mike,the question I have is here in the lower right-hand side you'll see an access going at an angle; looks to be about 45 degrees onto Colonial Boulevard(sic). Is that going to be something that your department is going to find acceptable,or will it seek--will there be further modifications to it? MR. SAWYER: For the record,Mike Sawyer,transportation planning. That actually would be more commonly done,quite honestly,when the actual SDP gets submitted but,quite honestly, it appears--you know,we don't like to see those types of things when we've got a public roadway,but these are all public or private roadways within the development itself And because of that we can allow a certain amount of freedom on angled access points like that. Quite honestly,you know, I do not-- I do not see that. It looks like they've got adequate radii in the access itself. I don't believe that there's going to be any need for a dramatic change to that,that radii.You know, going down towards the cul-de-sac may have to be increased slightly,but I can only assume that that would be the only issue that might possibly come up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just didn't want us to go forward with something that was on a plan that's going to later come back and be a problem when they come in for an SDP,and if you feel that this is going to be--the modifications to this,whatever they are, would be insignificant enough that they could be handled at SDP, I'm fine with that. MR. SAWYER: Correct. And just for the record,that's easily something that staff can review to just Page 19 of 47 May 5, 2016 to reassure you on that point. I can also tell you,too, we do have weekly meetings where we do have all of the various transportation reviewers as well as our operation engineers. We meet once a week, and so we do go through all of these petitions as well as the SDP projects. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I know you do meet. The difference is,you are reviewing it as a planner,not a traffic engineer. And when it comes in for SDP, it's reviewed by a traffic engineer. And I'm concerned about the discrepancies between the two disciplines looking at it. That's why I'm asking the question now to make sure at least we can be on the same page when it comes in for SDP. MR. SAWYER: And we're trying--and we certainly make all those efforts and try and increase that communication wherever possible,and we are working on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And make sure that you don't put landscaping so that it interferes with sight distance. MR. SAWYER: Yes, sir. MR.MULHERE: And I just wanted to add,the basis for that design--I'm glad to hear that--was to minimize the impacts on those residential properties, so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Bob,could you put the overall master plan back up and focus in on the RA site. If you notice,you've got a series of buffers there. You've got a 15-foot buffer and a 10-foot buffer. It's blurred out, but that's on the east side. And you're now saying you're going to have a 25-foot buffer. So are you going to make the correction on that or leave it two separate buffers at 10 and 15? MR. MULHERE: We will correct that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On the west side you call out a 10-foot buffer,but the site plan you passed out has a retention area right up on top of the western property line. How are you accomplishing the 10-foot buffer over there? MR. MULHERE: Sorry. I want to make sure I'm following you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Put the site plan back on. And,first of all,you acknowledge on the west side you show a 10-foot buffer? Do you agree with that from the master plan? MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then see the plan you just put on? MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How do you do the 10-foot buffer with the-- MR. MULHERE: You talking about here? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,you're off the--pull it down. MR. MULHERE: Sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. You've got an outfall going into a retention area,and you've got what we've been told is going to be area cleared to put in berms. So what are you going to do with the buffer? MS. GREEN: The water management berm will act as the buffer, and we can do planting. That made it wide enough on the top to put the plantings right on top. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,how do you handle that outfall area? MS. GREEN: It would be outside of that. If there is a problem with the fact of the angle,there being that small--you know,it's a natural grade spreader swale for the outfall so that it doesn't point discharge. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,the only thing I'm concerned about is at some point that area to the west could be populated with another development.They'll look at whatever you've got there,and whatever defenses they need or compatibility issues,they'll certainly probably address. I just want to make sure that you can put your--you can address your side. And based on this plan, it looks like you're right on top of the property line with some of those areas that would theoretically be cleared in order to accomplish what they've got to do. And I just want to make sure that you're going to be able to fit in the 10-foot buffer you say you're going to put in there. MS. GREEN: Yes. And we're actually--you know,we're still,like I said,dealing with some stuff on South Florida where actually that control structure may be moving on the site to a different location anyway. So that spreader swale that you're looking at there could be eliminated anyway. Page 20 of 47 May 5, 2016 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS.GREEN: So, I mean,the water management berm is wide enough to be able to put a 10-foot buffer on top of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR.JOHNSON: Mr. Chair? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR.JOHNSON: Over here; staff. Just for my own edification, I'd like to put the master plan on the visualizer and ask a couple questions, if that would be okay with you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's okay with me,yes. I'm sorry. I thought you were asking Bob. MR. MULHERE: He is. MR.JOHNSON: Thank you. Just for my own edification,this is the RA tract here that's being added. Are we going to relabel these differently? Is this going to say 25 feet in-- MR. MULHERE: Yes. MR.JOHNSON: Okay. And that's going to be on the subject property, not the property-- MR. MULHERE: It's all going to be part of subject property because it's all -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Common owner. MR. MULHERE: It's all part of the PUD. MR.JOHNSON: All right. So that's going to be 25 feet. And then on the opposite side,which is the west side,what's that going to say? Is that going to remain the same? MR. MULHERE: It's going to remain the same. MR.JOHNSON: Okay. Thank you. MR. MULHERE: Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And,Bob,the last cleanup item is your Exhibit A2,which will be the landscape buffer easement adjacent to Colonial Court. You start out the type--the text on the top by saying Type B buffer, 15-foot wide. That needs to be changed to 25-foot wide? MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: And I will -- I will also indicate the midstory. I think that's shown on the drawing. I don't know if it's in the text,so I will also include that in the text. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's all I have. Anybody else have anything? MR. MULHERE: I have to hold that out here to read it, but... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,that's how--you passed it out. See,wear glasses. They do work. Especially bifocals. They're great. MR. MULHERE: I've got contacts in. It doesn't help. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Of course,that's a sign of age. Eric, do you have a staff report? MR.JOHNSON: Eric Johnson, planner--principal planner. Staff recommends approval,even with the changes that are proposed here today. I did want to point out that when this is advertised for the Board of County Commissioners,the labeling,PUDA,will be changed to PUDZ. So I just wanted to--that's a housekeeping measure. I just wanted to say that for the record. I understand that you probably are going to be making a motion sooner rather than later. If it is to approve,the way I understand it,the-- it's subject--it would be subject to approval of the vacation of the road easement and the buffer easement; is that correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. That's stipulation language that we'll read off as we get into the motion. MR.JOHNSON: Oh, great,great. I just want it to not get lost in the tide. Just want to be able to jot everything down. And also--so I think Mr. Mulhere said that the two exhibits that he showed here today were going to be labeled Exhibit Al and A2; is that correct? Page 21 of 47 May 5, 2016 MR. MULHERE: Yes. MR. JOHNSON: Outstanding. And then we're going to change the numbers in the master plan from 107.8 to 103.5 and then 90.2 to 86.0? MR. MULHERE: Yes. MR.JOHNSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is that the end of the staff report? MR.JOHNSON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Those members of the public that wish to speak. Ray,would you call out any registered speakers, and then I'll ask for anybody who is not registered, if they'd like to speak. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. No one has registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So let's start with whoever--anybody from the public like to speak on this item today? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, I have one question that I do need answered. I need to have someone put--that were sworn in under oath,that Mr. and Mrs. Huber had a knowledge of this action going on today and then discussion was held. If someone could come up and provide that testimony,that would be excellent. MR. MULHERE: They were notified, obviously,through all the usual, but I'll let Patrick talk about the specific context. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. DORBAD: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I'm Patrick Dorbad. I'm the general manager. I spoke with all the residents,to include Joe. And Joe was not truly in favor of it when we started it, but we were sensitive to the landscaping area,and we're working with him regularly as soon as--via email just this week. So we're very sensitive to him. He's a good man,and he's supporting the project that we want to do overall,and we're working with him. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And,you know, I have not spoke to him. I have not received any correspondence from him. I simply looked up in the tax assessor's map who was the most affected party, and he certainly is. I had asked Bob earlier about putting a wall alongside his property to provide a further buffer to him, and I was told that the residents there prefer not to have a wall. Is that a true statement? MR. DORBAD: From Joe Huber,not generally. We had a meeting as soon as yesterday,as Bob reported, and there were several residents in the meeting,and everybody was frowning on a wall in that area. In our community,we had options of trying to get a wall similar to a community across the way, Monterey,and there was big objections at that point. So I believe Bob's basing his thoughts on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you very much, sir. Appreciate it. Does anybody else have any questions of anyone at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And, Bob,there's no need--anything else you want to add before we close the public hearing? MR. MULHERE: That's good. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll close the public hearing and then open for discussion. If someone on the Planning Commission feels(sic)to make a recommendation,here's some considerations: Number one,an easement will be required to be vacated where the right-of-way is,and that vacated area will have to be added to the PUD as preserve. There was a handout provided suggesting we accept the language that's in the handout. There's been two plans submitted. They need to be accepted as exhibits to the PUD. One is a site plan. The other is a landscape buffer plan. It will be Al and A2. We need some changes to the acreage on the table on the master plan. And the references to the 25 --the references to the 15-foot buffer on the exhibit that's being added needs to be changed to 25 feet,and the master plan needs to be reflective of the same kind of change. Page 22 of 47 May 5, 2016 And I believe that's all the notes I have.Anybody have any other things they want to consider adding or changing? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion? Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'll move to approve PUDA-PL20150001416,Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club PUD,with the comments and revisions and stipulations you just enumerated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Second. MR.JOHNSON: Mr. Chair? Mr. Chair? May I interrupt one more moment? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me see if there's a second first. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Eric. MR.JOHNSON: Just for the record,the exhibit that's going to be labeled Naples Heritage tennis center conceptual site plan,that has not been reviewed by staff, so the applicant's proceeding at his own risk--the applicant is--staff has not reviewed that for total compliance, so I just wanted to say,when staff is recommending approval,that was not-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It is labeled as conceptual. I think that's understood. MR. JOHNSON: Thank you. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: And that will be an exhibit to the ordinance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: That's what you stated. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Both of them will be, Exhibit Al and A2, I think we--were the numerics. MR. JOHNSON: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There was a motion and a second. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Aye. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. Next time you guys ask for some deviations,will you? Make this more lively. That's for Wafaa's-- COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: I was very happy that so far we haven't had any. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I figured you'd be happy about that. We have one more regular item, and then we'll be moving into the LDC amendments. Let's take a 10-minute break and come back at 10:30 before we proceed with the next one. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ***Okay. If everybody will please take their seats,we'll resume the meeting and move into one of the last land use actions we have today. The item is PUDA-PL20160000132. It's for the Pine Ridge Center West planned unit development located south of Pine Ridge Road on the east of Livingston Road. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) Page 23 of 47 May 5, 2016 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on the part of Planning Commission. Tom? MR. EASTMAN: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Correspondence with Bob Mulhere. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Andy? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane? MR. MULHERE: It was in that email. COMMISSIONER EBERT: In the--yeah,the email. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I take that back. I believe the email that I received from Mulhere--Mr. Mulhere was for this project. MR.MULHERE: It was for both. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: For both. It was for both,okay. I'm sorry. I stand corrected. I received an email from Mr.Mulhere. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I've had emails and a couple conversations with Bob on this one as well. Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Email from Mr. Mulhere. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wafaa? COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: No. No correspondence. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Charlette? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Contact. MR. MULHERE: It was the same. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Sorry. I got an email from Bob. It's the same email about that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Charlette? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Contact with Bob Mulhere. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And we'll move right into it. Bob, it's all yours. Oh--yeah,we already swore in. Go ahead. I'm sorry. MR.MULHERE: Thank you,Mr.Chairman. Bob Mulhere with Hole Montes here representing the applicant,also is K.P. Pezeshkan and Alex Pezeshkan here this morning. Fred Pezeshkan was unable to be here this morning,but otherwise he would be. He sent the A team in in case--in his absence. This is really a relatively minor amendment. I hate to say it,but we were before you not that long ago amending this PUD,and we did not have--we really didn't have final architectural plans.We had some architectural plans. And as you'll recall,we--that last amendment last year created the opportunity for us to build the office building at four stories, not to exceed 50 feet of actual height. That--when we actually got the final architectural designs in,considering the parapet wall and the roof design,we need an extra eight feet to be able to really do the kind of building that would be very attractive and match the Kraft building,which is also an attractive building in terms of its design compatibility. And so that really is the purpose of this amendment. Now,there is one other additional slight change. There was some concern relative to the parking garage where we had limited the height to 30 feet and two stories that there not be any confusion that that would be a ground floor and two elevated stories. Subsequently, I've had some discussions with you-all,and there was sort of--a couple members of the Planning Commission mentioned to me that we could simplify that quite a bit. And so if we-- if we look at Page 2 of the proposed ordinance,which has the changes on it--I can put this on the visualizer if it's easier. So the language that we wrote to change this had--under parking structures,we had added a parenthetical,three levels of parking which includes the ground level. And it was suggested that we could simply strike through both the new language and this phrase"limited to two stories" such that this would read "parking structures not to exceed 30 feet in actual height," and it's a lot more simple,and it makes more sense. Page 24 of 47 May 5, 2016 So--and then this second change was four stories or 58 feet actual height,whichever is more restrictive. So I think that that language was okay. But, anyway,those are the--those are the two changes that we were proposing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Actually, E,3.4E, I think the suggestion was 58 feet actual height, just--that's it. MR. MULHERE: Yes,that's correct. Then we would strike through this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We don't need the stories. I don't know what it matters. If you put 100 stories in there,who cares? It's going to be 58 feet. MR. MULHERE: Capital F. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Could you get four stories within that height-- MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: --for the parking? MR. MULHERE: Yes. No,the parking would be limited to the 30 feet. The building--the parking's going to be--let me show you the site plan. So the parking is--the building is proposed here, and the parking is proposed to be next to it on the side. So the building will be four stories not to exceed 58 feet,and the parking will be adjacent to the side, not to exceed 30 feet. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: But within the 30 feet of parking structure height-- MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: --can you get four levels of parking? MR. MULHERE: No. We're going to--only proposing to do three,and that's sufficient. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: So you're going to say ground and two? MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Not to exceed 30 feet in height? MR. MULHERE: Correct,yes. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,no, no. I think what Wafaa said is you're going to say ground and two not to exceed 30 feet. I think the correction is just leave it 30 feet. MR. MULHERE: We're just going to leave it at 30 feet,but we only need three floors, ground and two elevated, and we can do that within 30 feet. So we're okay with that. So the height will just say garages not exceed 30 feet. MR. BELLOWS: And that's actual. MR. MULHERE: Yes,actual. And that's the highest point. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Okay. How high is the existing Kraft office building,the highest one,the tallest one? MR. MULHERE: It's four stories. I don't know what the height,but this will be very comparable with that. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: And this will be also four stories? MR. MULHERE: Correct. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: And those changes apply only to Tract B? MR. MULHERE: Oh, I take that back. Kraft is three stories. This will be four. It's still going to be comparable in terms of height. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: This will be taller than the existing building? MR. MULHERE: It might be a little bit taller,yeah. I don't know the height of that building, but looking at it, it's pretty tall. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: And those additional height and parking provisions,could they apply to the vacant piece of property at the front? MR. MULHERE: No. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: They are just limited to Tract B? MR.MULHERE: Yeah. It's no longer vacant. Germain has built a retail automotive-- COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: So there is no more vacant land? Page 25 of 47 May 5,2016 MR. MULHERE: Correct. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: This is the last piece? MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions from the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a staff report? MR. REISCHL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Fred Reischl with zoning division. Staffs recommending approval with no deviations. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there--any members of the public wish to speak on this item? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Hearing none, Bob,do you have anything else you want to add? MR. MULHERE: I feel like I'm missing something with the deviations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Bob,the only other thing I was going to say, I would have thought you would have had the height of the Kraft building because it's right next to it. MR. MULHERE: Yes. I appreciate that. I should have. I apologize. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that,we'll close the public hearing. There's been some corrective language suggested. Is there any discussion from the Planning Commission or motion? Anybody? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I'll make a motion to approve PUDA-PL20160000132 with those corrections. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made and seconded. When we say"those corrections," I'll just read them to make sure it's clear. Number 4 will read,parking structures,and then after that it will say "not to exceed 30 feet in actual height" and go on with the rest of the paragraph. Number 3.4E under maximum height,we'll start out 58 feet actual height and that's it. That's the corrected language we discussed. Is there any other comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none,all those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Aye. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. Thank you. MR.MULHERE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ***And that takes us into the next item up on the agenda,which is our--I'll pull it up--our LDC amendments. Caroline, I know there's two or three people waiting for the LDC amendments. I'd like to move right into theirs first,which I believe is Item F; is that correct? Because there's Item F and Item G. Item G is the architectural standards,and there's nobody waiting here for those, I believe. MS. CILEK: Correct. We'd like to go into the regular Cycle 2 amendments first. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So with this,we'll move into Item 9F,which will be adoption of Page 26 of 47. May 5,2016 amendments to the Land Development Code,the Cycle 2 amendments. And we have three people waiting,and I would like to take the amendments in order of those people that are waiting here, Immokalee mobile home overlay first,the ALF/FAR second, and then the conservation item third. MS.CILEK: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And if you'll tell us the page all this occurs on,because I've got it all electronically, I'd sure appreciate it. MS. CILEK: All right. We're going to be going to 2.03.07 and 10.02.05, Immokalee mobile homes. It is the one,two,three--fourth amendment in your packet for today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll let you make your normal introduction,and we'll go forward. MS. CILEK: Thank you. So here we're proposing a new application and process for Immokalee non-conforming mobile home parks and sites. It's important to note this is specific to the Immokalee urban boundary. The goal is to enable these sites to be able to replace units and thereby providing improved units and potentially maintaining the affordable housing in Immokalee. The minimum requirements are those that are established by the fire district. And we're providing for a new application which is a companion item, and those application requirements are identified in the administrative code section,which is new. The goal here is to have a process where they will be identifying the existing conditions and taking that forward through the new process identified as existing conditions site improvement plan. And I'd be happy to answer questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I know that we have one item--one gentleman here from the--who is a mobile home owner in Immokalee. I'd sure like to get his input,and it would probably be better before we spoke than after so we understand what his concerns are in our discussion. Mr. Davenport, if you'd like to come up and identify yourself for the record. Heidi,do we need to be swearing people in for these? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: For the speakers on the LDC amendments? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. DAVENPORT: For the record,my name is Robert Davenport,and I am an owner of a park, and my sons have two parks that are in dire need of upgrading. The amendment,the way it is presented,we've gone through it. There's been more than myself working on this project. Unfortunately, some of them couldn't get here today. But the way it's presented,the staff has been well versed on doing what we would like to see done, and we thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you're in support of the amendment,then,as written? MR. DAVENPORT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, I'll move into discussion from the Planning Commission. Is there any corrections or changes or questions of county staff in regards to what's being proposed for this new mobile home language? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I have had the opportunity in all these to talk with staff as they've been developed, and I don't have any questions left on them. So I think it's fine the way it is,and let's hope it goes forward to the Board. So, Heidi,we won't be hearing these again,will we? Or is this part of the ones that will be on the 25th? MS. CILEK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. CILEK: This is going to be heard again on the nighttime hearing on Wednesday,May 25th,at 5:05 p.m. Page 27 of 47 May 5,2016 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So in order to make everything as complete as possible, if we--if on the ones we discuss today that can be resolved today, let me know-- MS. CILEK: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --and we'll take a final vote on those, and the ones we can't,we'll just go on to the next one once we've asked all the questions we have. And if we don't have any,obviously,then the 25th might be a little bit shorter-- MS. CILEK: Perfect. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --because there will be no language changes then. MS. CILEK: I can do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Stan--oh,you looked like you were going to say something. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: No. I'm just glad to see another Immokalee mobile home change come through. It's-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: It's overdue. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Well,they've had a long history of doing this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's been a very complicated process to get this far,and it's taken a lot of work. And I have to credit Caroline and her team with the way they've handled this. You guys have come up with a good proposal. So hopefully this will meet the approval of the Board. I know we've attempted a couple of times,and it just hasn't been ferreted out as well as you guys have done it. So thank you all. MS. CILEK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's move on to the next one. And what section are we moving to next? MS.CILEK: Okay. We are going to go to 5.05.04,group housing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I hate to ask you this,Caroline,because you're probably not going to provide an answer to me that's going to work. When I get my package, it's--this one is 86 pages of your LDC amendments in order,Page 1 to 86. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah,I have the same issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Andy's got the same issue. When we get them out of order that the package was presented to Judy when she copied these-- MS.CILEK: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --we don't have any way of following you without going through 86 pages to see where you're at. MS. CILEK: At the next meeting I have an idea that we will share with you,and you can either bookmark the PDF, or I can write down the pages and I can share with you the page numbers. There's two ways to handle it,and we'll make sure to do that before the 25th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So-- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Bookmark would probably work perfectly. MS.CILEK: Bookmarks would be great, because then you can just click on it,and it will take you right there. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now,the bookmark's the PDF function? And that will work. Because I happen to be the only one using Apple,and-- MS.CILEK: It's a fantastic-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --Apple's a much better system to use than Windows for me. Andy's going to switch over one of these days. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Product placement here. MS. CILEK: It will work for both of you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See the Apple folks. But,anyway,whereabouts in this 86 pages is the--approximately? Halfway? Quarter way? MS. CILEK: It's the next. So go past the one we were just on. It's the one after that. So you're going to pass Conservation Collier. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: It's after Conservation Collier. MS. CILEK: Right. Page 28 of 47 May 5, 2016 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: After Conservation Collier. MS. CILEK: And it's starting with 2.03.03 commercial zoning district,and 5.05.04,group housing. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: It is Page 70. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. And I guess what you and I can do is if I find it first, I'll let you know. If you find it first,you can let me know. Thank you. There it is. Okay. Go ahead. MR. HENDERLONG: Good morning,Commissioners. Rich Henderlong, for the record,principal planner. This--the purpose of this amendment is to grant relief to conventional commercial zoning districts by allowing floor area ratios greater than 0.45 and up to 0.60 to be approved by conditional use for group housing units. Generally, group housing units consist of dwelling units such as care units,assisted living facilities, and continuing care facilities and nursing homes. The amendment change allows equitable treatment of the commercial zoning districts through the conditional use review process when compared to the FAR deviations by PUD approvals.The proposed conditional use process requires a public hearing with several forms of public notice to surrounding property owners which is similar to a PUD rezone process. The amendment has been reviewed and approved by DSAC and LDR subcommittee. There is one additional note we'd like to give you this morning is--because group housing is currently a conditional use in residential zoning districts,the Commission may want to consider to bring back at a later date the equivalent changes for residential zoning districts as well. So Caroline also has an email she'd like to share with you from Kim Grant she'd like to address. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And I noticed Kim's here,too, so she'll hopefully be able to address us in her issue. Did you want to bring it up first? MS.CILEK: Sure. We sent out an email with the attached email from Kim Grant to me identifying the possibility of adding to this amendment that when applicants are seeking a deviation above 0.45,FAR, that a certain percentage of that excess going up to .6 would be dedicated to Medicare and Medicaid beds within these group housing units. So this is something for you-all to consider,and this comes from the advisory board that handles affordable housing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it was also presented to the Board of County Commissioners,and I believe it was one of the items they wanted further review and-- MS. CILEK: Yes,thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --they seemed to promote, so hopefully Kim can shed some light on that for us. Hi,Kim. MS. GRANT: That's correct. Would you like me to make a couple of comments about this for background? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. Just identify yourself for the record,and we'll be good. MS.GRANT: Very good. Kim Grant,director of community and human services here at the county. By way of background,for a year,year and a half or so,the Board of County Commissioners and the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee have been looking to address solutions for the need for additional affordable housing/workforce housing in our community. Last December the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee brought forth to the Board of County Commissioners an extensive list of the potential recommendations for them to consider. One of the ideas was that we somehow incorporate when there's an--when this type of request is made for an increase in the FAR rate,that we look to somehow have some portion of that go towards either affordable or senior housing. So at the time it was presented to the Board of County Commissioners, it was still conceptual,and the Board directed staff and the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee to look at all--look at that incentive as well as lots of other incentives as part of a process to develop a plan for addressing the needs in Page 29 of 47 May 5, 2016 our community. In the meantime,this LDC amendment came through, so it became an opportunity to potentially piggyback on this LDC amendment and incorporate one of the ideas that had been considered. So as has already been stated,the idea is that should this amendment be accepted, if there is an approved increase in the FAR, some percentage--and AHAC was recommending 50 percent of the increased units or beds--would be made for Medicaid or Medicare eligible. That's the background,and I'd be happy to answer any questions. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Excuse my ignorance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead,Mr. Assaad. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: What is FAR? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Floor area ratio. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: What FAR stands for? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Floor area ratio. There's a--the few pages back--and Charlette,right there in her book, is an explanation of how it's calculated. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Thank you. Kim,just some clarifications. This is only going to be for straight zoning,so it's a good trial balloon to put forth. The Medicaid and Medicare beds available in Collier County for dementia,Alzheimer's, senior living where you've got to have some assisted--let's say assisted living,which is what this generally applies to, group care facilities,do you know how many are available in the county now? I mean, I know it's very minimal, if any. MS. GRANT: It's very few. I do not know the count. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. GRANT: But I will tell you that in our work there's been extensive community input, including from the senior community as well as people in the health industry and so forth that are involved in these types of facilities,and it was a general consensus that there were very few, if any and,at any rate,there's a need for more. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I've had to experience a need for those,not for myself but for relatives, and some of you probably think it should be for me. But in my research there, I've found that in this county it's almost impossible. There's one place over on Goodlette Road, I believe,may accept some. Most of them say they'll accept Medicaid but as an offset to the 6,000 a month they want,and so it ends up you've still got to come out-of-pocket 4-or 5,000 a month, so that isn't really a true Medicare/Medicare bed. That's just a portion allowance. I'm hoping that with this recommendation,as it goes to the Board, it will give them a chance to talk and vet it out from their perspective. And we'd be looking at Medicaid and Medicare beds funded;not portions of the overall price, but a funded Medicare/Medicaid bed situation. I fully--I think it's a great idea. I think it's badly needed in this county. We shouldn't have to move away when we get older because it's too expensive to live here as we get older. So I think it's an absolutely wonderful idea to start with, so I appreciate it very much. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: How do we see this working with PUDs? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We haven't got there yet, but I think we'd be looking at this--if the Board accepts this as a standard,I would suggest this board then follow up with an inclusive recommendation when we have these come through to the Board,and they can consider it in PUDs until such time as we change the code further to make it a more prominent requirement. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It basically starts to set a template of where we want to go. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: At least that's how I would suggest. Does anybody else have any? (No response.) Page 30 of 47 May 5, 2016 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Kim,thank you very much. And I think, Caroline,we're looking at adding the language to provide as Kim has indicated the need for the Medicare/Medicaid allowances for it,so this will come back on the 25th with some refined language? MS. CILEK: Yes,we can do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's go to the next one. And anybody else have any other questions? COMMISSIONER EBERT: No. I think it's excellent also. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next item up? MS. CILEK: Okay. We're going to 3.05.07,native vegetation requirements,and this one is addressing the changes to offsite native vegetation. Rich will be presenting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fifty-six,Andy. MR. HENDERLONG: Rich Henderlong,principal planner. This amendment follows board direction of March 22nd this year to prepare and publicly vet an LDC amendment to modify monetary payments to meet offsite native vegetation retention requirements. Basically, it changes the long-term land and land management payment amounts from a percentage of average land purchase in the county to a fixed payment amount that will be re-evaluated every three years through the Collier Conservation program. The recommended payment amounts proposed by the amendment have been vetted,they have been reviewed,and they have been approved by DSAC and Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Committee and the respective subcommittees. The Planning Commission today is being asked to select and recommend to the Board one of the proposed payment amounts by DSAC or CCLAC. Based on your recommendation today and at a subsequent later date,the Board will amend,by resolution,the growth management development fee schedule in accordance with the recommendation. With that, we're happy to ask--answer any questions you may have. Along here with me today is Kim--is Alex Slay(sic)with the Collier Conservation group and the CCLAC committee to answer any questions you may have in followup. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's going to be some needed explanation,at least on my part. MR. HENDERLONG: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When we start talking about land cost,either DSAC or Collier Conservation,where do they get that initial land-cost value from? MR. HENDERLONG: The initial land-cost value started with about$25,000 an acre on an average base from the acquisitions for all of Collier Conservation. During the vetting with DSAC LDR subcommittee,Jeremy--I forget Jeremy's last name--one of the members,and basically talked about what the current costs have been,that his experiences have been with lands in terms of trading. They were coming up average somewhere around 30-, 32,000 an acre,and they basically made that adjustment predicated on some of the acquisition costs and then also for what their clients have been able to buy and bring into play. If there's further explanation,maybe Alex can address it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I thought that's where you pulled it from. Let me give you an example. I think we had a--we had a small triangular-shaped project down by Bear's Paw come in here a couple years ago,and we got into this issue of how much should they--they want to do everything off site, and there was an issue,okay,well,what's the land value to move it off site? They wanted to go out to Winchester Head or someplace and pick up a parcel of land for a few thousand bucks,or whatever number it was,and say,okay,there's their offsite mitigation. Now, in return,that freed up more land in the urban area for them to build their density on. The value that we ended up looking at was some mixture--and I can't remember without going back and reading it all --between what their land value was in their project for what they wanted to do with it versus what they were to purchase off site. I think if you go to any development and say,we're going to base a land value for you to purchase off site by that remote offsite value of the land, not the land that you're gaining for additional development in the urban area that's probably worth 10 times as much. Page 31 of 47 May 5, 2016 And I'm wondering if anybody looked at that as part of the equation,and does that fit in anywhere in the numbers that you provided to us? MR. HENDERLONG: Initially it did. CCLAC started out with a higher value, somewhere around 86,000 an acre,and during the vetting process, it got worked down. The project you're talking about, Bear's Paw,that used the 125 percent rule,and that was a negotiated value that came about. The observation(sic)has been that the movement of developers taking a closer look at this have been a problem for them trying to negotiate between buyer and seller and not having a fixed term that they can go after in the event for Conservation Collier to go along. Also, it was also vetted that the sellers'sides have been holding out for some of the higher prices. And the perception is that by starting with this on a three-year evaluation period as a trial basis,that given a fixed amount,it allows that due diligence period for which a buyer and seller can enter into and incentivize them to come to terms and agreement. Nothing occurs until there's an agreement between both the buyer and seller. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know,but I'm not--and I may not be saying this correctly,because I don't think we're on the same discussion. Why are we basing the land value on remote land? Why aren't we basing the land value on the value that the developer is gaining from the price he paid for that land that he now can make into pure development? It's like in the RLSA,when you build a town out there,you don't need to provide water management within the town's developed area because you can use the WRAs that surround it. That's worth 15 percent additional land for development. So we're doing the same thing, but here we're doing it in the urban area,but the land values in that urban area are a lot higher. So did we--how did we consider those land values? MR. HENDERLONG: Okay. That's a very good point. The coastal urban area values are much higher. The debate was dealing with rural lands.Those lands were somewhere around 2,000 to$3,000 an acre they had discussed and talked about. So the number that both committees were struggling with was coming up with a blended number, and that's how they came to it,for whatever reason,but that was the general discussion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because,you know, I think we know--when a development comes in,we have a couple known factors. We know what the contract price is,or we got doc stamps to show what the price was for the latest transaction, and/or we have the property appraiser's value that was made on the property from its most recent reevaluation based on similar sales. Now,that's always a little bit lower than market at the time because they're a year behind. So why aren't we looking at that as the basis to start the valuation? Because that's the real gain to the development. MR. HENDERLONG: I'm going to let Alex answer that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. SULECKI: Good morning. For the record,Alex Sulecki,coordinator of the Conservation Collier program. That's a very good question,and it's one that we considered in the beginning of this amendment in 2010. And so it's why we had separated the payments based on where they were located. So if a project was located in the urban area,they were supposed to either pay that--the thinking was that Conservation Collier had been acquiring property in the urban area. It was very expensive,as you note. And so if developers were going to be allowed to off-site preservation out of the urban area,they should be, essentially,compensating Conservation Collier for the monies that it has paid for urban preserves. So that's why it was based on 125 percent of the property values in the urban area if they chose that monetary value. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're equating urban preserve value to what Conservation Collier paid for the most like--most similarly market urban preserve that you bought-- MS. SULECKI: Yes. Page 32 of 47 May 5, 2016 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --not the value of the development land that developer's building on? MS. SULECKI: That was the thinking at the time,yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm trying to figure out--first of all,you've built into a system here that every three years you'd re-evaluate the land, and the land you'd be revaluing is the cost of the rural land or the mitigation land instead of the land that developer's building on. Well, if you focused on the land that the developer's gaining and building on,you'd have several opportunities not to have to revaluate because you've got a tax assessor already evaluating the land based on the most recent sales,and/or the amount of recorded value that the developer himself would have contracted the land for when we recorded the purchase. And I'm just wondering,wouldn't those two be better from a fairness for both sides to say,you're gaining a value of X by allowing you to go off site with this. We should at least gain a proportionate share of that value instead of letting you go out and find the lowest priced land or some basis based on the lowest priced land as an average out in the rural area. I think this is a shortfall, not a--it's shorter than it should be. It's less value than it should be. MS. SULECKI: Well,that's certainly a way to look at it. The way we looked at it initially was in 2010 we were asked to come up with an amount that we wanted for management. At that time,Conservation Collier was separated,when the income came in it was separated; 85 percent to land acquisition, 15 percent to land management. We had just acquired the bulk of our land, so we were at that time,and only then,able to really look forward and see how much that land was going to cost us to manage into the future. What we determined was that we should have been setting aside 25 percent was our land--of our income for land management,because it was going to be approximately 25 percent to manage these lands. When we did the first amendment, I think we erred in tying it to property values, because that wasn't the whole program, and it wasn't 25 percent of the whole entire income. So at this point what we've done is switch from that percentage to actual cost--actual cost. Because when I did the comparisons with the state and federal agencies who do this type of thing,their overreaching principle was full cost accounting. So I'm sure you could do it a number of different ways. We chose to look at what it would actually cost to manage those lands and charge that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I mean,I understand what you did. I just thought there might be a better gain to do it in more relationship to what's value gained by the development for doing this off site. Not 100 percent,obviously, but there should be some percentage of the value gained,and I was more looking at that as an opportunity than the way it's been done here. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Do you have an objection to the way Mark is proposing it? You explained your position,how you arrived at your numbers,and there was a proposal or an idea presented by the chair. Do you object to his idea? MS. SULECKI: No. I mean,the devil's in details,certainly,but no,I don't object to it.I think there are probably a number of ways you can arrive at the same or roughly the same result,which is paying for the management for these properties in some time period that approximates perpetuity,because that really is the sticking point here, because you can't plan for perpetuity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you've incorporated that into your proposed numbers,but the base number that you started with is the piece that I'm pointing out. MS. SULECKI: Okay. And we just followed the district's formula, basically-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: District being? MS. SULECKI: The South Florida Water Management District. This is their formula for mitigation for a conservation bank. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And,obviously, mitigation, if it's lower value,it's encouraged then by the development community to participate in it,but at the same time it all--it decreased the amount of green space and open space and preservation we have in the urban area because we're incentivizing them to go elsewhere because we're giving them a better price. So if you can buy something for 50-here and the property you're flipping to keep it--to develop it is Page 33 of 47 May 5, 2016 worth 150-,my goodness,who wouldn't do that deal? And I'm not sure that's the right mix. In fact, I would rather see the character of community--of Collier County protected by dis-incentivizing off-site mitigation and-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --encouraging more mitigation in our urban area. I think that makes it more walkable, it makes it more appealing, it gives the character that this community, I think,was founded on at least in the years I've been here. So I'm not particularly liking the way this is going. I understand why you've done it now,and I appreciate your input. But I'm just concerned about incentivizing such issues. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Mark, I also shared that concern when I met with Alex,and we spent a couple hours together. And,obviously,the property in the urban area is more valuable in terms of what it would cost to purchase that land but,also,the developer has the opportunity to go and buy the land and then donate land to Conservation Collier. So with that option--with that option there,even if we valued that contribution higher,the developer could still go out and buy a parcel for less money. So maybe since there's been so much work done on this for-- since 2010,they've come up with some good formulas,and I think the CCLAC and DSAC both did a lot of work on this--maybe there's a way to use a multiplier in certain regions in the county so that--where we take these solid numbers here but use--and I'm thinking off the top of my head here,but some way that we could use a multiplier so this figure is multiplied to determine their contribution. If the property is in a band that's,you know,higher value than what would be moving further east-- I don't know. I'm just throwing that out there--so that these numbers have been really worked on to a point where they've captured a lot of the costs but maybe not the reciprocal amount that's donated by the parcel of property that is being requested for mitigation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I was hoping if we could utilize a basis that reflects something that's already on the books, it would save a lot of the--trying to understand what's--what is comparable. Basically, if a developer's gaining something,he's got a value;he knows what it is. The comparable's right there. And if it's a piece of property that's in the urban area, it's got an assessed value, it's got a contract value,those elements would give us a less ambiguous way of approaching the land value that the developer's gaining in relationship to how much mitigation value off site would be. I really don't think we ought to be incentivizing mitigation out of the urban area because-- COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Well,you know,that's my-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,our urban areas,the way we've constructed it with the architecture, with the landscaping,and with the green space is what's made Collier County number one in a whole bunch of categories in this,and I want-- I don't want to see this turned to be used against us to de-incentivize what we've got in the urban area,and I'm worried that this methodology will. I would rather see the land cost basis be the land cost tied to the land that's being opened for development. Then we'll get a number that's less likely to incentivize people to move out. Now,that's going to hurt,obviously,the ability for some mitigation in the rural area,but we've got multiple programs generating more mitigation in the rural area now,and we've got more coming up,because the replanning exercise that Kris VanLengen's doing is going to come back with more incentivizations for this rural mitigation. So I think the rural area's going to be able to take care of itself. I don't think the urban area needs to incentivize itself that much to help the rural area,because we are going to have good mitigation out there. I think the basis for this is somewhat--maybe we ought to turn it around.And I'm concerned about it for that reason. I'd like to walk through that and at least tell you the comments on some of the cleanup items that may help but that's, overall,my concern for the way the whole program's been approached. And I'm sorry that it came this late,but I've just seen this when it was given to me last week by Caroline. So it's the first opportunity I've had. Page 34 of 47 May 5, 2016 But with that in mind, if the Board doesn't mind otherwise,we'll just walk through with any comments. I know Heidi had some comments,and I do. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: I agree with your point of view. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great. Thank you. Okay. Well,that's somewhat of a consensus from this board. MS. CILEK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know you can only go so far with what you've got to do,Caroline,and this will come back to us on the 25th. And if there's--if there's no change in feeling based on what we see on the 25th, it just may go forward with a recommendation for the Board to consider another opportunity from the Planning Commission's perspective,so... MS. CILEK: Okay. That will work. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah. I agree with you,too, Mark,on this,because they're wanting now to take this stuff closer to the beach and just put it way,way out and it's--you're right,the money value is just not there. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: And the management of that land that's-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Is becoming-- COMMISSIONER ROMAN: --out there, I mean, when I looked at the chart--and a picture's worth a thousand words--and you see how few parcels have been purchased that are contiguous out there. I had issues with one of the assumptions by DSAC in this report that said in five years,you know,the management would go down because of more integrity with the parcels. I'm not sure,because when I looked at how many parcels had been purchased, I really expected to see more green,but there wasn't. And I think that there's some challenges with some of the assumptions as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well,that's just the general comments and specifics. Stan,did you have something you wanted to-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. I've got a question and maybe a comment. Rich,that was Jeremy Sterk you were talking about. MR. HENDERLONG: Yep. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: A question,maintenance on these areas,how much of that is exotic removal and how much is other maintenance?A percentage,rough. MS. SULECKI: One hundred. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: One hundred is exotic removal? MS. SULECKI: Well,no. It's staff time and exotic removal. The work is all exotic removal. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. Fifteen hundred acres out of 2,000 in this county is in preserves of some kind. I spend a lot of time out in the woods,and I see exotics everywhere. I'm starting to think it's a waste of time and money to do exotic removal. I don't see a program that's working. I mean, we're losing the fight,and we're spending a lot of money. It's just a comment. And you're going to hear it over and over. I don't know how good a job you're doing at taking exotics out of the land you own,but I've been out to Winchester Head and looked at those parcels,and they have a lot of exotics on them,and you're not--and they're going to spread. And you're not taking them out yet,right? MS. SULECKI: That's correct. Until we own a contiguous block where it makes economic sense to go in and remove the exotics,we have an interim management plan in place that allows us to monitor that. We have--we have done a little bit of work where there's been just really awful exotics,but for the most part what we want to do is wait until we have a contiguous area to manage that efficiently and effectively,cost effectively. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: How big that contiguous area should be in your view? MS. SULECKI: That's tricky. We have--we own about 50 percent in Winchester Head right now. We don't--it looks more like a checkerboard pattern. We own about 66 percent of the other multi-parcel project, Red Maple Swamp,and we have already started exotic removal on a 53-acre area on the western side that is contiguous, and it's also contiguous with state lands where they do exotic removal. So,really,what we Page 35 of 47 May 5, 2016 do is look for the best opportunity,the most cost-efficient way to address the problem. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Where is that 53 acres again? MS. SULECKI: It's in Red Maple Swamp on the furthest western edge, Unit 53. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And how are you removing the exotics? MS. SULECKI: We are contracting it out to an exotic removal company who uses herbicide. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: They cut and spray? MS. SULECKI: They cut and spray,yes. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And they're just--what are they,earleaf acacia and Brazilian pepper? MS. SULECKI: I'm not sure exactly. I don't manage that preserve, so I can't say exactly,but I'm sure Brazilian pepper is a big component of it. We've been doing that for two years,too, so it looks pretty good. You should go out and visit it. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Unit 53? MS. SULECKI: Yes. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Thank you. MS. SULECKI: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's move through the document,the pages that were supplied,just for any comments from the Planning Commission. The first page is the typical amendment request page with the origin reasons and the rest of it. If we move on,on Page 3 we come to a table. And,Alex or Rich,on the table under land costs for CCLAAC(sic),you're missing a zero. It has a--that's a big zero. MR. HENDERLONG: Got it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If anybody else has any questions on these pages as we go through, kind of just speak out. I don't--I think we've got--Heidi, I know you've got some. I think on the page that starts with the LDC language; it's the top of Page 7 which starts out 3.05.07,preservation standards. MR. HENDERLONG: Should be H1. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: HI. MR. HENDERLONG: Reverse. We've got to change the order. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think there needs to be some reference that this is being reviewed;this is going to be reviewed on a per-acre basis, is that--Heidi, I'm trying to remember some of your comments from these. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah. I was just suggesting that on line--Line 17,that"the payment amount shall be,"and insert based on the per-acre value. MR. HENDERLONG: Yes. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: And then reflect that again on line--Page 51,that"the payment amount per acre shall be," so the insert would be "per acre." MR. HENDERLONG: So it's consistent in A and B. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. The line--the next page under C where it talks about the voluntary payment being reevaluated every three years,that's a--that could be a substantial issue in time consumption. We have opportunities to look at land value cost changes automatically being done by other departments such as the County Appraiser's Office and things like that. Maybe we ought to--or we have the AUIR which has a per-acre basis for purchases of road right-of-way, for purchases of parks. You can look at those as percentage increases or decreases over the years,and maybe that's what we should be looking at instead of trying to redo it all. I can see this could get real involved if we have to revaluate it every three years and we have a contested valuation. So maybe as an option looking for an alternative, something that's already established,to look at that. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: And I had a comment on that one as well-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. Page 36 of 47 May 5, 2016 MS. ASHTON-CICKO: --that it be taken out of the LDC and that the direction be provided separately, because that's a policy decision and direct--staff direction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. CILEK: Thank you, Heidi. And we've spoken with Alex,and she's going to pursue having the direction through the executive summary that will go to the Board. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Okay,great. Thanks. MS. SULECKI: I'm a little confused. Are you talking about the price of property? Because this isn't based on the price of the per-acre property. It's really based on the actual costs,the management costs for that parcel. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it's everything but the base price of the property? MS. SULECKI: Yes,yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well,no,that's fine. I understand better now. Thank you. MS. SULECKI: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As we move on through the document,we have all the tables from both groups talking about how they've looked at the valuation, and that ends it on,I don't know,about a couple pages past at the end of one of the tables. I don't have any more questions. I didn't know if anybody from the Planning Commission has? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And--okay, Caroline, I think from a consensus viewpoint,you've heard our concerns over the incentivization of offsite mitigation versus looking at the values based on the land that's in question for being gained by the development industry, so... MS. CILEK: Yes. Apart from the changes to the LDC text,per Heidi and per you-all,would you like us to work on a revised figure to come back for the 25th? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that if the two groups or the Conservation Collier group wants to consider our suggestion and they want to do something in that regard, fine. If they feel they want to go forward with this,that's fine,too. We can take a final vote on the 25th and decide which way we prefer to go and let the Board know our recommendation. MS.CILEK: Sounds like a plan. MS. SULECKI: Excuse me. Alex Sulecki again. We won't be meeting until July, so I don't know if that fits into the time frame. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you feel our position is something you want to investigate because it might be beneficial to your cause,then you may want to withdraw this for this cycle and bring it back again at another time, but that's your call. Where I'm suggesting, and I think some of this board is suggesting,we probably think there might be another way to look at this than you're--not necessarily you're looking at it, but the way that it's evolved. MS. SULECKI: That seems to be like a policy decision,so that would be up to you if you wanted to look at it that way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,we don't set the policy. The Board does. Andy? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah. A quick question for me is,this is all being reviewed at the direction of the Board,right? MS. SULECKI: Correct. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And the Board directed--made some policy decisions as to how and what should be reviewed, right? MR. HENDERLONG: Yes,they did,and they directed to come up with the payment amount and get it vetted and come back. There's a third alternative that will be brought back later on an option that's not for discussion here today. That's being extended, but it was narrowed down just to work on the land donation and the monetary long-term payment amount. Perpetuity,just keep in mind, money's--the 25 percent rule that was engaged before was only generating enough money for seven years of maintenance. What these formulas are doing, it pushed it out Page 37 of 47 May 5, 2016 from 20 years into 50 years,and both committees have agreed on a 50-year management cost number. So there's actually two values there in front of you. One's for the management cost. The second one is actually when somebody opts to do the land donation plus the long-term management;that's the second value. So you can--you can probably vote on each or one of them separately. That's an alternative. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Because the management number is just on the management of it. MR. HENDERLONG: That's correct. So if there's a person that goes out there,he goes,buys the land and donates it or he makes a land donation,he still has to provide a cost of--a number. He has to pay for the long-term management of it. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right. MR. HENDERLONG: And that's where that 13,200 comes up for the long-term management. In the past they were only getting about seven years--25 percent off of the land trades,and that amount of money was only working for seven years,and the Board said--the Board specifically, in July of 2015, said, that's not enough. Please come back with a better alternative for a longer term management program. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So back to Andy's question. So the Board as a policy directed you to look at the land costs in the rural area as a basis for the donation and not consider the land cost that is being gained by the development in which the request is being made from? MR. HENDERLONG: No,they didn't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. No was the answer,right? That's fine. MR. HENDERLONG: No,they did not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't think so. And I still will stay by the position I've already established, so... Thank you. Anybody else have any questions on this particular item? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's move on,Caroline,to the next one of your choice. MS. CILEK: All right. We're going to start from the beginning and look at the scrivener's error amendment 1.08.02, so this should be in the beginning part of your PDF packet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,the--Andy and I,the beginning part of our packet is 6.06.03 and 1002.11. Whatever order you provided these to to staff to distribute electronically, it's PDF'ed in exactly that order. So it might be helpful to especially Andy and I,maybe the others that eventually convert over to electronic,that the order you give them to Judy is the order that you want them in so we can follow with you. COMMISSIONER EBERT: You are so cute. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,we've got to fish through this thing again. So what's the number, again, 108? MS. CILEK: 1.08.02,definitions is the first,and there's a long string of LDC sections that is in this amendment. MR. HENDERLONG: It has one,two,three-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's on Page 14,Andy. MR. HENDERLONG: There's eight LD(sic)sections being involved with this amendment. And--Rich Henderlong,again,for the record,principal planner. Just give you four bullet points on it. All of these amendments are intended to either(sic)address one of these four points: Correct a cross-reference error,clear up definitions that were in the sign code--or actually in the definitions section of 108 that appropriately belong in the sign code. A definitions section, we're relocating that there. We're also correcting some figure titles,and we're also removing a figure title that no longer is in effect. So there are scrivener's errors and their corrections,and no other changes than what was presented to you in the narrative and for your review. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. A lot of small changes. Anybody have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 11,we're adding to the ground sign the reference to its height. Isn't that in the-- something that would be in the standards following the section where it discusses ground signs Page 38 of 47 May 5, 2016 in the sign code? Is it something you want in the definition? MS. CILEK: So the height is one of the defining factors for the ground sign,and it does separate it from the pole sign definition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then that's fine. That's the only question I had. Anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, I don't think there's any issues. MS. CILEK: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we should take a motion on this particular one,or is this one that you're going to have to rehear on the 25th? MS. CILEK: I prefer just to have this on the 25th because it does have changes to Chapter 2,which is our zoning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's move to the next one. MS. CILEK: Okay, great. Our next one is the next in your packet,which will be 2.03.01 and 5.05.14,a new section addressing public schools. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 25 for Andy's benefit. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Thank you. MS. CILEK: If Mike Bosi wants to join me,that would be great. This amendment does follow a moratorium put forward by the Board to address charter schools.And here we are looking to address the traffic impacts of those schools who are moving into, more or less,existing commercial businesses as well as those that are in other residential zoning districts. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike,did you want to get into an argument now,or do you just want to tell us what you're thinking? MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi,planning and zoning district. No argument. This is a directive that was provided to the staff related to a new charter school being proposed off Immokalee Road just east of Twin Eagles in the Estates. The statutes--the Florida Statutes require that local governments treat charter schools as public schools. They recognize that our existing public schools district has an interlocal agreement with the county that ensures compatibility review at the acquisition stage,also at the Site Development Plan stage. Charter schools designated as public schools by the Florida Statutes have not established that same interlocal agreement to ensure that compatibility review. So the Board of County Commissioners, recognizing that there was a hole within the process for how we would review charter schools, said to go out and modify the Land Development Code to address that exemption that sort of--that was created by that designation by the Florida Statutes. This amendment is designed to provide for compatibility review,and also one of the components of the Florida Statutes says that we're required to treat charter schools to the same regulatory processes and development processes that our public schools are developed. So when you see the amendments, we make a distinction. We say a charter school is a permitted use within the Estates within residential zoning districts as long as they've had--established an interlocal agreement which would address compatibility concerns. If they have not established that interlocal agreement,they have to go through the conditional use process,and the conditional use process,as you-all know, is designed to provide for compatibility review of any one use,in this case being the schools. So that was the genesis. We also added on to a provision related to the commercial zoning districts for when charter schools move into existing facilities. One of the things that has created--some of the past issues for--some existing charter schools have moved into prior office buildings. Those office buildings weren't designed for the stacking,the queuing, and we just want to have an extra review of that from a traffic impact analysis related to making sure that there's enough stacking and queuing and there's no spillage into the public right-of-way. And those are the--that's the overview of the amendments that's being proposed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody? Wafaa? COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Could that be accomplished by just adding a definition that says that Page 39 of 47 May 5, 2016 charter school are equal to and are included into any public school provisions? Could you just change the definition or add a definition that they include charter schools? MR. BOSI: The statutes say that they are public schools. What they're trying to do is add a distinction that public schools and charter schools,even though they are both under the category of public schools,that there is a distinction between the two categories,because the charter schools have not entered into that interlocal agreement,have not provided for assurance of compatibility;therefore,what we're trying to do is provide a distinction between that subgrouping of"public." And I think Mr. --or Commissioner Strain will point out that that led to some of the confusion that has happened specifically within the Estates zoning district of that distinction between a category of public schools. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,thank you for the entry. And the issue is specifically different in the Estates than it is elsewhere in the county. When the governor said that charter schools are to be equivalent to public schools, I'm not sure of the intent, and I don't think anybody can say it was. That it--and under all conditions. In Golden Gate Estates,the only time public schools were allowed as a principal use by right was when they were considered essential services. Essential services are government facilities. They are essential. They're not optional. Charter schools,by definition,are optional. They're not essential. I have argued repeatedly that in Golden Gate Estates, if you look at the history of the code changes and how public schools were added as a principal use, it was done by an executive summary by County Attorney's Office in 2003. In that executive summary,the county attorney at the time said that this is being done to clarify that the intent of the essential systems was to allow public schools because under conditional uses public schools and private schools were required to have a conditional use. That created confusion because our essential service provision for just the Estates--and it's Section 2.01.03.D-- said that you could have a public school as a condition--as an essential service. So people would come out and say,well,we want a public school here,or the school system, because it's an essential service. It's allowed as a principal. Then you could say on the other hand,well,no, it says public schools are conditional uses. To clarify that, in 2003 or'04,the County Attorney's Office asked for a clarification to the LDC to include them as principal uses,but the intent was,and it stated in the executive summary, as an essential service. And so my argument has been continuously that the public schools in Golden Gate Estates are only allowed as essential services. And the one correction I'd like to see to this presentation that the planning staff has provided,was in 2.03.01 where it says,A,permitted uses,education plans, my suggestion is that it say,as an essential service per Section 2.01.03.D, and that puts it back to the way it was intended and the way the change was intended that now has gotten--and as Mike has said,he reads the plain, simple language of the code. Well,you can't see the intent if you do that and,unfortunately,the intent,how that plain, simple language got to be so plain and simple didn't get thoroughly vetted in the language that was finally adopted by the code. So I'm suggesting that that be added back in so the intent matches what the original intent of public schools was in the Estates, so... COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Where is the addition,again? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would be on the first section of the actual language change where it says 2.03.01,agricultural districts-- COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --B, Estates,and then it says, Estates, E and A.4. I would suggest we add that--add the language referencing as an--and where it says educational plans and public schools,as an essential service per Section 2.01.03.D. And that's the only issue I have with this whole thing. So other than that, I don't-- COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I'm following you now. Page 40 of 47 May 5, 2016 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'm curious about something. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Totally--maybe on the same topic. If I go to North Horseshoe Drive at the wrong time in the afternoon,there's--you're laughing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can thank the City of Naples for that. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: There's a half-mile line of cars. What is that all about? MR. BOSI: That's about--Mason academy occupied a--it was a long vacant commercial building that was on the east portion of South Horseshoe Drive. Mason academy moved in--that's the City of Naples, too, so it's really outside of our zoning, but it was one of the issues that spurred the commercial modifications within there. They moved in as a permitted use,and there was no review required for it. That's about a facility that's designed as a school without the contemplation of the stacking issues that are associated with schools at the morning time at the dropoff and then in the afternoon. You're right, it circles around. And they've at least now developed a pattern of getting-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: It's got to be a half mile. MR. BOSI: They've now developed a pattern of to get off the roadway to the right-of-way to sit kind of on the berm of the property that sits to the south of the road, so,yes. And that's part of the motivation that we addressed and Carolina has addressed related to the commercial component of these amendments,and that specifically what we're going to look for,that traffic circulation,the queuing,the dropoff,those aspects. That's what-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And that's going to be like that forever? MR. BOSI: That will be like that forever because I think they've occupied now that entire facility. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I seem to recall something about that academy. Was it because of the airport? I seem to recall something that came before this board because of the flight pattern with the airport or whether that school--there was something,because-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would have gone before the city planning board but,unfortunately, there was--I don't think there's a lot of communications when these things happen in the county and they're--but they're part of the city and vice versa. So I wish both municipalities on these ventures where they impact us so badly we could communicate better,but-- MR. BOSI: And, Stan, interestingly,just across the street of Airport Road and Radio,another facility moved into another existing commercial establishment that creates similar issues heading from the east to the west of the intersection of 41 and Radio where they--we have some stacking within the right-of-way;that's another one that has kind of highlighted the issue as to--not that we don't want to allow for these facilities to occupy it. We just want to allow that we have a better understanding for how they're going to accommodate those initial demands. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Heidi, I had a couple notes that you had an issue on--with the references to Florida Statutes and it's outdated. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: I just have a couple changes on Page 7-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: --Line 42. The Statute 1000.33 should be 1013.33. And then on Page 8, Lines 16 and 21,at the end of the sentence would add "regarding traffic impacts" on both those lines. Any additional information requested by the County Manager or designee regarding traffic impacts. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any issues on this one? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Caroline, is this coming back to us on the 25th,too? MS. CILEK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's move on. Thank you,Mike. MS. CILEK: All right, great. Page 41 of 47 May 5, 2016 The next amendment is the next in your packet,and we are looking at 2.03.07 and the Immokalee Main Street overlay. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Thirty-three. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. Thank you. MR. HENDERLONG: Rich Henderlong,for the record, again, principal planner. This specific amendment has been requested and reviewed by the Immokalee Community Redevelopment Local Advisory Board. It seeks to allow current prohibited commercial uses to become conditional uses in the Main Street overlay subdistrict for properties with frontage on North Street,North First Street, South First Street,and North Ninth Street. That's the area on the visualizer shown in yellow. It further seeks to maintain prohibited uses in the Main Street overlay subdistrict for properties fronting on Main Street in between First Street and Ninth Street. That's the area shown in the blue. There are no other changes to this use map. Lastly,the amendment change, updates,and informational map to the Main Street overlay district boundary legend--and to the legend and a term for gasoline service stations to facilities with fuel pumps which is based on the direction the Board took on adopting a previous amendment last year. One additional note is that during the Immokalee CRA's review of the amendment,they included in the recommendation that the Board consider releasing or reducing impact and application filing fees to incentivize commercial business development in Immokalee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As you know,Rich, I've been--you and I have talked about this one at length,and I went out and talked with the CRA board, so I don't really have anything left. I think what they've boiled it down to and what you've written it up as works to the direction that they had,so I don't have any issues. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody--I see Mr.Davenport back there. Are you here for any other-- MR. DAVENPORT: (Shakes head.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then with that,Caroline,this is back on 25th for final,right? MS. CILEK: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's move to the next one. MS. CILEK: I believe that takes us to the amendment regarding streetlights and engineer versus electrical engineer. That's at the very beginning of your packet. We provided you additional information as requested regarding the Florida Statutes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 6. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: What item are we on? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're on the very--6.06.03 and 10.02.11. MR. HENDERLONG: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's on Page 6,Andy,of your electronic version. MS. CILEK: Correct. And I'll take you to the Florida Statutes,the last page,471.005,and we've highlighted No. 7. And that one is relaying that a professional engineer can provide for signing and sealing documents that is under their professional abilities,more or less. And this is what we've used to pursue having all engineers apply streetlight plans. And so far the county has received those from professionals who are qualified,and it's become like their niche area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Questions from the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Heidi,the fact that the Florida Statutes says an engineer can do electrical, is there anything that prohibits us from suggesting that it needs to be an electrical engineer to do that work? I mean,I have a master electrician's license. I deal with electrical all the time. I certainly understand the Page 42 of 47 May 5, 2016 difference between what a civil engineer does in digging a drainage ditch and what an electrical engineer does in order to compute the electricity,the amperage,voltage,phasing,and other elements to tie in electrical. It's much more--it's a little different. I mean, if a drainage ditch overflows, it's going to have a different reaction than if you've miscalculated on your power needs. I would suggest we leave this with electrical engineer,but I don't want to do that if you're--if you have the opinion that we have to--we have to allow regular engineers to do it, regular-- MS.ASHTON-CICKO: No. It's within your discretion. Currently you do have the heightened standard of a PE with an electrical engineering degree,which would make him an electrical engineer,as opposed to just a general PE that could have various engineering backgrounds. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: She's right. PEs aren't licensed as electrical engineers. You're licensed as a PE. But when you graduate,you get, like,a BCE, bachelor of civil engineering,BSME, bachelor of science mechanical engineering. If you have a degree in electrical engineering,that has--you're an electrical engineer. In the PE rules, it makes it unethical for you to do something that you're not trained in. So,you know,being a PE,I wouldn't care if you left it as an electrical engineer,but that's kind of an ambiguous thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,the only thing I have, Stan, is I know that like all professions,you have ethics to abide by but, like all professions,not everybody that's in that profession necessarily follows the line. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: The PE license doesn't say anything about the practice that you're in,but Heidi's right, if you put down that the PE has to have a bachelor's degree in electrical engineering,that would probably cover it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that would be fine. I would have no problem using that as a basis, but I really think we're shorting our public health,safety,and welfare by just not looking at a more stringent code when it comes to matters as grave as--well,electrical work can be very dangerous. It's a lot different than some of the other methods of engineering. So I'd still like to see it left as electrical engineer. MS. CILEK: Okay. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Mark,when the aerospace industry went under,a lot of aerospace engineers decided that they could do structural design. And you remember that we had some failures, so,you know, it's--people should not do what they're not trained to do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well--and I've been told that a lot of the civil engineers will sub out the electrical component of it to someone specializing in it. Well,then there's nothing wrong,then,with saying electrical engineers should do it. They're doing it anyway. And if that's the case,why not leave it like that to assure that higher level of safety? I don't see the need for the change. MS. CILEK: And we can bring back the amendment to reflect that we do want the LDC to be consistent if it is to relay an electrical engineer is to supply the streetlight plans. I will say that in conversations with staff,the plans that we are--that applicants are required to provide are not super difficult when it comes to the electrical aspects of it,and so many professional engineers have become experts,more or less, in the area. And there is going to be an opportunity to look at a higher level of lighting in the coming years when we go back and,per board direction,talking about sort of the Dark Sky concepts. That will definitely require more expertise than we do today,but we can bring the amendment back to reflect the electrical engineer. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: If it's just the siting of the streetlights,you know,one every 250 feet or one every 400 feet,anybody can do that. But if you're putting wires in of a certain size,then that should be an electrical engineer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's where I'm coming from, so... MS. CILEK: Okay. Well,we'll take that information back to staff,and we'll bring forward a revised amendment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any issues? Caroline,what's the next one? MS. CILEK: Okay. That brings us to approving amendments from last time. Page 43 of 47 May 5, 2016 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You mean the architectural? MS. CILEK: Let's stay on this cycle. What I'd like to do--regular amendments. What I'd like to do is go forward and do--if you have your packet from last week,we have preserve signs and some amendments that you-all had no changes to that we could approve so that we don't have to do them on the 25th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What agenda item is that,9F or 9G? MS. CILEK: Good question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it has to be on the agenda,because if it isn't in 9F packet or it isn't in 9G packet, it's not on the agenda. MS. CILEK: Well, we can do them on the 25th then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm not saying I want to,Caroline. MS. CILEK: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just tell me where to find them. MS. CILEK: At the last meeting, it was Agenda Item 9D. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But 9D never got carried over to this meeting or at least advertised-- MS. CILEK: Oh, it did. We're still under that advertisement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It was never contained in our packet,was it? MS. CILEK: Not in today's packet. It was in last--last packet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you have a--maybe it was missed. Did someone put a single-page note that 9D from last meeting will be heard today? MS. CILEK: We are under the same LDC amendments from last time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: In the electronic file that I got,there's a file that says "continued items," and it's in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Did you get it the same way? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What page is your file on? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, it's on a thumb drive. So when I get it-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,well,I didn't get it like that. I got it on the"I" drive. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: It's something that says-- it says, 5/5/2016 CCPC meeting, and then underneath that there's another file that says "continued items," so... MS.CILEK: We can do it on the 25th. It won't take long. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What I'd like you to do on the 25th, if those have been cleaned up--and some did not need to be cleaned up-- MS. CILEK: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --right on the 25th start with a list of all the ones that have been finalized already. We can read them off and vote on them and be done with them and then go to the meat of the rest of the meeting, if-- MS.CILEK: Perfect. We can do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS.CILEK: Okay. And I believe that takes us to our next agenda item,which is architectural. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And this is item--let me read it. This is Agenda Item 9G,architectural and site design standards. It's a continuation and a finalization of what we previously had reviewed. And,Jeremy, it's all yours. MR. FRANTZ: Hello,Jeremy Frantz,for the record. We're really just today going to be looking at a companion item to the rest of the architectural amendment in 5.05.08. All of these amendment--all of these cross-referenced changes are just updating the sections that have been changed by the ad hoc committee's amendment or adding new cross-references to kind of clarify processes where there's some interaction between different sections in the LDC and 5.05.08. We do have one correction to make to this document,but we can take your questions or comments first,or we can start with that. Page 44 of 47 May 5, 2016 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are we going to be hearing this again,or is this the final day? MS. CILEK: We would like for--we'd like to move forward with this one and then combine it with the amendment when it comes back on June 2nd,which will be the full narrative and full LDC text for all of 5.05.08. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So 5.05.08, including this,will come back to us on the 2nd of June. MS. CILEK: Correct. MR. FRANTZ: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that will be where we vote finally. Today is just a follow-up with these. MS. CILEK: (Nods head.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody from the Planning Commission have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't either,so,Jeremy-- MR. FRANTZ: Okay. So the section that we'll be changing is to 2.03.07. Based on the conversation at the last Planning Commission meeting,there's not going to be any need to change the interim deviations in Immokalee. So that section has got some strikethrough. That will no longer be there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anything else? (No response.) MS. CILEK: That's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the last thing on today's agenda. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: All of these were on this--listed on here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All what? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: The other-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,that's why I asked--okay. I asked Caroline,and she says--okay. Karen's saying that 9D, include--9F included all the 9D elements from the previous one. MS. CILEK: It does. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But they weren't in the packet. MS.CILEK: Correct. They were in the last--because there were no changes,we didn't supply them again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. It's the Board's--whatever this board wants to do. If you want to go back and do 9D from the last meeting,that's fine. If you're prepared for it, I--my notes from the last meeting will be as relevant today as they were then. But I didn't see it clearly noted that that was going to be part of today's agenda. I understand where it's written here,but since it wasn't in the packet that was redistributed or-- I didn't have a note to that effect. I'm not sure how many of you may have known that it was going to be discussed and are ready to discuss it today. Because while I have 9D--and I'm sure that Andy does-- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: But these are ones that are coming back because there were no changes. MS. CILEK: Correct. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I've got my old packet with me,and I talked to Caroline, so I knew that that was her intent. But I thought you had a good plan,Mr. Chair, and we could just do it quickly before our evening meeting,you know,at the beginning of it, like you said. List these and let's just get everybody on the same sheet of music. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have an objection to that,Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'm fine. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: And I can do it,but I think you have a good plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well,then, let's just move that and finish it--clean it up on the 25th then. MS. CILEK: Sounds great. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that brings us to the--we're done with all our regularly scheduled items,and the old business, I did not schedule the discussion of deviations and exotic vegetation because of the length of today's agenda. I'll try to move that to the 2nd, if the agenda stays in a short manner. Page 45 of 47 May 5, 2016 COMMISSIONER EBERT: We're going to be here till midnight on the 2nd from everything that's being continued to the 2nd,to the 2nd,from what-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We've only got one item continued. What are you talking about? MS. CILEK: On this one,we'll have it organized. I say,though, if you could bring your materials from the last meeting,many of those amendments don't have any changes,and so we'll just look at them briefly and go over them, if you need a fresh reminder,and then we can approve them. COMMISSIONER EBERT: It's not yours, Caroline. It's what's on our agenda for the second. MS. CILEK: Gotcha. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can we just back up for a minute? The only thing that's been continued to the 2nd that I'm aware of is the Highview project on Roost Road. Does anybody else--where's--who else is here that could tell us what our agenda is for the 2ndl? COMMISSIONER EBERT: We've got Pelican Marsh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We don't have any other continuances for the 2nd-- MS. CILEK: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --that I know of other than Highview. Does anybody else know of any other continuance for the 2nd? MR. BOSI: None that I know of. There was going--we were planning--Nancy Gundlach was planning on putting Pelican Marsh, but their requests have actually extended that to the first meeting in July, so there's nothing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I heard that was moved,too. MR. BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the 2nd looks like it could be light,and if it is,we will try to address the two other issues we've had on old business when we've got a meeting that's shorter than longer. MS.CILEK: And we'll be very clear what we're looking for you-all to review on the 25th, so that will be efficient. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any new business? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Public comment? Anybody in the public here wishing to comment on anything today? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that,motion to adjourn by anybody? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Motion to adjourn. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Karen, seconded by Diana. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Aye. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're out of here. Page 46 of 47 May 5,2016 ******* There being no further business for the good of the County,the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11:52 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK STRAIN,CHAIRMAN ATTEST DWIGHT E. BROCK,CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on ,as presented or as corrected . TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS,COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. Page 47 of 47 AGENDA ITEM 9-B Clo er County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING DIVISION—ZONING SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: JUNE 02, 2016 SUBJECT: PUDZ-PL20150001613 RMC-ENCLAVE RPUD AND GRACE ROMANIAN BAPTIST CHURCH CFPUD PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT/AGENT: Owner/Applicant: Enclave-Livingston, LLC 1055 Crosspointe Drive Naples, FL 34110 Agent: D. Wayne Arnold,AICP Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Ray Bonita Springs, FL 34134 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner is requesting the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) to consider an application to amend Ordinance No. 2014-34, the RMC-Enclave Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) and Ordinance No. 2004-41, the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC). By amending Ordinance 2004-41, this petition would amend the Official Zoning Map by changing the zoning classification of 12.17±acres of land currently zoned Community Facilities Planned Unit Development(CFPUD)to RPUD. This action would repeal the Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples CFPUD, and its lands would be incorporated into the existing RPUD. Essentially, adding the 12.17±acres to the RPUD would allow for up to forty-eight(48)additional residential dwelling units [for a total of one hundred sixty-two(162)residential dwelling units] or add one hundred fifty (150)group housing units [for a total of five hundred(500) group housing units]. PUDZ-PL20150001613 RMC-Enclave RPUD and Grace Romanian Baptist Church CFPUD Page 1 of 14 May 23,2016 —J AMOCO IPY / E V 7 $ y < � .iiii 0 0 aE i 43 g s C O ! Wt - W " *9iiLi ' Si i , --- 0PAPAPPOL-1.1 $ ai avoN NOISJNY1 ''" rI = :i'os aiiii;iii��i'i i iii ii U ` ii r — i tl 9 i a 77,.a i : li V;:@LL !iii?;ii:i:i:i rI Qiiii' ii`• woo a ac :. :iii :: i � �t $ $J ° u Z W c iii�iiiiiiiEGi iiiiiiiEiiiiiiiiiiE?»>iiiEi>'ji�'[E g • h b < W su � - ^ � . U.. ii iii � ' ` ?�iiii'iliE! O Z iiia , D s u :iia ® — a �€;iiia': U KM Ka 0 oe 1 EN w c N x RRY ^ ALBE VAR =!EA PIAIE ^ ili:iiililinilin NNE MINH!!Mining!!! R i a i tl _ I e _ i a co _ _ r .i I 1 a 03 "^ J 4 0 i I i m I— --I II. i 1 N i J Cl- 7000 7000 a loN p D a L� r caro I NYaO Z ...t.....00.7:7 x�vsaYa P vxuwu u j .0_ ''.41YWi�-� O UMW MO Pig i zbg p w z O it xaiORLLMfM 1 W JV Z WO mimeos• •< wow 10,30:0010,30:00O ilit.... 4 _ Li 0 9/.ur aun //NC —A _ 1' Thl ROAD llg Imo, g Ai Z — /i 1 111F7- - g gii0 i 11 O — 0000 wi=axW, —� 11 I 1 € II ssinomors .ntai i 12'-- . ii 0 _ U i iti rills I � � p€.41 � ! - it ill ` ' B 91 . � \ g / _ I�vC, is ma $ I. a1a00011 '"1 / 2 it ; . ..1 I./4 0 :iI:EI:iI el ' 64, 1g if- 1 i { id ill li e ii- 0 2i cm,wro i x LJ GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property is located at the northwest quadrant of Learning Lane and Livingston Road,in Section 13, Township 48 South,Range 25 East, Collier County,Florida consisting of 40.55±acres. PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The petitioner,who owns the subject property, is requesting to rezone 12.17±acres (from CFPUD) and incorporate the land area into the existing RPUD,in order to allow for an additional forty-eight (48) residential dwelling units. Additionally, the developer would also have an alternative option to develop the site with group housing [i.e., up to one hundred and fifty (150) additional units] instead of residential dwellings (see Attachment #1 —Proposed PUD Ordinance). This petition also seeks to amend an existing deviation. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: This section of the staff report identifies the land uses and zoning classifications for properties surrounding the subject site. North: Undeveloped property, zoned Rural Agricultural(A). East: Right-of-way for Livingston Road (including A-zoned land), then farther east is a fire station,zoned A with a conditional use and Special Treatment Overlay (A-CU-ST), still farther east is Brandon RPUD (3.99 du/acre), zoned RPUD. South: Right-of-way for Learning Lane,then farther south is Royal Palm International Academy PUD (3.4 du/acre),zoned PUD. West: North Naples Middle School, zoned A with an ST Overlay. PUDZ-PL20150001613 RMC-Enclave RPUD and Grace Romanian Baptist Church CFPUD Page 2 of 14 May 23,2016 +1.,FF'! ,.I �'tl'n iia t' ..#' (,; c ANON t l SH('JDA�'aVt)OD $ li+lt f ,U11.P Irl !, f �,. WAY 8 C Q r psi �. .1'Gru�a�-, A .�y 4 ar}`e I; 4.. 5 f',,-✓)Jam: ,..M .r, t '4 `r Subject Property v ,,•, till> - - ... KLR; a AIF y rJ Rin ,+�� s .gar^ RPUD i �! IM o it ; • I :I g «a tltl--l` �--------A' J , ,,, � .. J���.r RAC�ROIIA"JIA"I `k t � "- � tAPTI 7 IfUn�H 14 �..�.. .-. `r.,; - irFl ^.i ire ,-,111:47',� it v :Ai=�° - I'1 FRIJ I1-1 't '1'r_Y 1',1r� '! '� .�(�ziIII rI E[_I1I t• � C 4441 gni bl i 9 ,' 0 eI R ,, P.,;r4 k y ''t - Jo,1 113 aLajall an liI �jI i m 3'' RFA .■VOV-� ragar� elm_ glom r1Vir4+a7,,,a A�� {,. t, `I {.`. X. - _ _ _ - Aerial(County GIS) GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP)CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element(FLUE): The 28.38+acres of the existing RPUD and the 12.17±acres to be added from the CFPUD are both designated Urban, Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict as depicted on the Future Land Use Map(FLUM)and addressed in the Future Land Use Element(FLUE)of the Collier County Growth Management Plan(GMP). Both PUDs were found to be consistent with the FLUE of the GMP at the time of their approvals. Comprehensive Planning staff reviewed the density eligibility for residential dwelling units for the amended RMC-Enclave RPUD site of 40.55±acres and found that this RPUD could be eligible for the proposed maximum density of one hundred and sixty-two(162)dwelling units [40.55±acres @ four(4)du/acre= 162.2 dwelling units;using a Base Density in the Urban Designation Area of four (4) du/acre]. The Urban designation allows "community facilities such as...group housing uses." Further,FLUE Policy 5.8 states that group housing uses are allowed in the Urban Designated Area, subject to the regulations in the LDC. FLUE Policy 5.4 requires new land uses to be compatible with,and complementary to,surrounding land uses. PUDZ-PL20150001613 RMC-Enclave RPUD and Grace Romanian Baptist Church CFPUD Page 3 of 14 May 23,2016 Comprehensive Planning leaves this determination to the Zoning Services staff as part of their review of the petition in its entirety. FLUE Objective 7 and relevant policies are stated below; each is followed by staff's analysis: Objective 7: In an effort to support the Dover,Kohl &Partners publication,Toward Better Places: The Community Character Plan for Collier County, Florida,promote smart growth policies,reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and adhere to the existing development character of Collier County,the following policies shall be implemented for new development and redevelopment projects, where applicable. fi Policy 7.1 - The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their properties to fronting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code. Two (2) project entrances shown on the master plan accesses Livingston Road, a Principal Arterial roadway as identified on the "TR-3A Collier 2025 Functional Classification Map" in the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan. Policy 7.2 - The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic signals. The RPUD, as shown in the master plan, has an internal access road extending from the northern access point on Livingston Road to the southerly potential interconnect point to Learning Lane. All development within the PUD will have access to this internal road. Policy 7.3 -All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and/or interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type. The interconnection of local streets between developments is also addressed in Policy 9.3 of the Transportation Element. A potential vehicular connection to Learning Lane to the south is shown on the master plan. A preserve area precludes any interconnection to the west. Lands to the north are zoned A and are undeveloped. It appears that an interconnection could be provided to this property and staff recommends it. Staff acknowledges the property to the north is owned by the Diocese of Venice; however, such ownership does not necessarily mean the site will be developed with a church in the future,nor that an interconnection to a church site would be inappropriate. By way of example,the Vincentian PUD was approved in 1985 for a church and other institutional and residential uses. In 1999, the PUD was amended to eliminate church use and add commercial uses while retaining residential and group housing uses. The PUD was owned by the Diocese of Venice from its creation in 1985 until 2004. Staff acknowledges that the applicant provided the following response to the staff remarks (shown above)in their third project submittal,"As acknowledged by the prior BCC approval, there is no viable interconnect to either the existing middle school or property to the north PUDZ-PL20150001613 RMC-Enclave RPUD and Grace Romanian Baptist Church CFPUD Page 4 of 14 May 23,2016 owned by the Diocese if Venice." The BCC approval of Ordinance 2014-34,RMC-Enclave RPUD, was item #17C on the Summary Agenda on September 9, 2014. Minutes do not indicate any discussion of the viability of an interconnection to the north. Policy 7.4 - The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities with a blend of densities, common open spaces, civic facilities, and a range of housing prices and types. This PUDA would allow for townhouse dwellings, multi-family dwellings, single-family detached dwellings, and two-family/duplex dwellings; will provide for open space and preservation area consistent with the LDC since no deviation was sought; the RPUD allows an accessory use such as a clubhouse, which is sometimes used for civic uses (e.g. polling place); and sidewalks will be provided as required by the LDC since no deviation was sought. Comprehensive Planning staff fords this subject petition consistent with the FLUE; however, staff recommends a possible future interconnection to the north be identified on the PUD master plan and in Exhibit F-Developer Commitments of the PUD Document(see Attachment#2-Comprehensive Planning Consistency Review). a' Transportation Element: In evaluating this project, staff reviewed the applicant's Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) for consistency with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP using the 2014 and 2015 Annual Update and Inventory Reports(AUIR). Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states the following: "The County Commission shall review all rezone petitions, SRA designation applications, conditional use petitions, and proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) affecting the overall countywide density or intensity of permissible development, with consideration of their impact on the overall County transportation system,and shall not approve any petition or application that would directly access a deficient roadway segment as identified in the current AUIR or if it impacts an adjacent roadway segment that is deficient as identified in the current AUIR, or which significantly impacts a roadway segment or adjacent roadway segment that is currently operating and/or is projected to operate below an adopted Level of Service Standard within the five year AUIR planning period, unless specific mitigating stipulations are also approved. A petition or application has significant impacts if the traffic impact statement reveals that any of the following occur: a. For links (roadway segments) directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2%of the adopted LOS standard service volume; b. For links adjacent to links directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2%of the adopted LOS standard service volume; and PUDZ-PL20150001613 RMC-Enclave RPUD and Grace Romanian Baptist Church CFPUD Page 5 of 14 May 23,2016 c. For all other links the project traffic is considered to be significant up to the point where it is equal to or exceeds 3%of the adopted LOS standard service volume. Mitigating stipulations shall be based upon a mitigation plan prepared by the applicant and submitted as part of the traffic impact statement that addresses the project's significant impacts on all roadways." The proposed rezoning to allow a maximum of one hundred sixty-two(162)residential units or five hundred (500) group housing/senior adult housing units on the subject property will generate approximately one hundred sixty-two (162)PM peak hour,peak direction trips on the immediately adjacent roadway links, as follows: North South Livingston Road from Veterans Memorial Boulevard to Pine Ridge Road,a six(6)-lane divided facility,with current service volumes of 1,396 to 1,640 trips and remaining capacities of approximately 1,460 to 1,604 trips, and current operating at LOS "B-C"in the 2015 AUIR; and East West Immokalee Road from Goodlette-Frank to Logan Boulevard, a six(6)-lane divided facility,with current service volumes of 2,398 to 2,884 trips, and remaining capacities of approximately two hundred sixteen (216) to eight hundred eighty-seven (887)trips, and current operating at LOS "C-D" in the 2015 AUIR. Based on the 2015 AUIR,the adjacent roadway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate the project within the five (5)- year planning period. Therefore,the subject rezoning can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP. Transportation Planning staff is also recommending that a future interconnection be shown on the master plan to the undeveloped parcel to the north. The agent notes in the application that this property is currently owned by the Diocese of Venice; which may or may not eventually develop this parcel in the future. Because Livingston Road is a limited access roadway these types of encouraged interconnections can provide potential reductions in the number of access conflicts points required for future developments and also provide additional access options between developments. For this reason staff is recommending that the interconnection be added to the master plan. Staff also notes that if the Learning Lane access is allowed by Collier County School Board it will also function as an interconnection. Conservation and Coastal Management Element(CCME): Environmental Review staff found this project to be consistent with the Conservation & Coastal Management Element (CCME). The project site consists of 40.25 acres of native vegetation; a minimum of 10.06 acres (25%) of the existing native vegetation shall be placed under preservation and dedicated to Collier County. GMP Conclusion: The GMP is the prevailing document to support land use decisions,such as this proposed rezoning. Staff is required to make a recommendation regarding a finding of consistency or inconsistency with the overall GMP as part of the recommendation for approval,approval with conditions,or denial of any rezoning petition. This petition is consistent with the GMP. PUDZ-PL20150001613 RMC-Enclave RPUD and Grace Romanian Baptist Church CFPUD Page 6 of 14 May 23,2016 ANALYSIS: Applications for amendments to,or rezoning to,the PUD shall be in the form of a PUD master plan of development along with a list of permitted and accessory uses and a development standards table. The PUD application shall also include a list of developer commitments and any proposed deviations from the LDC. Staff has completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition, including the criteria upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5,Planning Commission Recommendation (commonly referred to as the"PUD Findings"), and Section 10.02.08.F, Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission Report (referred to as "Rezone Findings"), which establish the legal basis to support the CCPC's recommendation. The CCPC uses the aforementioned criteria as the basis for their recommendation to the BCC,who in turn use the criteria to support their action on the rezoning or amendment request. Environmental Review: Environmental Planning staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD document to address environmental concerns. The PUD master plan provides a 10.06-acres preserve,which meets the minimum requirement. An updated listed species survey was conducted in April 2015. Eight (8) gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) burrows were identified on the central and eastern portions of the project site. The petitioner indicated in the Environmental Data Report (November 2015) that the appropriate relocation permit will be obtained from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission prior to the relocation. This project does not require Environmental Advisory Council (EAC)review,as this project did not meet the EAC scope of land development project reviews as identified in Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Codes of Laws and Ordinances. Landscape Review: Approved. No comment. Transportation Review: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petition request, the PUD Document,master plan, and the items noted above for consistency with the transportation elements of the GMP. Transportation Planning staff is recommending approval of the request. Utilities Review: Approved. No comment. Zoning Services Review: No new uses are proposed. Group housing is restricted to seniors as contained in the PUD Document. Zoning Services staff has reviewed the proposed PUD Document and master plan and has no issues with this petition. DEVIATION DISCUSSION: This petitioner is requesting to amend one (1) existing deviation, which is itemized in Exhibit E of the PUD Document. The petitioner's justification and staff analysis/recommendation are as follows: PUDZ-P1.20150001613 RMC-Enclave RPUD and Grace Romanian Baptist Church CFPUD Page 7 of 14 May 23,2016 Proposed Deviation#1 Seeks relief from LDC Section 5.05.04.D.1 which establishes a maximum FAR of 0.45 for group housing for seniors to permit a maximum FAR of 0.55 Gk. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant responded as follows: "The original RMC-Enclave RPUD was approved with a deviation to permit a 0.6 FAR for group housing for seniors. The proposed amendment adds 12±acres to the PUD.The applicant has chosen not to request the increase in FAR from 0.45 to 0.6 for the additional properties being added to the RMC-Enclave RPUD. The applicant proposes to utilize a blended FAR of 0.55 for the entire site, which results by using a weighted average of the 0.6 FAR and the 0.45 standard FAR, as shown below. Acres %of total Component FARs Weighted FARs Original RMC-Enclave RPUD 28.38 69,99 0.6 0.420 Additional land 12.17 30.01 0.45 0.135 Revised RMC-Enclave RPUD 40.55 0.555 Blended not to exceed average" 's Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff anticipates no detrimental effect; therefore, staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation. PUD FINDINGS: LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5 states that, "In support of its recommendation, the CCPC shall make findings as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the following criteria in addition to the findings in LDC Section 10.02.08": 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land,surrounding areas,traffic and access,drainage, sewer,water,and other utilities. Even though the master plan does not show the location of the potable water and sanitary sewer lines, staff has determined that both types of utilities are in close proximity of the subject parcel. The project proposes three (3) points of access—two (2) along Livingston Road and a third along Learning Lane. 2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contracts, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Documents submitted with the application,which were reviewed by the County Attorney's Office, demonstrate unified control of the property. PUDZ-PL20150001613 RMC-Enclave RPUD and Grace Romanian Baptist Church CFPUD Page 8 of 14 May 23,2016 if 3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals,objectives, and policies of the Growth Management Plan(GMP). County staff has reviewed this petition and has offered an analysis of the relevant goals, objectives,and policies of the GMP within the GMP Consistency portion of this staff report (or within an accompanying memorandum). 4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses,which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. The proposed uses associated with this rezoning are the same as those which are already allowed in the RPUD. There would be no need to include additional conditions to ensure internal or external compatibility or create restrictions on design, buffering, or screening. 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The total area required for open space is sixty percent (60%) or 24.33 acres. The master plan does not indicate compliance with this requirement; however, the applicant responded to this criterion by stating the following: "The conceptual master plan identifies open space, water management,buffers,and other open areas that will be used as usable open space areas for the project. The amount of open space and preserve areas are consistent with the LDC." Compliance with open space requirements must be demonstrated at the time of platting or SDP,whichever is applicable. 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities,both public and private. The applicant has communicated to staff they anticipate phasing. The roadway infrastructure is sufficient to serve the proposed project, as noted in the Transportation Element consistency review. Operational impacts will be addressed at time of first development order (i.e., SDP or Plat), at which time a new TIS will be required to demonstrate turning movements for all site access points. Staff notes the applicant has provided a developer commitment to limit the number of access points dependent on school board approval of access on Learning Lane and operational consideration of a potential second access on Livingston at time of SDP or Plat. Additionally operational impacts will be addressed at time of first development order(i.e., SDP or Plat). Further,the project's development must comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals are sought. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. The area has adequate supporting infrastructure, such as wastewater systems and potable water supplies to accommodate this project based upon the commitments made by the petitioner and the fact that adequate public facilities requirements will be addressed when development approvals are sought. PUDZ-PL20150001613 RMC-Enclave RPUD and Grace Romanian Baptist Church CFPUD Page 9 of 14 May 23,2016 8. Conformity with PUD regulations,or as to desirable modifications of such regulations . in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. This petition proposes to amend one (1)existing deviation,which staff supports. Rezone Findings: LDC Subsection 10.02.08.F states, "When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and recommendations to the planning commission to the Board of County Commissioners...shall show that the planning commission has studied and considered proposed change in relation to the following when applicable": 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals,objectives,and policies of the Future Land Use Map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan. The proposed rezoning from CFPUD to RPUD is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the FLUM and elements of the GMP. 2. The existing land use pattern. The existing land use pattern (of the abutting properties) is described in the Surrounding Land Use and Zoning section of this staff report. Staff determined the proposed uses are appropriate for this area of the County. The proposed density of the RPUD would be nearly four (4) dwelling units per acre, which is consistent with the current maximum allowable density. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. Rezoning these parcels from CFPUD to RPUD would not create an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. The subject property is currently owned by the Enclave-Livingston, LLC. If this petition were approved, the updated RPUD boundary would align with the abutting rights-of-way, which further demonstrates that the new development would not be illogically drawn. It should be noted, there is A-zoned property along Livingston Road that will not be part of the RPUD. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning necessary. The proposed change is necessary because neither group housing nor the proposed number of dwelling units uses are allowed under the current CFPUD zoning (in connection with Ordinance 11-18). This petition to rezone to RPUD also would allow for the proposal to amend the existing deviation. PUDZ-PL20150001613 RMC-Enclave RPUD and Grace Romanian Baptist Church CFPUD Page 10 of 14 May 23,2016 { 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. Staff does not anticipate the proposed change would adversely impact living conditions in the neighboring community. 7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development,or otherwise affect public safety. The roadway infrastructure has sufficient capacity to serve the proposed project at this time. The project is subject to the Transportation commitments contained in the PUD ordinance, which includes provisions to address public safety. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. The proposed change will not create a drainage problem as the applicant will be required to submit a SFWMD permit and all required stormwater documentation to County staff to be evaluated during the development review process. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. It is not anticipated that this amendment would significantly reduce light or air to the adjacent areas. 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area. This is a subjective determination based upon anticipated results, which may be internal or external to the subject property. Property valuation is affected by a host of factors including zoning; however, zoning by itself may or may not affect values, since value determination is driven by market value.There is no guarantee that the project will be marketed in a manner comparable to the surrounding developments. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. Staff does not anticipate the rezoning to RPUD would be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent properties. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare. If the proposed development complies with the GMP through the proposed amendment,then that constitutes a public policy statement supporting zoning actions when they are consistent with said Comprehensive Plan. In light of this fact,the proposed change does not constitute PUDZ-PL20150001613 RMC-Enclave RPUD and Grace Romanian Baptist Church CFPUD Page 11 of 14 May 23,2016 a grant of special privilege. Consistency with the FLUE is further determined to be a public welfare relationship because actions consistent with plans are in the public interest. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. Neither the proposed group housing nor the number of single-family dwelling units are allowed under the current CFPUD regulations. In order to develop the property as proposed,the property would need to be rezoned. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County. It is staffs opinion the proposed rezoning of 12.17±acres of CFPUD lands and incorporating 1. it into the existing RPUD is not out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or County. 15. Whether is it impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. The petition was reviewed on its own merit for compliance with the GMP and the LDC;staff does not specifically review other sites in conjunction with a specific petition. 35 16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration, which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. Any development anticipated by the PUD Document would require considerable site alteration,and this project will undergo extensive evaluation relative to all federal,state,and local development regulations during the SDP or Plat process, and again later as part of the building permit process. 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, as amended. The project will have to meet all applicable criteria set forth in LDC Section 6.02.00 regarding Adequate Public Facilities (APF) and the project will need to be consistent with all applicable goals and objectives of the GMP regarding adequate public facilities, except as may be exempt by federal regulations. This petition has been reviewed by county staff responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP as part of the amendment process and those staff persons have concluded that no Level of Service will be adversely impacted with the commitments contained in the PUD Document. The concurrency review for APF is determined at the time of SDP or Plat review. PUDZ-PL20150001613 RMC-Enclave RPUD and Grace Romanian Baptist Church CFPUD Page 12 of 14 May 23,2016 18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners (BCC)shall deem important in the protection of the public health,safety, and welfare. To be determined by the BCC during its advertised public hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC)RECOMMENDATION: This project does not require Environmental Advisory Council(EAC)review,as this project did not meet the EAC scope of land development project reviews as identified in Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Codes of Laws and Ordinances. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING(NIM): The agent conducted a duly noticed NIM on February 16, 2016 at Vanderbilt Presbyterian Church at 1225 Piper Boulevard, Naples, Florida, Please see a copy of the transcript of the meeting in Attachment#5-Neighborhood Information Meeting Summary and Legal Notices. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney's Office reviewed this staff report on May 13,2016. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the CCPC forward this petition to the BCC with a recommendation of approval. Attachments: 1) Proposed Ordinance 2) Comprehensive Planning Consistency Review 3) Density Map 4) Letters/Emails from Public 5) MM Summary and Legal Notices 6) Application& Support Material PUDZ-PL20150001613 RMC-Enclave RPUD and Grace Romanian Baptist Church CFPUD Page 13 of 14 May 23,2016 PREPARED BY: "r ERIC JOHNS , AICP, CFM,PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE ZONING DIVISION REVIEWED BY: 721 At -(:)5:-'771)1' / ' - - RAYMQ , V. BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER DATE ZONING DIVISION , � 1!-' V MIKE BOSI, AICP, DIRECTOR DATE ZONING DIVISION APPROVED BY: ,... •rAilli, S-- ( 7 - /6 JAMES FRENCH, DEPUTY DEPARTMENT HEAD DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT -------"---- nm Or be 144AVpF ) / I ISA;ID WILKISON,DEPARTMENT HEAD DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT PUDA-P120150001613 RMC-Enclave RPUD and Grace Romanian Baptist Church CFPUD Page 14 of 14 i ts,-“ N FNM used Ord�'la pre'P 1 S a t ORDINANCE NO. 16- AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2014-34, THE RMC-ENCLAVE RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, AND AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2004-41, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF AN ADDITIONAL 12.17±ACRES OF LAND ZONED COMMUNITY FACILITY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (CFPUD) KNOWN AS THE GRACE ROMANIAN BAPTIST CHURCH OF NAPLES CFPUD TO THE RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (RPUD) ZONING DISTRICT KNOWN AS THE RMC-ENCLAVE RPUD; BY ADDING 48 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS FOR A TOTAL OF 162 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS OR BY ADDING 150 GROUP HOUSING UNITS FOR A TOTAL OF 500 GROUP HOUSING UNITS; BY AMENDING THE MASTER PLAN; BY REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 11-18, THE GRACE ROMANIAN BAPTIST CHURCH OF NAPLES CFPUD; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF LEARNING LANE AND LIVINGSTON ROAD, IN SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA CONSISTING OF 40.55±ACRES. [PUDZ-PL20150001613] WHEREAS, D. Wayne Arnold, AICP of Q. Grady Minor & Associates, Inc. and John Passidomo, Esquire of Cheffy, Passidomo representing Enclave-Livingston, LLC, petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to amend the RPUD and change the zoning classification of the herein described property. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: SECTION ONE: Zoning Classification. The zoning classification of approximately 12.17± Acres of the herein described real property located in Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida is changed from the Community Facility Planned Unit Development zoning district to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district, together with the existing RMC-Enclave RPUD, for an 40.55± acre parcel to be known as the RMC-Enclave Residential Planned Unit Development in accordance with Exhibits A through F, attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. The appropriate zoning atlas map or maps, as described in Ordinance No. [15-CPS-01496]41 1 of 2 RMC-Enclave/PUDZ-PL20150001613 5/9/16 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, is/are hereby amended accordingly. SECTION TWO: Repeal of Ordinance 11-18 Ordinance 11-18, The Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples Community Facility Planned Unit Development is hereby repealed. SECTION THREE: Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super-majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida,this day of ,2016. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: By: Deputy Clerk DONNA FIALA, Chairman Approved as to form and legality: Heidi Ashton-Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney Attachment: Exhibit A—List of Permitted Uses Exhibit B— Development Standards Exhibit C —Master Plan Exhibit D - Legal Description Exhibit E— List of Deviations Exhibit F— List of Owner Commitments DS-CPS-01496141 41 2 of 2 RMC-Enclave/PUDZ-PL20150001613 5/9/16 EXHIBIT A FOR RMC-ENCLAVE RPUD Regulations for development of the RMC - Enclave RPUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this RPUD Document and applicable sections of the LDC and Growth Management Plan (GMP) in effect at the time of issuance of any development order to which said regulations relate. Where this RPUD Ordinance does not provide development standards, then the provisions of the specific sections of the LDC that are otherwise applicable shall apply. PERMITTED USES: A maximum development intensity of 444162 residential dwelling units, which equates to a maximum of 4 du/ac, or 2,--,PSCA, units of group housing for seniors shall be permitted within the RPUD. The FAR shall govern group housing units. No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or in part,for other than the following: MIXED USE: A. Principal Uses: 1. Group housing for seniors including assisted living, continuing care retirement communities, skilled nursing, memory care and independent living facilities at an FAR of up to 0,60.55 (See Exhibit A Item C, Operational Requirements for Group Housing and Exhibit E, Deviation#1);or 2. Residential Dwelling Units a. Single Family Residential, including detached, attached, zero lot line, two family and duplex; b. Townhouse; c. Multi-family Residential; 3. Any other use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals(BZA)or the hearing examiner. B. Accessory Uses: 1. Garages and/or carports 2. Guardhouses,gatehouses,and access control structures. 3. Temporary construction, sales, and administrative offices for the developer and developer's authorized contractors and consultants, including necessary access ways, parking areas, and related uses, subject to the procedures for a temporary use permit provided in the LDC. 4. Landscape features including, but not limited to, landscape buffers, berms, fences and walls. 5. Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with uses permitted in this RPUD, including recreational facilities, such as swimming pool, clubhouse, fitness center and maintenance facilities. Community-wide recreation facilities shall be Words underlined are additions:words srefNrrmtegh are deletions RMC-Enclave RPUD 2015 Amendment Page 1 of 11 05/06/2016 • required to provide a 15-foot wide buffer with 6-foot high wall where adjacent to the northern perimeter of the PUD. A minimum 30-foot setback for the structure shall be required from the northern PUD perimeter and from residential lots. 6. Any other use, which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses, consistent with the permitted uses for this RPUD, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals(BZA)or the hearing examiner. C. Operational Requirements for Group Housing • . Group housing for seniors uses shall provide the following services and/or be subject to the following operational standards: 1. The facility shall be for residents 55 years of age and older. 2. There shall be on-site dining for the residents. 3. Group transportation services shall be provided for residents for the purposes of grocery and other types of shopping. Individual transportation services may be provided for the residents' individualized needs including but not limited to medical office visits. 4. There shall be an on-site manager/activities coordinator to assist residents with their individual needs.The manager/coordinator shall also be responsible for arranging trips to off-site events as well as planning for lectures, movies, • music and other entertainment for the residents at the on-site clubhouse. 5. A wellness center shall be provided on-site. Exercise and other fitness programs shall be provided for the residents. 6. Each unit shall have the option to be equipped to notify the community staff in the event of medical or other emergency. 7. Each unit shall be designed to accommodate residents with physical impairments (handicaps) as required by the applicable building codes and federal law and regulation. • PRESERVE - A. Allowable Uses: 1. Nature trails and boardwalks that do not reduce the amount of required preserve area to be retained. 2. Mitigation areas. 3. Passive Recreation areas,as per LDC requirements. 4. Water management and water management structures,as per LDC requirements. Words underlined are additions;words eligetek4hrough are deletions RMC-Enclave RPUD 2015 Amendment Page 2 of 11 05/06/2016 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS • Exhibits B sets forth the development standards for land uses within the RPUD. Standards not specifically set forth herein shall be those specified in applicable sections of the LDC in effect as of >. the date of approval of the SDP or subdivision plat. Except as provided for herein,all criteria set forth in Exhibit B,shall be understood to be in relation to individual parcels or lot boundary lines. Condominium and/or residential dwelling unit boundary lines shall not be utilized for determining development standards. • I t • k[1 {{S4 yi II • Words underlined are additions;words giM461E4itrough are deletions RMC-Enclave RPUD 2015 Amendment Page 3 of 11 05/06/2016 EXHIBIT B FOR RMC-ENCLAVE RPUD DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS STANDARDS SINGLE SINGLE TOWNHOUSE TWO MULTI- GROUP FAMILY FAMILY FAMILY& FAMILY HOUSING DETACHED ZERO LOT DUPLEX LINE Minimum Lot Area 5,000 SF 4,000 SF 1,600 SF 1,600 SF 10,000 SF N/A Minimum Lot Width 50 feet 40 feet 16 feet 16 feet 100 feet N/A Minimum Lot Depth 100 feet 100 feet 100 feet 100 feet N/A N/A Minimum Front Yard Setback 20 fee 1I 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet Minimum Side Yard Setback 6 feet 0/6 feet 0 feet 0 or 6 feet 15 feet 15 feet Minimum Rear Yard Setback 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 20 feet 20 feet Maximum Building Height Zoned 30 feet 30 feet 30 feet 30 feet 40 feet 65 feet(3) Actual 40 feet 40 feet 40 feet 40 feet 50 feet 75 feet Minimum Distance Between N/A 12 feet 12 feet 12 feet 20 feet or 20 feet or 14 Structures Y2 BH BH Minimum Floor Area 1,250 SF 1,250 SF 1,250 SF 1,250 SF 1,000 SF N/A Minimum Preserve Setback 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet Minimum Front Yard Setback 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 15 feet 15 feet Minimum Side Yard Setback 5 feet 0 feet 0 feet 0 feet 15 feet 15 feet 1 Minimum Rear Yard Setback 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 15 feet 15 feet Minimum Preserve Setback 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet Minimum Distance Between Structures 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet Maximum Building Height Zoned 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet 35 feet 35 feet Actual 30 feet 30 feet 30 feet 30 feet 45 feet 45 feet 811:Building Height (13 Measured to edge of pavement or back of curb(single family front entry garages shall have 23'front setback). (2)Must be at least 12 feet between structures. (3)Any building exceeding a zoned height of 50 feet shall have a minimum setback of 50 feet from the PUD boundary and a minimum setback of 200 feet from Livingston Road and Learning Lane. (4)Structures such as gate houses,walls and decorative architectural treatments shall have no setback from property line. (5)Landscape Buffer Easements and/or Lake Maintenance Easements shall be located within open space tracts or lake tracts and not be within a platted residential lot. Where a home site is adjacent to a Landscape Buffer Easement or Lake Maintenance Easement within open space tracts or lake tracts,the accessory structure setback on the platted residential lot may be reduced to zero(0)feet where it abuts the easement. Words underlined are additions:words struelc-tJerough are deletions RMC—Enclave RPUD 2015 Amendment Page 4 of 11 05/06/2016 t r,w o•.w.mavar-Tn""la•rpur.n menu•A..vlal...lr- 1 zOOOz �<ZO / a V. IU -•••••1111,--Z-•••••1111,--Z-011111I I N� � ggi g /� eR W< - ,// x / / 3z1 i oilz / i:7:' ii ick r N � N 7N / �� O r vi0 �j % IL 1 z° g 2 QWo TA' �,/'isCi O 2 Nri / !I4''�i' 0 / � 1 U S2 w -, 22 W � /r „„..4i, v r/ r', „8 r O ppK d / /i / k ,/,/ �' / / 1 O Df F 2 / 1rr r • w it ag O WLLj' // , / L7 r0~ ' 'i/ A // � ; rLt / / Fy , ' a_ .f/./ 4,... '' / Si2 •o ' ,r' Mf /, µv r4 /I o s / ,; i1 11 -. /oma �i • , � g ig �' 3 Z of ' -/' ....0-.:- , ,yw ,/�4/ W • • • , I -�— fr. ,— i 6 0.0.6.`EQ t S ------------ - -_ i. 1' a s: r u. C7 Ir—` 0 g m • . . Z � 1 ` t- p c� ! Z bWa. V—Zj I! ga W NFp� • • • vi 1 y� Z* A ! U.1 a. It ! • w0 gi � s � .•'••••• ..o., . gl lt . "Q' •IC3a 9. I w 3j , h '• mil ..•.............. 1 g 1 i _ 0 ••......•....... , • . . . • • . • . ti I 6 _. 0E 1 Zui aO MI 1 N 1 z= ' a :w : Ili • re 0 r zzeli N 8 Qi I W .ext-EA Q ND Orli N EXHIBIT D FOR RMC-ENCLAVE RPUD LEGAL DESCRIPTION A PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST,COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LANDS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 5152, PAGE 2493, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA;THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 13 SOUTH 88°57'15" WEST,A DISTANCE OF 1,743.77 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF (PARCEL 4) LANDS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 4878, PAGE 1799 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID LANDS AND THE EXTENSION THEREOF NORTH 00°12'35" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 1,349.04 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 13; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH LINE NORTH 89°02'31" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 1,117.58 FEET TO A POINT ON A NON TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE LEFT ND ALSO BEING A POINT ON THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY OF LIVINGSTON ROAD; THENCE ALONG SAID WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY SOUTHERLY 383.80 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, HAVING A RADIUS OF 2,014.86 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 10°54'50", (CHORD BEARING SOUTH 10°35'31" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 383.22 FEET); THENCE SOUTH 73°57'05" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 32.50 FEET TO A POINT ON A NON TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE LEFT; THENCE SOUTHERLY 454.51 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, HAVING A RADIUS OF 2.047.36 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 12°43'10", (CHORD BEARING SOUTH 22°24'31" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 453.57 FEET); THENCE SOUTH 00009'26" EAST,A DISTANCE OF 201.77 FEET;THENCE NORTH 88058'31" EAST,A DISTANCE OF 124.47 FEET TO A POINT ON A NON TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE LEFT; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY 443.76 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, HAVING A RADIUS OF 2,047.36 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 12°25'08". (CHORD BEARING SOUTH 41°34'14" EAST,A DISTANCE OF 442.89 FEET)TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 40.55 ACRES,MORE OR LESS. [ACS IRVEYED) FOL S t WS: r'vL'GcITTr. BEGIN ATT. . . . . • • • _ _ . . e • • • • • • e .• - e - ., a . _ • - • • .T. COLDER COUNTY, • . _ , -- - ` - - •{ .TCS 'I3"- W. A DISTANCE OF 663.15 FEET 1'O THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE - e _ • • _ ■ • r • a, a r a QUARTER, N 00° 42' 35" W. A DISTANCE OF 1349,04 FEET TO •' •. ■ CENTRAL A• • , e• _ _ . • • ■ • . . _ • . - • • • •.•• •. • • • ! . ■r ■ ' e • . ■ • • • • -� • . p .� a., n �nn,STeNCES: - ' _ •. • - - . � _ • -AIG THREE(3)£CKJRS£�S .I�p AIA I l it rCZO: FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; f - Words underlined are additions:words.:tr iel through are deletions RMC-Enclave RPUD 2015 Amendment Page 6 of 11 05/06/2016 I THENCE. S Z„3° 57'05" W.A DIST •... _ .. , _. _ - •_ e.' • • _ .• - - * • • r . • , _••. • • e e . .. ' . , .'. a ' _ : _ ! ' ?., • _ e• _ SAID NORTH LINE S 88° 59' 06" W. A DISTANCE OF 5%-.5-1 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID • • _ _ • _ , _e _ _. _ . . . • • •_ _ 1'° 1• :" . . r _ • -. e _ r PARCEL 2(WEST ONE HALF) PADA Off. RANGE 25 EAST,COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA. • .. • e . . r . y, . • • a • •• OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 48 AND ESS AND EXCEP-- _ - - --e - ` -. • -'! • e' - THE EAST • . • e • _ _ _ _ _ NORTHWEST I/4 OF PARCEL 1 •0014552000] oAnr- RCEL4: TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. OF SECTION 13.TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST,COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA. d A Rr�'sRr I': THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST I/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 13. TOWNSHIP 48 a • . . • _ e e • _ c . • _ • '- Words underlined are additions:words fienek-tirfotegh are deletions RMC-Enclave RPUD 2015 Amendment Page 7 of 11 05/06/2016 COUNTY. - ! ; • _ _• _ , . _ • ■ __ , . _• . - •_ a _ . ' a ._•. _ • a �. . . _ a .__ ._ . a ....... a SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE SO1:444WEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION I1 THENCE RUN NORTH 00 •.,!_ EST. ALONG THE EAST LINE OFT _! . e - • ` e =8-A4) ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 13, FOR A DISTANCE OF 67116 SOUTH I INC OF T - • e • • - - • • ! _e _ • _ • • _ • e . , ORTv.c- ESTr QUARTER-OF-SAID-SE e, , e• . _ e c • e •. a • , a • _ • .. ' e e • e _ a . ., . a, a ' ' a • • ' NORTHERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT. HAVING A RADIUS OF 2014.86 FEET. 383.77 FEET TO A -POINTON THE NORTH -LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF • • ' • e a , a -- • e• •. • e• , ` • • . • e _ - , e .' . . •. . • • • _ . • e . • • • I . , • •. QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 13: THENCE-RUN SOU ,. • _ •. _:. PARCEL 2(E T OA1C HAI F1. PARCEL 51 EAST ONE HALF): THE EAST 1/2 OF THE-EAST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1i4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF T Words underlined are additions,words 9truelc-tirrorgh are deletions RMC-Enclave RPUD 2015 Amendment Page 8 of 11 05/06/2016 EXHIBIT E FOR RMC-ENCLAVE RPUD LIST OF REQUESTED DEVIATIONS 1. Deviation 1 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.05.04.D.1 which establishes a maximum FAR of 0.45 for group housing for seniors to permit a maximum FAR of 0.655. • Words underlines(are additions:words smielf4kroeg/t are deletions RMC-Enclave RPUD 2015 Amendment Page 9 of 11 05/06/2016 EXHIBIT F FOR RMC- ENCLAVE RPUD LIST OF DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS 1. UTILITIES The owner will provide a water stub-out at the northern boundary of the project in a location to be approved by the County at time of PPL or SDP, unless waived at that time by the County. 2. ENVIRONMENTAL a. The RPUD shall be required to preserve 25% of native vegetation, 288840.25± acres of native vegetation exists on-site requiring a minimum preservation of.7-.4410.06± acres (28.0840.25 x .25 = O10.06) of native vegetation to be retained. The preservation plans shall meet or exceed the requirements of the LDC. b. A management plan for the project shall be submitted in accordance with the requirements and procedures of the LDC for listed species including but not limited to gopher tortoises. The management plan shall be submitted prior to development of the first phase of the project. 3. TRANSPORTATION The developer or its successors or assigns shall in good faith attempt to obtain secondary project access to Learning Lane. Prior to approval of the first SDP/Plat for the property, the developer shall in conjunction with Collier County transportation staff apply for Learning Lane access to the Collier County School District. If access is granted by the Collier County School Board, the developer shall construct the secondary project •access to Learning Lane concurrent with site development of the property. b. The project's primary access will be on Livingston Road, which will be aligned with the North Collier Fire Department's Access as shown on the conceptual PUD Master Plan. Pending approval by the Collier County School Board, the Owner/Developer/Successor will construct a secondary full access on Learning Lane at the approximate location shown on the conceptual PUD Master Plan. If the access is approved, then the project will not have a secondary access on Livingston Road. If the access to Learning Lane is not approved by the School Board, then a secondary right-in/out only access on Livingston Road may be approved by Collier County pending further evaluation by staff during SDP review. If a secondary access to Livingston is determined to be necessary,then it will be constructed as a right-in/out access at the approximate location shown on the conceptual PUD Master Plan. All site accesses and ingress turn lanes (if warranted) will be designed and constructed pursuant to the standards set forth by the LDC. • Words underlined are additions:mortis strteelthronglr are deletions RMC-Enclave RPUD 2015 Amendment Page 10 of 11 05/06/2016 4. PUD MONITORING One entity (hereinafter the Managing Entity) shall be responsible for PUD monitoring until close-out of the PUD, and this entity shall also be responsible for satisfying all PUD commitments until close-out of the PUD. At the time of this PUD approval, the Managing Entity is Enclave — Livingston LLC, 1055 Crosspointe Drive, Naples, Florida 34110. Should the Managing Entity desire to transfer the monitoring and commitments to a successor entity,then it must provide a copy of a legally binding document that needs to be approved for legal sufficiency by the County Attorney. After such approval, the Managing Entity will be released of its obligations upon written approval of the transfer by County staff, and the successor entity shall become the Managing Entity. As Owner and Developer sell off tracts,the Managing Entity shall provide written notice to County that includes an acknowledgement of the commitments required by the PUD by the new owner and the new owner's agreement to comply with the Commitments through the Managing Entity, but the Managing Entity shall not be relieved of its responsibility under this Section. When the PUD is closed-out, then the Managing Entity is no longer responsible for the monitoring and fulfillment of PUD commitments. 5. MISCELLANEOUS a. Issuance of a development permit by a county does not in any way create any rights on the part of the applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the county for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law. b. All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the'development 6. GENERAL This PUD may be developed as either group housing or residential dwelling units, but not both of these principal uses. • Words underlined are additions;words su-welf-M-rettgh are deletions RMC-Enclave RP.UD 2015 Amendment Page 11 of 11 05/06/2016 S F: �M1y i r�. 2 ,< MEN e�C`I PCH rS s� P� Co •kl e 0300510 ehenS� • * C o�`pC Re�� a t k 3. qy Co eY CoH�.ty Growth Management Department Zoning Division Comprehensive Planning Section MEMORANDUM To: Eric Johnson,AICP, CFM,LEED Green Associate,Principal Planner Zoning Services Section,Zoning Division From: Sue Faulkner,Principal Planner, Comprehensive Planning Section,Zoning Division Date: April 29,2016 Subject: Future Land Use Element(FLUE)Consistency Review PETITION NUMBER: PUDA-PL20150001613 REV. 3 PETITION NAME: RMC-Enclave RPUD and Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples CFPUD REQUEST: Combine the RMC-Enclave RPUD and Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples CFPUD into one RPUD. The following modifications are being proposed: 1. Amend Exhibit A (RMC—Enclave RPUD, Permitted Uses) to increase#of residential dwelling units(162);to increase maximum#of group housing units(500);and revise FAR calculations;and 2. Amend Exhibit C(RMC-Enclave RPUD Master Plan); and 3. Amend Exhibit D(Legal Description)to include the±12.17 acres from the Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples CFPUD to increase the existing ±28.38 RMC-Enclave RPUD acres to total ±40.55 acres; and 4. Amend Exhibit E(List of Requested Deviations)to describe the maximum FAR for group housing for seniors, and add a FAR Exhibit; and 5. Amend Exhibit F(List of Developer Commitments-Environmental)to increase the required 25% preserve of native vegetation(from±7.02 to±10.06 acres); and 6. Amend Exhibit F(List of Developer Commitments-Transportation)to add additional item, "(b)," discussing the potential ingresses/egresses on Livingston Road and Learning Lane; and 7. Amend Exhibit F(List of Developer Commitments - Miscellaneous) to add a new section, "#5 — Miscellaneous"with 2 items,discussing County,Federal agency, and State permitting; and 8. Amend Exhibit F(List of Developer Commitments—General)to add a new section."#6—General," to state that this PUD may be developed either as group housing or residential dwelling units, but not both of these principal uses. 9. Repeal the Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples CFPUD by the approval of this amendment. LOCATION: The±40.55 acre subject site is located at 16223 and 16285 Livingston Road,situated in the Northwest quadrant of Learning Lane and Livingston Road,in Section 13, Township 48 South,Range 25 East. Zoning Division•2800 North Horseshoe Drive•Naples,FL 34104•239-252-2400 Page 1 of 3 COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS: The ±28.38 acres of the subject RMC-Enclave Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) and the ±12.17 acres of the subject Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples Community Facility Planned Unit Development (CFPUD) are both designated Urban, Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict as depicted on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM)and addressed in the Future Land Use Element(FLUE)of the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP). Both PUDs were found to be consistent with the FLUE of the GMP at the time of their approvals. Ordinance No. 11-18 approved on May 24,2011 for the Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples CFPUD will be repealed with this PUD amendment petition. The±12.17 acres will be combined with the±28.38 acres of the RMC-Enclave RPUD, together totaling ±40.55 acres and be known as the "RMC-Enclave RPUD." Exhibit A is requesting the same Permitted Uses for the amended RPUD as were approved in the original RMC-Enclave RPUD, approved by Ordinance No. 14-34 on September 9, 2014 (residential and group housing). The original RMC-Enclave RPUD permitted a maximum development intensity of 114 residential dwelling units or 350 units of group housing for seniors within the RPUD. The petition is proposing an increase to the maximum development intensity for 162 residential dwelling units(increase of 48 DUs)or 500 units of group housing for seniors (increase of 150 units). Comprehensive Planning reviewed the density eligibility for residential dwelling units for the amended RMC-Enclave RPUD site of±40.55 acres and found that this RPUD could be eligible for the proposed maximum density of 162 DUs (±40.55 acres * 4 DU/A = 162.2 DUs; using a Base Density in the Urban Designation Area of 4 DU/A). The Urban designation allows "community facilities such as...group housing uses." Further, FLUE Policy 5.8 states that group housing uses are allowed in the Urban Designated Area,subject to the regulations in the Land Development Code. FLUE Policy 5.4 requires new land uses to be compatible with, and complementary to, surrounding land uses. Comprehensive Planning leaves this determination to the Zoning Services Section's staff as part of their review of the petition in its entirety. FLUE Objective 7 and relevant policies are stated below; each is followed by staff analysis in bold text within [brackets]. Objective 7: In an effort to support the Dover, Kohl & Partners publication, Toward Better Places: The Community Character Plan for Collier County, Florida, promote smart growth policies, reduce greenhouse gas emissions,and adhere to the existing development character of Collier County,the following policies shall be implemented for new development and redevelopment projects, where applicable. Policy 7.1 The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their properties to fronting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code. [Two(2)project entrances shown on Exhibit C,RMC- Enclave RPUD Master Plan accesses Livingston Road,a Principal Arterial roadway as identified on the "TR-3A Collier 2025 Functional Classification Map" in the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan.] Policy 7.2 The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic signals. [The RPUD,as shown in Zoning Division•2800 North Horseshoe Drive•Naples,Fl 34104.239-252-2400 Page 2 of 3 the Master Plan,has an internal access road extending from the northern access point on Livingston Road to the southerly potential interconnect point to Learning Lane. All development within the PUD will have access to this internal road.] Policy 7.3 All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and/or interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type.The interconnection of local streets between developments is also addressed in Policy 9.3 of the Transportation Element. [A potential vehicular connection to Learning Lane to the south is shown on the Exhibit C Master Plan. A preserve area precludes any interconnection to the west. Lands to the north are zoned A,Rural Agricultural, and are undeveloped. It appears that an interconnection could be provided to this property and staff recommends it. Staff acknowledges the property to the north is owned by the Dioceses of Venice; however, such ownership does not necessarily mean the site will be developed with a church in the future,nor that an interconnection to a church site would be inappropriate. By way of example,the Vincentian PUD was approved in 1985 for a church and other institutional and residential uses. In 1999,the PUD was amended to eliminate church use and add commercial uses while retaining residential and group housing uses. The PUD was owned by the Diocese of Venice from its creation in 1985 until 2004. Staff acknowledges that the applicant provided the following response to the staff remarks (shown above) in their third project submittal, "As acknowledged by the prior BCC approval, there is no viable interconnect to either the existing middle school or property to the north owned by the Diocese if Venice." The BCC approval of Ordinance 2014-34, RMC-Enclave RPUD, was item#17C on the Summary Agenda on September 9,2014. Minutes do not indicate any discussion of the viability of an interconnection to the north.] Policy 7.4: The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities with a blend of densities, common open spaces, civic facilities and a range of housing prices and types. [The PUD amendment would allow for townhouse dwellings,multi-family dwellings,single-family detached dwellings, and two-family/duplex dwellings; will provide for open space and preservation area consistent with the Land Development Code(LDC)since no deviation was sought;the PUD allows an accessory use such as a clubhouse, which is sometimes used for civic uses, e.g. polling place; and, sidewalks will be provided as required by the LDC since no deviation was sought.] CONCLUSION Based on the above analysis,staff finds the subject petition consistent with the FLUE. However,staff recommends a possible future interconnection to the north be identified on the PUD Master Plan and in Exhibit F,Developer Commitments. cc: Michael Bosi, AICP,Director,Zoning Division David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Manager, Zoning Division, Comprehensive Planning Section Raymond V.Bellows,Manager,Zoning Division,Zoning Services Section CD/FLUE file Zoning Division•2800 North Horseshoe Drive•Naples,FL 34104•239-252-2400 Page 3 of 3 s ti k i Yy f�y yf YSSyy ft �411yy ii MM N- 3 ASAC 00151tll Map \. s J�. fi\ 1``{S 4 7 _ . .... _ . : . _ ....,,.. _ _, — Veterans Memo nal BLVp __- — ________ .._,_ , •i.- rt-- 11111Barclay._,C.... ow 74,1111111111111111 I ""t- ,al"4111, '. .......m.40..44 0, 1 , .,0- -.N'tt .40 / so CC' ° la . A -,irs ..... .... ..... , , .L .., .., , . , , . . , . ,.., , _ • - i lrS,,• at,:r1n1'1444--.4.d:o.0.,4r41`,a,." ,. •„Nr'0,o,et..J -. . .''M'' ___ t,U,4•,,t',,.-c.,.a‘.. ,_.',_,,,-,,.,,,if4 ..... g: m (9 _.ir,.m,..._.tI.mpiti;!.. Density:29 _ . 111111 ' 7Dning: RPy9; Z05n ' il Brandonl , ig .',-):Rjr87,„ t. - _•• ---, . 00 4,. .,, • . 4 MN MN 4 of-, -, ' , - ".,q ' mit 1 . . SUBJECT PROPERTY: se,-' --.- :V' - ..,-' --- 'r ,''' '.' 1.:":;.'' t. RMC-ENCLAVE RPUD . . . ...„..,,. iZoning:,RPUID . . ' 07. -• '' ' **. /. .: -,t' ' ''''‘' ' 1 Midi/11C " II/ '11;4,,,.,,',.., .___.,..- , ,•.;____ V ." - L ,- L t I. _ , A ., , s -r , 1 • t - -- 111111111 P.NO re 1 't /-A ._ -..- --,- ..,. .,• , : . , „,. 1 . ... , , 0" — ' : :. -....:(1('-'-.):71,11•-•i- .- 11.012'ili. i it-.I 0.-0 i,-4 4.,, .n.:41,4'isio,s11,...... ,..1.4,,,,,,:, ‘r.A.1",..,,,,t.„(7''.''''....,,,'::::\*.'-1i11. 44 ......,,,„ ._....._...„,„=_.,_..,_„.. E L ' ll.itAkill 1L'•'''7 0!ling APUD-...7. mil" Winfield LN • Ening= I,W..- ---'~--,- ,-,..,,,,,,i '-',;,''' „-,- 11111iii Roy=I”''' -Im•-ititeiratictriai A .QM, i ' - '• -'' ',- . lift 1 .- • '' JOT. I -'411111,111t Mil 'ML` Density 3 4 70 0 - --- 1 9. .., • -4-°. . .°7.- ,. • 'jai ari, • • , _ ' , : ' . • , . -,. - X/ ./.4,.. , A .: , As , , - ,-,..;,- •:,:(;?, , ow,. .1 if • ° 4'.,t , RPUri - , ' PM IUMI-MI-- • - --.-- ---imil 4 I ' ' • --,, .._.. ',-, -, i Jo i ciR iiiimuj marsnea-villas lig:L. _ Camden Lakes;_ _ ...._ . i , - . In .1 1..,..._0„ r---- -----:,,--T.:"-----7--;ii . - - ,• iii -gm, .,.-L..-1 •, - DerISItyff-11W- = id ki 114 ii AI bi log' E t adaAVE 4"' ',11E. - I F -,• 1 ‘ an 04,4 r -i. • ,,,„E. . ..,-...,,, . -...„,„,,''. ,,-*"... ,,,r ' ,-----H.,, , ,,,7-i,', ,...:14.74 Impena _,,- - : - • , :4;4 i , ..V, 1 1. !.,..,A' ,.:0,s.,„ rir :il r-4 ,,ji.,„ ic ,..,-..0 Imo- " - .4 lo„ ir,„-- - —- —1 .04.. -.. .- .1.,..: --4, ',4/1)lit 'f4 14.6,"rili: i .Ni , 1 ill 0 lIfIll t 0 ' Castle Garden LN car , .7. ,.............--.... 1 , - - f ' - A ' .• ' . -.--7,--0.'.1177.'i-; -,;, . ,i,g,Loning:ii--,,,JL,,, r be Z. ; Oillil hid ---j 'i•VW - l'' .. ,--,--- ig.,11k ,sti -, - :Zoning: RF-3 - le -,, l'--_-:-..i , ,,-.0 -,p . . , it ',.• •Teagarden'LIN_•. Ira 1 itit,; 11 I =,s1 I Be-etyt. •# it .-;.;1 a--;! Me '. - --. :7: . ., '• - - 44 ' . , 'Ag.' , ....I L.--,,, affir \:.Iff 71 •Itt ' .NV-, - '-°' , 11- 41 , Wit :7;194,k*ati CP. Pre 4 1 iis',-4.--OS l'-.:: - 7-iiiiiiib.:4,:.„-.-- • ..... _ ., ,airztr,i7..r.: ,,,,:,,- --.„,,,,t„;‘,0 qv: , i ,- 14 Of ,' ' ..t- . •--' - -. - - -'--- - . 1 -,' - *--.` - . ..,, ',..-•AO ': 4 i T.0 % . • 1 --- '• - - - ,;-i-..; -_- . t ' "k r- V!' --- - 4&111414 0 0 4W ' ' ' it ''---,-, ,..,/,' --40,' - - ' ' --•-..\ LiN 500 900 GROSS DENSITY UNITS PER ACRE (UPA) 0 150 300 — N FOR RMC-ENCLAVE RPUD AND _— Fee t 1 i v GIS mapping:Beth Yang,411CP SURROUNDING PROPERTIES colly Callili` G..'h Morginc7760"'''' k i r. EN #4 S CO\ tees‘ () P\-cc a� `eg r( ary nd a wiird . SOI 3� AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE Petition PL20150001613,RMC-Enclave RPUD I hereby certify that pursuant to Ordinance 2004-41, of the Collier County Land Development Code, I did cause the attached newspaper advertisement to appear and I did give notice by mail to the following property owners and/or condominium and civic associations whose members may be affected by the proposed land use changes of an application request for a rezoning, PUD amendment, or conditional use, at least 15 days prior to the scheduled Neighborhood Information Meeting. For the purposes of this requirement, the names and addresses of property owners shall be deemed those appearing on the latest tax rolls of Collier County and any other persons or entities who have made a formal request of the county to be notified The said notice contained the laymen's description of the site property of proposed change and the date, time, and place of a Neighborhood Information Meeting. Per the attached letters, property owner's list, and copy of newspaper advertisement which are hereby made a part of this Affidavit .• •liance AOP fel 44 441( 49 tr (Signature of Applicant) State of Florida County of Lee The foregoing Affidavit of compliance was acknowledged before me this 1st day of February, 2016 by Sharon Umpenhour, who is personally known to me or who hammed as identification. ,_ /lit-- __ ' ) (Signature o,f Notary Public) ( (Notary Seal) 4'14';"N JOANNE JANES Printed Name of Notary * * MYOOMMI88IONAFFo oB20 :�4 EXPIRES:March 14,2018 v'q : " iaoodTMuNary knka 122222222222222222222222222222222222242242222 77777777777777777777777777777777777777777777 rkaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa®aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa iaF3s3"5 "3a"31"38031;"va 332a t3 3"331.13""3" 2 2 A MN 1. 1 I I 4 8 2 i Ye i a 4 2i 3 i a g 2 Y 1 1 ig i i I i i s si so a a 8 a a al 23 3 Rai 3' 8 w33 ag3six 82231"s 3333313 9""3" i 3 833""""•"x" t 3 111111101011i11111111111111111111111/1111 j 11111111atiaiia1111113$1ai34iaiiaiiiiiiaiii 1111411111111111111114411;;11141111111N ddddddd3ddddddd dddd adddd dddddd d dd lifilliiii1151111111M1 G 2 I 1 a € 3 2 r g RO i I 1 HH 1 1 1 i 2 El 1 p y� 7 p 11 111qi 01 ii i 1 as Mill i PAM li 1 151 1 1 ti 8 1 a 8 `a8 0 E 33 u 2 'o g8 3s 8 `8 1 1 1;15 lig W=11181111115411°111111 _ .1 1111211111142"1 13I 111111111dilliiii111111 ;1111111;11111Rigii1 4 a u� a iIUI! I'i5 ' 11 1 o3 in "a iii ill 1 Ln 10 a i leGradyMinor Civil Engineers • Land Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects January 29, 2016 RE: Neighborhood Information Meeting(NIM) Collier County Petition Number P120150001613, RMC-Enclave RPUD Dear Sir or Madam: A formal application has been submitted to Collier County, seeking approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment, by Enclave - Livingston LLC, represented by D. Wayne Arnold, AICP of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. and John M. Passidomo of Cheffy Passidomo, P.A., for the following described property: The subject property is comprised of approximately 40.55± acres, located in the northwest quadrant of Learning Lane and Livingston Road in Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. The purpose of the amendment is to combine the 28.38± acre RMC-Enclave RPUD and 12.17± acre Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples CFPUD into one RPUD, which would permit a maximum of 162 residential dwelling units or 500 units of group housing for seniors. The RMC- Enclave RPUD was previously approved for up to 114 residential units or 350 units of group housing for seniors. The Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples CFPUD was previously approved for a 500-seat church, a single-family residence and preschool of up to 150 students. You are invited to attend a neighborhood information meeting hosted by Enclave — Livingston LLC to inform nearby property owners, neighbors and the public of the proposed PUD amendment for the subject property. The Neighborhood Information Meeting is for informational purposes only, it is not a public hearing, and will be held on Tuesday, February 16, 2016, 5:30 pm at the Vanderbilt Presbyterian Church, Harp Hall (Room HH), 1225 Piper Blvd, Naples, FL 34110. If you have questions or comments, they can be directed by e-mail, phone, fax or mail to: sumpenhour@gradyminor.com, phone 239-947-1144, fax 239-947-0375, Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A., 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, Florida 34134. Sincerely, Sharon Umpenhour Senior Planning Technician Q. Grady Minor&Associates, P.A. Ph. 239-947-1144 Fax. 239-947-0375 3800 Via Del Rey EB 0005151 LB 0005151 LC 26000266 Bonita Springs, FL 34134 www.gradyminor.com 1 t r onterosso ¢ELLINI LNC \ orso Medlterra CI: m 1, ....7 2 Celebrity C UONASERA C 0 VETERANS MEMORIAL BLVD J ` Barclay CT ccSUBJECT PROPERTYPitway 0T Pinnacle LN caaeFA w �� Tr� Send wed&e�N U amine Lake C4: ee �By�N AbertleAVE AV Amberwood % R a �� 0 LEARNING LN RAVINA WAY 'Wee 0 W NFIELD ` z z C• DEN LAKES"IR�COt� 1$013''eC $ m M.silex CT ENTRADAA�E + ' Imperial CIR , Z \ o -0� (-- .13-; CP Cat tie Garden LN a DN rf— T'agarden LN 0 a rNR a r .. a cs`p a '= Op P` ce o Q Pompano DR , O v s.lasd-.J m 0 } '<>_ 4 .:,..0,1_51,— •0.a4e‘' 0,A,4 z 3 3 i .Ipa?� 7 �Qs -,1::O CC I r z za ° [>. 36 zS Willowick DR E J hfIBp_ .9e ' „s, 09- rt 21)--1 Erie DR �. —L Norihboro rR Z ^. i Madison DR Parer vew° Saw!rass CT _Kirtland DR —_ Worihln9t•�CN �k'h/�q,� ( g (AentorDRiW _ n9h L \'N�__� ( 8irrhi 'vd Johnnycake DR 44 ern ori, ejp • • v 'P .�O 3 I ui Willoughby DRi— - o: o0. ' ar f Wickliffe DR c l Carlrbn Lakes BL on n Diamond tin g' o d al }7 r w I — uni avflla CIR P 0 De= eld WAY Ilmmokalee RD �n A t C :a”( 0 0 hi CurlingAVE% Artette sRp m d ..0 a w 0co °4CrU NOn _ / a ' p 5 ° m `---) �y _ 2- Malibu Lake CIf� O •almer Lake CI; L.--- a. < Windsw pIAVE Il RMC-Enclave RPUD Location Map NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING Petition PL20150001613, RMC-Enclave RPUD The public is invited to attend a neighborhood information meeting held by D. Wayne Arnold, AICP of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. and John M. Passidomo of Cheffy Passidomo, P.A., representing Enclave- Livingston LLC, on: Tuesday, February 16, 2016, 5:30 pm at the Vanderbilt Presbyterian Church, Harp Hall (Room HH), 1225 Piper Blvd, Naples, FL 34110 The subject property is comprised of approximately 40.55± acres, located in the northwest quadrant of Learning Lane and Livingston Road in Section 13,Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. 111 , 1 p lLOWNFF cMAMM r.RN G vl iiRAJ9MW01N.Lo--�+ I SUBJECT PROPEERTYI' " -i _J __ OY E,..,1 u+ l— 3 J - _—J j uo' - I _ _W, {{£3,�` , Nen�ew• IN4 3r 1 n i .tw On 8y Jahn x a WL ��Uk�� p )1 u rmynp on p� 8' T�7 bS wraur.on ( euL�rLouse. � --IIf ,PloWee HD ! f /[ I -1 k R ni.w on E 1 f --1 i! Li 'AE—\ —ZyW Ano 6 i 1 Wires. „we1 n Enclave - Livingston LLC is asking the County to approve this application to combine the 28.38± acre RMC-Enclave RPUD and 12.17±acre Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples CFPUD into one RPUD, which would permit a maximum of 162 residential dwelling units or 500 units of group housing for seniors. The RMC-Enclave RPUD was previously approved for up to 114 residential units or 350 units of group housing for seniors. The Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples CFPUD was previously approved for a 500-seat church, a single-family residence and preschool of up to 150 students. Business and property owners, residents and visitors are welcome to attend the presentation and discuss the project with the owner's representative and/or owner/ developer. The Neighborhood Information Meeting is for informational purposes only, it is not a public hearing. If you are unable to attend this meeting, but have questions or comments, they can be directed by mail, phone,fax or e-mail by February 16, 2016 to: Sharon Umpenhour, Senior Planning Technician Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A., 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, Florida 34134 Email: sumpenhour@gradyminor.com Phone: 239.947.1144 Fax: 239.947.0375 No.907820January 31.2016 I yd o n -> .._ C c O N o co c ,4 f 3 3 3 a O G W 2 3 c �.1. QA VI ns c s, di di E c c o a L U) $ 0) V O C a. c f6L Z ID = ; 3 c 0 M J 4 R._ > . 0.0 4-I :ie II : i 7 FN,. ca gyi L cC I1 i'J L 14 2 Ly CD 44 1 = B ° 3 m =om I-- Mr- w * 4 _ c,...) ) , ,a o a, o � / < .. ® � * c ms 0 c �, l ulli MN tams :,_ °' o 0 © fir Z Q U Qi ti4 •. 1 IL- 0rw 9 VI .Q i eac �' Ces O L V> --.t 1-1 N- r iY N ro ro.0 H - t."-' i,'- .P1, )c "c) mi DA Win a) t CU c t; co kA f' C N rr, ® N t1. co E c, o _ > � -} s r- .} 07 , r* S� o s c o o '" tv r, ) , i-- g so ta �,lp_� O 'c0 c ro t M — - 4-,LLu O w O z •Q .cc cco a• ..5 ..% ¢ J co Q. w , +L., 0).a 'Q d11 7 vi `-. .w c.�` o f6 _ lD C C •(0 TJ 3 12 V y _ a fzsi N .40 E L o ro -0 .,,, %i, 'L- t3i If ev- ' - . (124 ..c '. J w d w I a) ro _ •'>' y,, on DI I C co CIC SR o.o t� c Nu) 10 o O -a >. aL Q f° a 'a e) aI cr o d o 13) w y o 0 u u -0 CL c i C 4- 1 a� 0Lcr) ° • • A' ID to >c o a -c o 12 cu c � . of M -CO. cn W 0 E cu 3 CO I- 3 LJ.I C .2 -p •� c `o u) ; C w = .> u 4- ' J Z U � s ® L L C u Q w 4/ o = H 0 WJ * -Q o CP G ct N � * coo -o a3 _M o CU ,� a, u Mi 4r u LL,—. Z L uintli 40 te _ O ,•� 9 Ln .0 L ft C 3 Y a 0 a u _ ` y o = N N V+ tko QJ 4! C) C7 Qil C cJ J '' n: ccro 0'_ ` N O. t E ai �r F+1 s E o a r� o 'cv c m .c V + d c ++ rr u o w o W 41"0 s c a Z O 4J c a. .- in u {n .F-+ L ill CL.c al-C '0 b4 ,.._ epi o Q. O c m 'O •c9 ' o £ c o w N ECO 0 L a, 2 E 4 o L — c o vi y`- Z N , al C >C a) G W C -7,1 j 0 c 1 1 _ C N c 0 N �: E 13 O u c i O o "0 . a tiJ a 2 , \ Y ' a O W 1' LL N rf CDE u o ._ r t f, h KI .Nre C o GVl Y r- U u >^ a V, V ! � ' Cr n��// CO Q C u 3 Q L.L. T-- UJ * m O w o >. M No O et co co ., o .o L v1 +.+ .t .tea ! <� �.. LL .s, 3 CU ro c `y ` CD Z 0 al ,,y cs pp Qy O O y N - L ® ii R 1:: u 0 ? i L.+ ONLI� Q * � Ha� a°J, — a <a _. x _ 11 OL C rJ f•fY - Ur Z "Wt m E ,r 4, u oc ,° o UJ C au -ar c C1 c O. ••- a x vi v ) O Vf y .� a y o Q. C = — y 1 y ,Y +-, o r' - Nc E 4-15 c a) , O a) 4(§C--- 7 c vii 4.... .2 ! Fes- 'G '`• , �a { .- f�9 `t'-`•- k7` 'yam a 4., Z 1 1 2 TRANSCRIPT OF THE 3 NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING 4 FOR RMC-ENCLAVE RPUD 5 6 February 16, 2016 7 5:30 P.M. 8 9 10 Appearances: a 11 WAYNE ARNOLD 12 JOHN PASSIDOMO, ESQ. 13 FRANK FEENEY 14 BETHANY BROSIOUS 15 MITCH MELHEIM 16 RANDY KURTZ 17 ERIC JOHNSON 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 1 ( 1 1 2 1 MR. ARNOLD: Hi. My name is Wayne Arnold, and a 2 I'm a special planner with GradyMinor Engineering. 3 Sharon Umpenhour from our office, who you probably 1 T 4 received notice from, is going to record the 5 meeting. We're required to create an audio or 1: 6 video of these proceedings. So we're going to 7 audiotape it. 8 So remind everybody, if there are questions 1 9 and comments, if we can try to have one person at a 10 time make those questions and comments just so we 11 make sure that we get a recording. We'll have it 12 transcribed for the county as part of the I 1 13 requirements. 14 Anybody here know of a neighbor or somebody 15 who is still en route that we can expect? We can i 16 wait a few minutes if we think there's going to be 17 more people trickling in or (indiscernible) . E 18 Okay. Well, let me introduce you to the 19 property owners in attendance. We have Randy Kurtz 20 and Mitch Melheim. They're the property owners of 21 the subject property. 1 22 John Passidomo is standing here. He's our K 23 land use attorney. 24 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: (Indiscernible) . 25 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Hi. 1 I 1 i 3 1 MR. ARNOLD: I have Beth Brosious from 2 Passidomo Associates. She's our biologist. 1 3 Frank Feeney is from our office. He's a civil 4 engineer. 5 And from Collier County -- it's the is 6 developer's meeting, but a county representative is 7 always in attendance. And Eric Johnson, who's one 8 of the principal planners at Collier County 9 government, is in attendance. It's his project 10 that he's managing for the application submittal. 11 So we're here to amend two existing zoning 12 applications that have already been previously 13 approved. I assume most of you all are from 14 Camden, across the street from thero ert on P P Y 15 Learning Lane. 16 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Yes. 17 MR. ARNOLD: The project, you're well aware of 18 what it is, but many of you may not realize that it 19 was previously approved for the portions closest to 20 Livingston Road and Learning Lane as a 500-seat 21 church with a 15-student daycare center. That was 22 the Grace Romanian Church property. 23 It's a little over 12 acres, and it became 24 available on the market when the church couldn't 25 move forward with its development plans. 4 1 Previouslya roved was what was called the pp 2 Enclave. And it was a 20-acre project, and this is I a 3 where the church property fit into that puzzle 4 piece. 5 And what was previously approved was for 114 I 6 residential dwelling units or 350 senior housing 7 units. And that's an "or" condition. It's not -- 8 it's not both. We have to choose one or the other. 9 So you can see on that plan, a lot of what is 10 propose today remains consistent. We've added the 11 church property. We've carried our preserve area 12 along Learning Lane. 13 I saw some correspondence. There's a question 14 about our connection to Learning Lane, which I'll I 15 talk about, but the principal access to the site f 16 was negotiated the first time around, and there 17 were some modifications made on Livingston Road to g 1 18 allow our access point to align with the fire 1 19 station that was recently constructed. 20 So we have negotiated with them for 1 21 (indiscernible) locations and things of that 22 nature. So we would have a left directional into 1 23 our site off of Livingston Road and we'd have also 24 a right-out condition. And then the church was 25 granted a right-in, right-out access point, which I 5 I 1 we've maintained. s 2 And then, as part of our discussion with 3 Collier County government through the last zoning 4 process, an interconnection to Learning Lane was 5 required of the developer by Collier County. We 6 have to show, in good faith, that we've negotiated 7 with the school district to perfect that access i 8 point. And that's one of the current zoning 9 conditions we have today. 10 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: (Indiscernible) . 1 11 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: (Indiscernible) . 1 12 MR. ARNOLD: Yes, sir. 4 13 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Can you help us out 14 for the benefit of the people who aren't familiar 15 with this project? Can you just start at the 5 16 beginning and give us an idea of dates of when -- 1 17 when the phases were approved and who was notified 18 and all of that just to give us a sense of history : a 19 here? s 20 MR. ARNOLD: Sure, I can do that. 4 i 1 21 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Because Pulte 22 (phonetic) is saying they did not know that it was 1 1 23 going to be residential, and if you're saying it i 24 was approved a long time ago to be residential, 1 25 Pulte never told us that. 1 1 1 ( 1 6 I 1 MR. ARNOLD: I can get the dates of the 2 ordinance and I'll do that in just a moment, okay? 3 Be happy to do that. 4 But the -- so the two projects -- what we're k 5 going through is a process to, basically, eliminate ( 6 the Grace Romanian Church, bring that property into ( 1 7 the Enclave, and then we're increasing the number 8 of dwelling units, 162 dwelling units, or we're 1 I 9 increasing the senior housing allowance, up to 500 10 senior housing units. (Indiscernible) . 11 So the application process, just to tell you 12 where we are, the county considers this a PUD Ig 13 amendment, and we are in the process of the k 1 14 amendment. We've submitted an application to 15 Collier County government. We've received their 16 first round of review comments. We're in the 17 process of addressing some of those comments, and 1 18 we're required to hold this type of meeting, a i 19 neighborhood informational meeting, before we can i 20 have a public hearing before the Planning 1 21 Commission and the Board of County Commissioners 22 for the project. i 23 So we're probably several more months out 6 a 24 before we get to the public hearing, and that's 3 25 when the big zoning signs that you all recently had 1 i 3 1 1 i ( 7 1 when the property was added to the (indiscernible) 2 property (indiscernible) go up on the site. You 3 see those from the road. And then you receive a 4 formal notice, not from us, but from Collier County 5 government regarding those public hearing dates. 1 j i 6 So that's kind of the process. And that 7 probably, at this point, won't play out until the 8 fall. The County Commission takes a break in -- I i 9 they have one meeting in July, no meetings in P ' 10 August, historically, and only one meeting in i 11 September. So, most likely, we will enter the i 12 public hearing process sometime later in the a 13 summer, at the best case at this point. 14 Again, I still have some correspondence that 15 were questions. Just to let you know, go over some 16 of the development parameters. I saw a question 17 that somebody had sent regarding building heights, 18 and the Enclave project that's previously been i 19 approved allowed the senior housing buildings to be 1 20 65 feet tall, with a maximum of 75 feet as the 1 `s 21 actual height, the way the county measures that. a 1 22 And just for some comparison, the Grace 23 Romanian property that was located here and 24 previously approved, I don't have my glasses on, 1 25 but I think it was approved for 60 feet for the top i P 8 K 1 of the roof and they've got additional height of 12 2 feet for cupola and the church spires. 3 So to give you some context, we were approved 4 at 65 to 75 and then with that, let me explain that 5 the county, as part of the review process the first 6 time around, for any building that exceeded 50 feet 7 for us, we had to be at least 200 feet away from 8 either Learning Lane or Livingston Road. So it's 9 naturally going to push any of the buildings that 10 achieve those heights back to the middle and the 11 western part of the cite, further away from you. 12 Yes, sir? 13 MR. JOHNSON: Mind if I (indiscernible) ? 14 MR. ARNOLD: No, sure. ) 15 MR. JOHNSON: Great. Thanks. 16 My name is Eric Johnson. I work as a 17 principal planner with Collier County, and as Wayne 18 said before, I'm the project coordinator. 19 The county's role in this is to be neutral. 20 We evaluate the project based on the standards and 21 regulations that we have in the code. 22 So, ultimately, staff will be making a 23 recommendation either to approve, approve with 24 conditions or deny their request. 25 So part of what we do at the county is to 3 i 1 g w 9 S 1 1 1 ensure that we get the public's feedback. So, as 2 Wayne said before, this is one of three 3 opportunities to have some sort of dialogue with 4 the developer. 5 This is their neighborhood information 6 meeting. This is meeting -- their meeting. I'm s 7 supposed to be the facilitator, so I can try to ask 1 t k 8 questions that I think maybe you would want to ask, 4; 9 but I would hope that you would be -- feel 110 encouraged to ask those questions that are near and 11 dear to your heart. 12 After, the developer -- applicant is required 13 to resubmit plans in a package that complies with i 14 -- with the sufficiency or insufficiency letter 1 15 comments that we had -- we had made, but once staff 16 feels or they want to move forward to the CCPC, 17 that's also another public hearing. 18 The CCPC is the Collier County Planning 1 19 Commission. They are an advisory board. They 1 20 recommend approval, approval with conditions or 21 denial of the applicant's request, but, ultimately, 22 the change would be -- or the request would go 23 before the Board of County Commissioners and they i 24 are the final say to approve, approve with i 25 conditions or deny the request. r, 1 1 3p} 10 1 So I have my business cards here. I'll be 2 happy to get them to you. If you want, you can a , 3 always e-mail me anything that you'd like. 4 If -- if there's anything that you would like 5 to submit in writing, I will always, you know, get 6 your e-mails and submit that as part of the package 7 that goes before the Commissioners. 8 I also have what I believe to be the ordinance 9 11-18, which is for Grace Romanian Baptist Church, 10 and I also have ordinance number 14-34, which is 11 for the RMC-Enclave RPUD, so I could give you 12 some -- 13 MR. ARNOLD: We're just -- I've got those two, 14 Eric. 15 MR. JOHNSON: Okay. 16 MR. ARNOLD: Thanks. 17 I'll just chime in that what he mentioned, the 18 11 and the 14 numbers, that's the year of approval. 19 So the Grace Romanian Church was approved in 2011, 20 and the Enclave, the original 28-acre portion of it 21 was approved in 2014. 22 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: When in 2014? 23 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: September. 24 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: So the question, 25 again, is, a lot of us are new to this process. 1 i f i 11 1 1 So, when was -- did they have public hearings and I 2 were people notified when the initial land was 3 approved to be developed into the church? 4 MR. ARNOLD: Yes, it was. 5 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: And then when it 6 flipped to residential, so -- 7 MR. ARNOLD: This is the process that we're 8 going through to convert it from the church to the 9 residential. 1 10 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: I thought you said 11 -- I thought you said that was already through. 1 12 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: From 2014. 13 MR. ARNOLD: It is. There's 28 acres of it -- 14 remember the hole in the doughnut I showed you. 15 The -- this is what the current RMC-Enclave 16 PUD looks like. It's about 28 acres in its 17 approved zone. The Grace Romanian Church plugs in, 18 in this location. And that's what its approval 1 19 looked like. 1 20 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: What I'm saying is s i 21 when did it first go from raw land that somebody 22 owned to any kind of a development? When did that 23 happen and who was notified? i 24 MR. ARNOLD: It happened in 2011 for the 25 church, and I represented them. And I can assure 1 1 1 1 12 1 you I went through this exact same process, 2 neighborhood meetings and notice. 3 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: You notified Pulte, 4 I presume, as they were the adjacent landowner? 5 MR. ARNOLD: No. Pulte did not own the 6 property at that time. 7 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: In 2014, they did, h 8 though. So did you notify Pulte -- i 9 MR. ARNOLD: Yes. 10 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: -- in 2014? 11 MR. ARNOLD: Yes. All property owners. If 1 12 Pulte owned the property in whatever form it was, 13 we get a certified list of (indiscernible) is it 14 500 feet, Sharon, for this property? 15 MS. UMPENHOUR: Yes. 16 MR. ARNOLD: So anybody within a 500-foot 17 radius of the boundary of this property gets a 18 notice from us regarding this, and you get a formal 19 notice from Collier County government. 20 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Is there signs that 1 1 21 are typically posted? Because I see them all over 22 town. k 23 MR. ARNOLD: Yes. $ 1 24 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: So there was signs k a_ 25 that were up in 2014? i 1 s 13 1 MR. ARNOLD: Yes. 2 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: That were on the 3 property? 4 MR. ARNOLD: Correct. 5 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: I don't remember 6 seeing those. 7 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: And Pulte never 8 put those up and Pulte never informed us. 9 MR. ARNOLD: Well, Pulte wouldn't have been 10 responsible for it. We were responsible for 11 posting the signs on our property. 12 You all went through the same process, because ( 13 I did the Royal Palm Academy and the -- 14 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: We got notice of 15 that. 16 MR. ARNOLD: Right. 17 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: From Pulte and 18 from our homeowners association. The homeowners 19 association never informed us of it going from a 20 church to residential. 21 MR. ARNOLD: That's this process right now. 22 They -- 23 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: (Indiscernible) . 24 MR. ARNOLD: So this is the first public 25 notice that's granted of the church going away and t 14 I 1 1 this becoming a residential project. 2 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: I thought you said b ' 1 3 it was already approved. 4 MR. ARNOLD: A portion of it is. 28 acres of 5 the 40 acres is already approved for residential i 6 use. 7 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: I think what we're 8 saying, and this is not an issue for you, it's an q 9 issue for us with Pulte, is that when we all 10 bought, which was prior, many of us, most of us 11 prior to September of '14, we were told that that I 12 land was going to be a church, period. And, at 13 that time, it was already going to have residential 14 house -- because it was, I believe -- but I -- I'm 15 not sure that -- 16 MR. ARNOLD: Well, the property that is the 17 Enclave PUD today was agriculturally zoned property 18 and we went through this process to rezone it to a 19 residential planned development that allowed senior 20 housing and conventional residential uses. And 21 that occurred in 2014. 22 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Yeah. I'm not 23 sure this is your issue with -- we're not -- I 24 don't think this is our issue with you. I think 25 it's our issue with Pulte, that we were not i 15 I 1 1 properly told -- we were told one thing, 2 apparently, that wasn't accurate -- 1 3 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: And there was no 4 signage -- t 5 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: -- when we bought. 6 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: -- up -- there 7 should have been signage up, I'm assuming, on the 8 south. 9 MR. ARNOLD: And there was. There was signs i s 10 posted along Learning Lane and Livingston Road. I 11 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: They took it down or 12 somebody took it down. 13 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Or it was beyond 1 14 (indiscernible) . 1 15 MR. ARNOLD: Okay. One at a time, please, so 16 we can try to pick up the conversations. 17 Yes, sir. 1 18 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Yeah. Unrelated. I 19 have three questions. Probably you can answer them 20 all. 21 One is do you formally own the other parcel of 22 land or do you just have an option right now? i 23 The second question is, when do you have to i 24 make the decision on what type of development that B d 25 you're going to put in, because you obviously -- 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 16 i 1 this is an either/or. 1 t 2 MR. ARNOLD: Uh-huh. 1 3 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: And, third, i 4 depending on what you put in, do you have to go 5 back to the zoning board for any variances to get 1 i 6 approval to do it? 1 7 So, basically, those are my questions. t s 8 MR. ARNOLD: Okay. These two gentlemen here 9 own the property today, both parcels. I 10 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: All right. l 11 MR. ARNOLD: And with regard to your other 7 12 question about -- 13 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: So let me just -- so 14 your developer, just presently, just has options, a 15 depending upon how it's going to work -- 16 MR. ARNOLD: No, sir. They own the property. 17 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: They own it. The 18 developer owns the property? 1 1 19 MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. 1 x 20 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Okay. 21 MR. ARNOLD: And with regard to your other 22 question about the process, I think was your 1 1 23 question, about -- 1 24 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: When do you have to 1 25 make -- 1 I 1 3 1 i 17 iy 1 MR. ARNOLD: When do we declare? We have to 2 declare, at some point, when we really know. g 3 They -- just to let you know, they've been in [ 4 negotiations with various senior housing providers. 1 5 It's a very desirable site. Don't know where 1 6 that's going, but they're also homebuilders, the i 7 two gentlemen that own this property. 1 8 So that's why we have an option there, because 9 the senior housing market has been -- it has come 1 10 and it has gone and there are other projects that 11 were only senior housing that have gone back 12 through the year-long process that this sometimes 1 13 takes to convert back to a residential use that, in 14 this case, four dwelling units per acre, which is d 15 consistent with what many other projects have been } 16 approved at. 17 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: So that decision is 18 going to have to be made prior to the fall, before 19 you start your process going? I 20 MR. ARNOLD: Not necessarily. That's why, 21 when you look at the PUD documents, currently, it 22 allows for either 114 conventional residential 1 23 homes or 350 senior housing units. 3 24 So we have that option today, in essence. So, x 25 we hope the County Commission allows us to continue s 1 5 i I 1 I 1 8 d 18 i 1 to have that option, because what happens ifou Y } 2 choose the wrong direction, you're back through the 3 same public hearing process again. 4 So we hope that we've written standards that 1 i 5 are applicable for either/or situation. 6 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: I thought you said i 7 that if it's not going to be senior housing, you're 1 8 looking at 164 houses. 9 MR. ARNOLD: 162, I believe. ( 10 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: 162. But it was 11 originally zoned for 114? 12 MR. ARNOLD: Correct. i 13 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: So you're going 1 14 to -- 1 15 MR. ARNOLD: For the 28 acres (indiscernible) . 16 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Okay. 1 17 MR. ARNOLD: We basically are bringing the new 18 property in at four dwelling units per acre, which 19 is kind of the standard county zoning opportunity 20 here. 21 Somebody -- 1 22 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: This gentleman had 23 his hand up here. 24 MR. ARNOLD: Yes. i 25 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: So, for } 1 } I i 1 1 1 1 T 19 1 Y 1 clarification, you're proposing to annex the Grace 2 church property into the existing PUD and the 3 proposed number of units on the newly annexed part 3 4 would be four dwelling units per acre? i h 5 MR. ARNOLD: Yes. i 6 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Okay. 1 7 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: I was asking that 8 question for you guys, so that way, you can kind of 9 get a handle on what they're proposing to do. 10 Please, go ahead. f 11 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Just going back to 12 the Pulte situation. You said you went through the 13 process back in September of '14. 1 14 MR. ARNOLD: Yes, sir. 15 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Were they there? 16 Was Pulte there, do you remember? 17 MR. ARNOLD: I'm not certain. I don't recall 18 dealing with anybody specifically from Pulte Homes. 19 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Okay. Y 1 20 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: There's a big 21 difference between a church (indiscernible) , a s 1 22 single building, and a possibly six-story senior 23 housing. 24 MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. Yes, ma'am. ) 25 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Where on Learning 1 g 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 20 1 1 Lane would the sign have been posted? Because none 1 2 of us saw it. 3 MR. ARNOLD: Sharon was responsible for the i i 4 signage posting. Do you remember? f 1 5 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: You said there was 6 a sign on Learning Lane and you said there was a 1 7 sign -- you said there was a sign on Learning Lane 8 and on -- I 9 MS. UMPENHOUR: There would have been one here 10 for Enclave, and then -- 11 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: So beyond our i 12 entrance, so we wouldn't have seen it on a daily 13 basis. 14 MS. UMPENHOUR: And then there would have been 15 one on Livingston, also. B 16 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Again, beyond 1 17 where we -- 18 MS. UMPENHOUR: And then for Grace, there 5 19 would have been one on Livingston and one on 20 Learning. 21 MR. ARNOLD: Yes, ma'am? 1 22 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Where would -- and $ 23 I don't know whether you're open for questions 1 3 24 (indiscernible) presentation. i 25 MR. ARNOLD: Sure. No, that's fine. 1 1 1 i 3 i 1 1 i 21 1 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: But where would -- r i 2 you said that the county wanted you to add an 3 entrance on Learning Lane. i 4 MR. ARNOLD: Uh-huh. 1 5 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Where would that s • 6 be and would that be -- and it's really -- I'm not I 7 even sure it matters where it would be. I have a 1 8 concern about an entrance on Learning Lane. 9 At the beginning of the school day, the 10 traffic on Learning Lane is horrendous. If you 11 want to come out of our Camden Lakes onto Learning 12 Lane, there's a steady stream of cars. 1 13 And I guess I have a concern about the safety 14 of the children walking to school, riding their 15 bikes to school currently, and then if there's 16 another 160 houses, I have a -- that are trying to 17 go in and out in the morning, I have a concern 18 about that. 19 So I think that the addition of the -- of 160 20 houses or of a 500-person senior housing which 21 would have employees coming to and fro, would be 22 much more palatable if you could only get in and 1 23 out on Livingston. 24 MR. ARNOLD: Well, just so you're aware -- 1 25 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: From a safety 1 t 3 1 1 1 1 22 1 i i 1 point of view. 2 MR. ARNOLD: No, I understand. Learning Lane, I 3 just so you're all aware, is not a -- is not a true 4 county road and it's not a private road. It's 5 owned by the School District of Collier County. 1 6 So your developer, for instance, negotiated an 1 i 7 access, paid some money to gain access to that road 8 to the school district, and then agreed to build 9 the sidewalk and the crosswalk that you have there 10 today. 11 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Uh-huh. 12 MR. ARNOLD: And that was part of their s 13 condition of accessing Learning Lane. 14 We've had no dialogue, really, since the 15 original 28-acre approval with the school district, 16 but we have a commitment that says we have to go 17 and deal with the school district to try and gain 18 that access point. So we will do that. 19 And with that, the school district is likely t 1 20 to ask us for dollars to offset some of their costs i 1 21 that they had to pay to build the traffic signal 22 and other things that the public benefits from. 23 And then I don't know what they're going to 24 get into with pedestrian systems, but that's kind 3 25 of the process we have to deal with. i 1 i 1 S 1 1 I 1 ( 23 1 E 1 And this lady (indiscernible) . ( 2 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: I just think that 3 it -- before we talk about an entrance on Learning 4 Lane, someone should come and study the traffic. 5 And I'm talking about specifically when everybody t 6 is going to school in the morning and teachers are 7 coming, parents are dropping kids off, buses are 8 there, and also at the end of the day. Somebody ' 9 should come and watch how much traffic there is. ' 10 MR. ARNOLD: Understood. 11 • UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: And we all work. 1 12 It's a young community, so many of us work, so 1 1 13 there's a lot of workers in the morning, too. 14 MR. ARNOLD: Yes, ma'am. 15 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Thank you. So do 16 we understand that if the school acquiesces to the 17 ability for you to use Learning Lane, then perhaps 18 money would pass and that would be an acceptable 1 19 situation? 20 MR. ARNOLD: Well, that's ultimately up to the 21 School District of Collier County. It's not a 1 1 22 staff decision of the school district. 23 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Right. ( 24 MR. ARNOLD: The school board has to make that 1 1 1 25 decision. i 1 i Y 1 3 i I 24 1 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: And if the school I i' 2 board, does, in fact, say yes, then it would be 3 essentially a done deal? 4 MR. ARNOLD: Well, if I didn't add the i 5 property that we're discussing tonight to bring it 6 into the existing PUD, I already have that 7 commitment to go and try as hard as I can to 1 8 perfect this access point. g X 9 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Thank you. 10 MR. ARNOLD: The gentleman behind you hasn't f 11 spoken. We'll give him a chance. i 12 MR. AZOLINO: My name is Mike Azolino 13 (phonetic) . 1 14 MR. ARNOLD: Hi. 15 MR. AZOLINO: I helped organize a petition for 16 residents of Camden Lakes. And you have to 17 realize, and Mr. Johnson and the county officials 18 realize, we are new residents, many of us, to 19 Naples, and this area. 20 So when we received the letter just a few } 21 weeks ago, this was the first time we've heard of 1 1 22 your development. And we understand the county is 23 growing. People are coming here. We came here. 24 And maybe there were opposition to our development. 1 25 However, as a group, we have roughly 50 ( 1 i 1 1 k 25 1 percent of the people who live on our -- in our 2 community who offer alternative ideas. 1 3 The main idea that we are concerned about, of 4 course, is traffic. And if Learning Lane is 5 removed from the picture as an access point, you 6 can -- you still have two entrances and exits off 7 of Livingston. That, of course, is twice of what 8 we have, twice of what the county has, the school 9 has. 10 And the school children are very important to 11 us. If you're going to build, develop 12 single-family residences, you can simply put a 13 parking lot where the mothers, fathers could drop 14 off their children and they walk a few yards before 15 they're on the school's property and it's a safer 16 commute for everyone's children instead of adding 17 to the congestion on Learning Lane. 18 Now, this is a county idea. You have to 19 remember, we don't know anything about what has 20 happened. So that's why our petitions -- and our 21 petition clearly says we would like alternatives. 22 The best alternative we see is use the fire 23 department traffic light. 24 Now, when I brought this up to a county 25 official, he was bewildered by this request because FF 2 1 1 26 1 he hasn't heard of it. But numerous residents have i 2 encountered traffic lights and then, when an i 3 emergency vehicle needs to leave, the traffic light I 4 goes red except for the firehouse. 5 This saves Learning Lane. This doesn't create 1 s 1 6 any additional traffic issue, which there already 7 is on Learning Lane. It gives you access through 8 the developer. In fact, it costs the developer 3 9 less because the light is already in place. You i 10 don't have to continue paying, in your governing 1 Y i 11 documents, paying for the repairs to Learning Lane. i 12 It's cheaper for the developer, and I hope the 13 owners are listening to this. 14 And I'll turn to the height again. We realize 1 15 you have an existing law that allows you to do 1 16 that. This is brand-new to us. 17 Now, we've been here, some of us, for almost i 18 two years. So you can imagine our surprise, 156 of 1 19 us are quite surprised. 1 20 So this is, again, falls on both of your 1 21 shoulders of how we can work together to say, let's 1 22 reduce the footprint. 1 23 Senior citizen housing, we have questions , 24 about that. Is this assisted senior? Are you 25 going to have emergency vehicles go day and night f i j I i i i t t 27 1 which destroy our quality of life? We don't want 2 to have ambulances. We certainly don't want dump 3 trucks, construction vehicles on Learning Lane 4 during school hours or after school hours at 1 i x 5 nighttime when they're trying to get to the school 5 6 for their functions. 7 So I don't think this idea is well developed 8 by the county. And, unfortunately, now the I 9 developer has to go back and the county will 10 realize we're a formidable foe. s 11 We would like you -- you have three entrances, 1 12 two entrances on Livingston. One could be a 13 traffic light. You don't need the third. 14 MR. JOHNSON: If I could respond. I'm not the 15 only county employee. So the traffic component to 16 the project is not something that I'm directly 1 17 evaluating. I represent the zoning aspect of it. 18 But, sir, if you would, you can e-mail me your 19 concerns and I can certainly forward it to the 1 20 discipline who handles that, and that can be part 21 of their evaluation. 22 MR. AZOLINO: Should I give you the original 23 or would you like copies of the petition? 4 i 24 MR. JOHNSON: Whatever you'd like to do. 25 MR. AZOLINO: I think it's only fair. I made 1 1 X 1 1 1g 3 3 1 28 1 ( 1 copies and I think I should give them to the q 2 builder, too, because, you know, we want you people 1 3 to have a fair shake. i 1 4 MR. ARNOLD: (Indiscernible) can't respond to I 5 your concerns unless I know what they are. So, 6 shoot. ( 7 MR. AZOLINO: And could you look, and could 8 you turn the map to the entrance on Learning Lane, 9 so everyone can see it, so we can see how that 10 traffic light on the other -- 1 11 MR. ARNOLD: Well, I've put this on an aerial 12 so you can see where it relates to your project. I 1 13 thought it would probably be easier to see how it 14 (indiscernible) for you. 15 MR. AZOLINO: So you can see, of course please 16 allow the builders to see it's going to cost you a ) 17 lot less money. You don't need access on Learning r 118 Lane. Mothers and fathers could drop off their 19 kids. You make a U-turn there and you have the 20 traffic light and everything you need right in a 21 front of you with -- I 22 MR. ARNOLD: I understand your comments. f 1 23 Again, between the school board, Collier County ?. a 24 staff, those decisions, you know, we get pushed in 1 25 those directions. i I 1 1 ) e t 29 I 1 MR. AZOLINO: In that same vein -- I ( r 2 MR. JOHNSON: So, after the meeting, I'll give z i 3 you my card and you e-mail me your petition and 4 e-mail me whatever you want and I'll forward it to x i 5 the appropriate person or persons. s i 6 MR. ARNOLD: Yes? 7 MR. AZOLINO: In that same vein, what was the 8 thought process behind needing a entrance and exit I 9 off of Learning Way when your project is 160 units, 10 we're 151 or 56, we have one, what would be the 11 need -- 12 MR. ARNOLD: And the county wishes you had two 1 13 or three. They look at this as interconnectivity, i 14 and every trip that they don't have to put out onto 15 their road, Livingston Road, and if you go on one 1 16 of the more local streets, that takes and adds 1 17 capacity back to their roadway, where they're tying 18 to move volumes of cars, so if there's an alternate 1 19 for people to not have to get on Livingston Road, 20 that's the thrust behind Collier County proposing i 21 that. j i 22 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: (Indiscernible) 23 Livingston, because we're not -- no one is going to 24 be able to turn left onto Learning. 25 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: You're right. i ) 30 1 MR. ARNOLD: No. I'm just saying -- you asked 2 the question about why that's important to the 3 county, and that's why. They want you to have I 4 interconnectivity. 5 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: (Indiscernible) we 1 6 have 156 and we have other ways that we could get 7 out, they could have had us go out on that side 8 (indiscernible) . 9 MR. ARNOLD: I don't think so. I think that 10 was explored when the original campus was planned . 11 for your community, and there was no 12 interconnection because of some wetland issues. 13 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: What's that side 14 street that goes into Imperial? 15 (Multiple simultaneous speakers.) 16 MR. ARNOLD: Right. You all won't have any 17 access to that. 18 Yes, sir. 19 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Give us some idea of 20 what will determine whether you will build the ( 21 senior living or you'll build the individual 22 residences? 23 MR. ARNOLD: My guess, the easy answer is the 24 market when we finally get through this process and 25 know what we have the option to do. The market, 1 ) 1 I 1 i 31 1 you know, has certainly been (indiscernible) . 2 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: I know you said that 1 3 earlier. I'm curious as to whether there was, 4 essentially, a cutoff point at which point you're 5 going to say, okay, these (indiscernible) . 1 6 MR. ARNOLD: I don't think we know that yet. 7 Yes, sir. i 8 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Did I hear you 9 correctly in the beginning saying that the Learning I 10 Lane entrance was required by the county? 11 MR. ARNOLD: Yes, sir. i 12 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: (Indiscernible) . ( 13 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: So if the county 1 14 doesn't require it, does the builder or the owners 15 want it? 1 16 MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think, from a matter of 17 convenience for some of their residents, it makes 18 sense to have access to a traffic signal. And I 19 think Collier County knows that, too. x 20 It is additional money for the developer and 21 it's additional permitting costs. It impacts some s 22 wetlands that the road would go through. 3 23 But as it stands today, if we dropped the 1 24 application to add the church property, I'm still 25 committed, by the zoning approval I have, to go and I 1 32 t 1 S 1 negotiate an access point with (indiscernible) . 1 2 Yes, sir. g 3 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Do I understand that 4 as this process moves forward, the various 5 checkpoints, that there is no time during the 6 process where the owners have to declare which one r 3. 7 of the zoning plans they want to have assigned to 8 that parcel? J 1 9 MR. ARNOLD: No. I guess the answer is no, . 10 there is no defined time, because most of the 11 projects that I represent, I do a lot of this, we 12 ask, for instance, for a variety of residential 1 13 dwelling unit types, because we don't know where 1 14 the market is, and in this case, we've asked for s 15 that full range of them. We development standards 1 16 for everything from single-family homes to some R 17 multi-family homes. 18 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Okay. 19 MR. ARNOLD: It's similar to Royal Palm 20 Academy, which you're a part of, sir. I mean, 21 there are multi-family homes and there's a 1 22 single-family component, which is your project. 23 Yes, sir. 1 24 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: I'm assuming you're 25 going to have to have some sort of site plan t i 1 T 3 1 i 2 33 f 1 I 1 approval before you can start construction. 2 MR. ARNOLD: Yes, sir. 3 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: That's a public 4 process as well, correct? 5 MR. ARNOLD: It's an administrative public x 6 process. We have to make application to Collier 7 County government to either plat it to sell home 8 sites or we would do a site development plan if it 1 1 9 was a senior housing option where it wasn't more of 1 1 10 a condominium form of senior housing. 11 Yes, ma'am. 12 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: What would the 13 difference be in the senior housing versus the 14 individual houses as far as the value of our homes? 15 Would it bring -- bring it up with the senior or 16 down or how do you see that. 17 MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think that, given the 18 location, that this is going to be on the -- it's 19 hard to know what the price point is because you 1 20 just don't know, but the senior housing, we've made 21 arrangements here to have a lot of amenities, i22 perhaps, for the senior housing, and probably would 23 be in the form of multi-family housing. 24 It's age restricted. 55 and over is what the 1 25 senior housing and group housing means for the 1 i 3 i 1 34 1 county's process. 2 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: So which one do 3 you think would bring the value of ours up more? 4 Would it be the individual housing or -- 5 MR. ARNOLD: I don't -- I don't think I could 6 answer that because, you know, if you had -- I just 7 don't think I can -- 8 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Well, could you then 9 give us an estimate of the selling price per unit? 10 MR. ARNOLD: What are your homes selling for? 11 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Anywhere from the 12 threes to the eights. 13 MR. ARNOLD: Probably it would be somewhere 14 along the same lines if they go conventional 15 residential. 16 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: And for seniors? 17 MR. ARNOLD: I don't know. The senior market, 18 it's a little different, because some of the models 19 include a component where you might have some -- a 20 memory care component that's structured, 21 price-wise, differently than if you're just there 22 as a -- a Moorings Park, for instance, where it's 23 more of a life care insurance program. 24 MR. AZOLINO: Sir, I am totally baffled by 25 this Florida -- and Mr. Johnson, I have to address 1 i 35 1 i i 1 this to the county. € 2 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Please. 3 MR. AZOLINO: As a new Floridian, I've been in 1 4 46 states in the United States, and the idea of 5 this traffic light not being considered by the fire 6 department completely baffles me. And the idea 7 that carte blanche is basically given to the 8 developers that they can either/or, any deck of 9 cards they choose until later on, is beyond my 10 wildest dreams. It baffles me as much as when I 11 spoke to Mr. Eastman (phonetic) about the traffic 1 12 light for the fire department. 13 So the county is, with this influx of 14 building, is really surprising to me. And I will a j 1 15 make note of that to you and your superiors. 16 MR. JOHNSON: Yes, I (indiscernible) . 17 MR. AZOLINO: And I do have copies of our k 18 petition for you and the builders, because I think 1 19 it's fair, and I think these requests are 20 reasonable. i i 21 MR. JOHNSON: This meeting is structured such 22 that there's a direct dialogue between 23 (indiscernible) who are perceived to be the most 3 k 24 affected people and the applicant. 25 The next meeting, which may be months from 1 i 3 Z 1 3 8 3 i I 1 S k¢f I'( E 36 I 1 1 now, will be the Collier County Planning t 1 2 Commission. That's a little bit more of a formal 3 affair. That's where you would have to go up to 4 the podium, ask a question during public comment, i t 5 that sort of thing. s 6 So if you have specific questions that you 7 feel comfortable asking and you'd like the 1 8 developer to answer, this is the -- this is 9 probably the best time. 10 As far as anything, a petition or whatnot. I 1 11 please, I mean, submit anything you want. It 12 becomes part of the record. I will eventually put 13 it with the packet that is reviewed by the Collier I 14 County Planning Commission and the Board of County 1 15 Commissioners, so. 16 MR. ARNOLD: Yes, ma'am. 1 17 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: I just think -- I 1 18 mean, to be honest, I think our time has passed. 3 1 19 Our time was in 2014 when it switched from a church 20 to residential, and we're all saying we didn't see 21 signs anywhere. And we also weren't notified by 3 22 our HOA that this was happening, and I -- I'm not a I 3 23 lawyer. I don't know. I (indiscernible) . ( 24 Anyway -- 1 25 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Did it switch to 4 1 ( 4 1 3 1 1 i�. 37 s I I 1 residential or is that what this process is? 2 MR. ARNOLD: What was the question? I'm 1 3 sorry. : 4 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: It already 5 switched from a church to residential. 6 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Has it switched from 1 7 a church to residential? 8 MR. ARNOLD: No. That's the process we're 9 currently going through. z 10 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: (Indiscernible) 3 i 11 legal. 1 12 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: It's already 13 approved. i S 1 14 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: It's still a church. 1 15 MR. ARNOLD: It's approved for a church. Part 16 of the property is approved for residential and 17 senior housing. We're combining these two 18 projects. x 19 (Multiple simultaneous speakers.) t 20 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Right. But part 21 of it is already approved -- 22 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Yes. 23 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: -- for 1 24 residential, and that happened in 2014. ( 25 MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. i a 1 3 1 1 I 38 k i i 1 1 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: And we weren't # 1 2 notified and our HOA did not notify us. i 3 So it seems to me like maybe a lawyer would be E' 4 able to tell us (indiscernible) . 1 i 5 MR. ARNOLD: Part of the issue -- I didn't 6 mean to talk over you. I'm sorry. x 7 Part of the issue that we end up with, and 8 Collier County uses the tax roll information, and 9 sometimes that's not updated concurrent with your 10 being a new committee. That's all I can think of 11 that you may not have received that notice as a 12 property owner, because the tax rolls hadn't been 13 updated, because that's the notice that they give 14 us to send out. 15 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Excuse me. That's i 16 false information, because Sharon e-mailed me back 17 and said that the letter we received was the first 18 notification to our community. I have her e-mail. 19 MR. ARNOLD: No, that's absolutely true for 20 this process. But what I'm telling you, the 21 question in 2014, when we rezoned a portion of 22 this -- 23 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: That's when we 24 should have been notified. 1 i 25 MR. ARNOLD: And I'm saying that some of you i i 1 1 1 3 S f i i 39 1 1 may have been so new that the notice -- 2 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Nobody was notified. 3 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: That's incorrect. 1. 4 MR. ARNOLD: The notice was sent -- the sign 5 posting was done on -- what's the date, Sharon? I 6 can't read that. I 7 MS. UMPENHOUR: May -- May20th, 2014 was when 8 the public hearing sign was posted for the original 9 Enclave project. 10 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: What date, ma'am? t 1 11 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: But you 1 12 understand -- 1 F 13 MS. UMPENHOUR: May 2014. t 14 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: You understand the 1 15 problem, though. If it wasn't anywhere near our 16 development, which it should have been -- 17 MR. ARNOLD: I have to post it on our 18 property. 19 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: I understand that, 1 20 but if nobody posted it anywhere near Learning Lane 21 where are property is, we would never have seen it. i 22 MR. ARNOLD: And what I'm telling you, these i 23 gentlemen didn't own the property at the corner to t 24 put a sign on somebody else's property. Their 25 property ownership was down here, so the signage $Y S 1f 3 1 1 I I 40 Ia 1 had to be placed on their property. 2 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: But is an HOA 3 required to -- did the HOA get a -- get anything in 4 writing in 2014? i 5 MS. UMPENHOUR: The neighborhood -- the 6 neighborhood information meeting was held on April 1 7 24th, 2014, and seven people showed up. 8 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Where was that held? 9 MS. UMPENHOUR: That was -- t 10 MR. ARNOLD: I think it was at the hotel at 11 I-75 and -- 1 12 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Hampton Inn. s g 13 MR. ARNOLD: Hampton Inn. That's right. 14 Thank you. 15 MS. UMPENHOUR: Yes, it was held at Hampton 16 Inn. i 17 MR. ARNOLD: Yes, sir. 18 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Again, sir, you can 19 -- I commend you. You've been very informative. i I 20 MR. ARNOLD: Good. 21 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: And I thank you. 2 s 22 But I hope everyone realizes we were just a 1 1 23 signature when all this process went through. We I 24 didn't close -- in our case, we didn't close until 1 25 later on in September 2014. So even though we put i J i 1 1 a 41 1 1 1 a vast amount of money down much earlier, we had no 1. i 2 idea what was going on. 3 MR. ARNOLD: No, I understand. L 4 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: And that's where our I 5 frustration lies in terms of when -- 6 MR. ARNOLD: Well, we hope we're delivering a 7 project that is -- 8 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Yes. S 9 MR. ARNOLD: -- benign and a good neighbor for 10 you. 11 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: I think we have two 5 3 12 -- I think you've been terrific and I think you're 13 understood our concerns and realize our objections. 14 We have issues with the county and, of course, with 1 15 Pulte. a 16 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Excuse me. I i 17 MR. ARNOLD: Yes, sir. 1 18 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: At that April 19 meeting you said it was attended by -- k S 20 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Seven. 21 MS. UMPENHOUR: Seven people. I 22 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Seven people? i i 23 MS. UMPENHOUR: Oh-huh. 24 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: You got the names? 25 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: That's what I was 1 li 1 42 1 going to ask. 2 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: I mean, I think -- I 3 mean, I think it's obvious, you know, and, again, 4 we're not shooting the messenger here. 5 MR. ARNOLD: Right. 6 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: You know. We I 7 appreciate what you guys are trying to do. I think 8 the issue for all of us, even the residents that 9 couldn't make it tonight, is that we weren't 10 notified and we weren't giventhe opportunity to 11 decide whether we want to buy a house adjacent to 12 any project of this scope. That's the first issue. 13 The other issue that's -- that -- if we're not 14 -- you know, we closed on the house. We're stuck 15 with something that you guys are going to do. So 1 16 now we're left with (indiscernible) the burden of 17 trying to make sure that there isn't an Learning 18 Way because we believe that will significantly 19 impact every resident, the school and everyone 20 else. 21 And if it becomes a school board decision and 22 the county, Eric, is going to allow that to happen 23 without any discussions, then I feel it comes down 24 to a dollar situation. You know, if the school 25 board gets enough money, the kids need other I ' 43 1 things, they're going to approve that, and we get 2 the win for you guys, as developers, we get that. 3 It's going to improve the project, it's going to 4 have better access, it's going to help you sell the 5 project. 6 But for us, we believe it's going to 7 significantly reduce the quality of life, the 8 traffic flow. Our house prices, we believe, are 9 going to drop because of it. Try to sell your 10 house and somebody -- it takes them three lights to 11 make a left-hand turn, they're not going to buy 12 your house, so. 13 MR. ARNOLD: And just so you understand, I 14 mean, this process is for this dialogue to occur so 15 we can hear what your concerns are, find out if 16 there are ways that we can address those 17 adequately. ) 18 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: It's going to 19 affect the sale of those homes, too, if it takes -- 20 MR. ARNOLD: No, you're absolutely. Sure. 21 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: -- people three 22 traffic lights (indiscernible) . >' • 23 MR. ARNOLD: Yes, sir. You had your hand up. 24 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Just a question. 25 You said that this project was defined 44 ) 1 (indiscernible) church (indiscernible) . Is the 2 requirement because of the church -- 3 MR. ARNOLD: No, sir. 4 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: -- where several 5 people (indiscernible) sit there -- 6 MR. ARNOLD: The church was not showing 7 access. This is their site plan. There's no 8 access to Learning Lane for the church. 9 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: So that's 10 (indiscernible) . 11 MR. ARNOLD: And their issue was one of 12 financial, if my recollection serves me. There's 13 some good quality wetlands that exists along this 14 portion of Learning Lane, and for them to have to 15 go -- this small church, to go through a very ) 16 extensive permitting process, I think that was 17 their argument for trying to convince the county 18 they didn't need it because they were so close to 19 the intersection of Learning Lane and Livingston, 20 that they didn't benefit from that. 21 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Is there any 22 requirement -- I know you said you have to notify 23 individual owners and maybe we weren't in the 24 system yet because it was so new -- is there any 25 requirement for the county to notify HOAs of 45 1 growing subdevelop -- 2 MR. ARNOLD: Yes. 3 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: So our HOA was 4 notified when it changed from a church to the 5 Enclave? 6 MR. ARNOLD: It should have been. I don't 7 know. 8 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Okay. 9 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Hold on. 10 MR. ARNOLD: I don't know if there was an HOA 11 established at the time (indiscernible) . 12 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Yes, there was. 13 (Multiple simultaneous speakers. ) 14 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: This (indiscernible) 15 for everyone's clarification, the church is still 16 the church and what Mr. Arnold is requesting is to 17 rezone the church property and annex it into the 18 RMC-Enclave PUD. 19 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: No, I know. But 20 he said back in 2014 -- 21 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: That was -- 22 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: -- it was already 23 approved for a smaller residential. 24 MR. ARNOLD: Correct. 25 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: That's what I'm i 46 ( 1 ) 1 talking about. t 1 2 MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. 1 3 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: That's what I'm 4 talking about. We weren't notified. Our HOA was 5 supposed to be notified and -- 6 MR. ARNOLD: If you had an HOA at that point 7 in time. 8 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: We would have had 9 the HOA at that point. And then, at that point, i 10 the HOA would have been obligated to tell us. So 11 this is an HOA -- 1 12 (Multiple simultaneous speakers.) 1 13 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Yeah. 14 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: I did not receive 15 notification on this, this change of this -- i i 16 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: No, but what about 1 17 in 2014? 18 (Multiple simultaneous speakers.) 19 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Can I just say, in 20 2015, I was (indiscernible) I did get notification 21 (indiscernible) . 22 MR. ARNOLD: Okay. 23 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Of the Enclave. 24 MR. JOHNSON: Yeah, on the Enclave. So I did 25 get it, and it was -- it must have been out there, 47 1 but some people aren't in the system 2 (indiscernible) . 3 MR. ARNOLD: Well (indiscernible) within 500 4 feet. 5 (Multiple simultaneous speakers. ) 6 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: You got it 7 individually, and weren't (indiscernible) . 8 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: I'm sorry. What did 9 you say? You have to be -- 10 MR. ARNOLD: The notices go 500 feet from our 11 property line. So if you're an individual property 0 12 owner and you live beyond 500 feet, you don't get a 13 notice. 14 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Oh. j 15 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: But the HOA should 1 16 have gotten it, is what he's saying. 17 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: That's an 18 interesting (indiscernible) . 19 (Multiple simultaneous speakers. ) 20 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: I just have -- 21 what's your -- what's your general timeline from 22 this point on, assuming that you can meet all of 23 the conditions, restrictions that are imposed as 24 you go along -- as you go along and whether it's 25 zoning restrictions or county restrictions or 48 1 things that you have to change, assuming that you 2 can do all that, what is your general timeline to 1 3 start this project, either project? 4 MR. ARNOLD: It's probably at least a year. 5 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: At least a year if 6 everything goes well. 7 MR. ARNOLD: Yes. We'll be back going through 8 a Water Management District permitting process, 9 possibly Army Corps. I don't know. Those 10 agencies, they move, but they don't move that 11 quickly, so that's why a year is realistic. 12 Yes, sir. 13 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Can you give us an 14 idea of how many stories high a 65-foot 15 multi-family (indiscernible) ? 16 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Well (indiscernible) 17 talking about (indiscernible) parking. 18 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Right. 19 MR. ARNOLD: Yeah, probably -- it's 20 realistically five stories, is what that probably 21 equates to in modern ceiling heights, but the 22 county likes us to express not in number of stories 23 but in feet, so that's why we're expressing things 24 in feet. So I don't have a number of stories 25 exactly for you that's -- P 49 1 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Do you have a 2 list -- 3 MR. ARNOLD: You didn't speak yet. 4 Yes, sir. 5 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Do you have a list 6 of everyone who was mailed the letter? 7 MR. ARNOLD: For this meeting? 8 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: For this meeting. 9 MR. ARNOLD: Yes. 10 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Can we see that? 11 MR. ARNOLD: Do you have it here, Sharon? 12 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Yeah. Do you have a 13 list for the 2014 people who were mailed that? 14 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: (Indiscernible) we • 15 don't have it, the county has got it. 16 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: It's a public 17 record. 18 MR. JOHNSON: We have -- we have the file in 19 the office at the county, you know, facility. 20 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Yeah. I just want 21 to know if the HOA was notified back 22 (indiscernible) . 23 MR. JOHNSON: And you're more than welcome to 24 come in and review the file yourself if you -- 25 whatever you want is, you know, is transparent. t b 50 1 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Right. 2 MR. JOHNSON: So if you have a beef with, you - 3 know, the lack of or the perceived lack of 4 advertising or what it is, the file is available 5 and you can proceed from there. 6 I'm kind of reviewing, evaluating this 7 project, thinking that it was properly notified and 8 everything was approved. So the focus here tonight 9 is the new -- the new -- the Grace -- the church. 10 If you have specific questions that you'd like 11 to ask the developer about how that will fit into 12 the rest of the scheme, that's what I would submit 13 to you. 14 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Yeah. 15 MR. JOHNSON: And it's good that you're asking 16 these questions about how high, you know, what are 17 the development standards. That's something that 18 could be asked and Mr. Arnold could explain. 19 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: We're just trying to 20 catch up, Eric. 21 MR. JOHNSON: Yeah, sure. 22 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: We appreciate that. 23 MR. ARNOLD: Yes, sir. 24 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Yes. I have one 25 last question and then I'll leave you alone. 51 1 MR. ARNOLD: It doesn't have to be your last. 2 That's okay. 3 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: You have a biologist 4 here. What is she looking for and have you done a 5 report? Has anyone done a report? 1. 6 MR. ARNOLD: Yes. 7 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: And what did we 8 find? 9 MR. ARNOLD: Collier County requires projects 10 of this type to go through and they do an 11 environmental assessment. We have to do a list of 12 species assessment. So we look to see if there are 13 any certain animals that are on the listed species 14 list for Florida, federal, too, you know, if 15 there's a bald eagle nest, you have to identify 16 that. Fox squirrels are typical around here. So 17 we have an assessment of that. 18 We also have to do an assessment of the 19 vegetation that's on site. So they have to map 20 anything that's considered wetlands, uplands, areas 21 that are exotic infested and things of that nature. 22 So there's a full report that was submitted with 23 our application. 24 Yes, ma'am. 25 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Do you have the 52 1 depth of preserve along Learning Lane? 2 MR. ARNOLD: It varies. You may have been the 3 person I saw some correspondence from. Collier 4 County, for projects this size, and you can see our 5 preserve, in this area, it's going through an 6 environmental resource permit right now. 7 So our preserve in this area is going to be 8 around on the western side of the property, about, 9 I don't know, Frank, you're the engineer, but it 10 exceeds 100 feet in these areas near where we 5 11 (indiscernible) the access point. 12 On the other area that's what I would call the 13 Grace Romanian Church site right now, the county 14 will require us to have a buffer or a preserve 15 that's an average of 50 feet, at least, and no part 16 of that can be less than 20 feet. So I have to 17 have a buffer that's essentially 50 feet wide, 18 except it can be less in places, but then where I 19 go less than the 50 feet, I have to expand it 20 beyond 50 feet somewhere else to make up that 21 average. 22 And keep in mind (indiscernible) just general 23 buffering, the county does have buffering 24 standards, and our preserve will largely be that 25 and it will all be native vegetation. We have to 1 1 53 i 1 remove exotics. We have to make sure that it's a 2 revegitated in areas that would meet minimum code 3 standards for buffers. k 4 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: 20 feet is 5 nothing. 6 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Average. I 7 MR. ARNOLD: Yes, ma'am. 8 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: If it turns out to 9 be a residential area, what would the increase in 1 10 student population do to the elementary and middle I z 11 schools as far as classroom size? 1 12 MR. ARNOLD: The county requires us to submit 13 an application to the school district and they • 14 evaluate that, and I think they determined that 15 there's adequate capacity to service our 16 school-aged children that might be generated from 17 this project. 18 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Without increasing 19 the size of the classes too much? 20 MR. ARNOLD: I don't know that they get into 21 that level of detail on their analysis. But I do 22 know that they review our projects. 23 Yes, ma'am. 24 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Maybe I missed it. 25 When the church had the property, there was no 54 1 access on Livingston Lane. 2 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Learning Lane. 3 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Learning Lane, 4 rather. 5 MR. ARNOLD: Uh-huh. 6 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: And now it is. . 7 Why, with two entrances, why do they need it there? 8 MR. ARNOLD: The -- the access we show to 9 Learning Lane was because of this. The original 10 28-acre project, we had that access point shown and 11 that's what the county has approved. 12 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: But is it needed? 13 MR. ARNOLD: Well, the county certainly thinks 14 it is. And I mean, there is some benefit to us by 15 having access to a signalized intersection. But, 16 again, it's not the county's road and it's not our 17 road. It's the school district's. 18 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: And it is awfully 19 crowded. 20 MR. ARNOLD: I'm sure it is. 21 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: And kids go up and 22 down with bicycles and cars and -- 23 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: So who makes the 24 decision on that? Is it the county or is it the 25 school board? 55 1 MR. ARNOLD: The school board. 2 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: (Indiscernible) . 3 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: The school board 4 makes the decision and the county rubber stamps it 5 because the school board approved it and they owned 6 the road? Is that -- is that how it works, Eric? 7 MR. ARNOLD: I don't know that it works 8 exactly that way, but the county has required us, 9 in the existing approval that we have, to negotiate 10 in good faith to try to get that access point with 11 the school district. 12 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: But you do buy it? 13 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: (Indiscernible) 14 the church (indiscernible) . 15 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: You do buy that 16 access? 17 MR. ARNOLD: Ma'am, I'm sorry. I didn't hear 18 your question. 19 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: I'm sorry. You do 20 buy that access. You are paying for that access to 21 the school. 22 MR. ARNOLD: What the school district has 23 required of your community and from Royal Palm 24 Academy and anybody else that wants to access that 25 road, they want to recoup, in a proportionate 56 1 share, based on your traffic trips, the cost that 2 they had to build Learning Lane to get to the 3 school and all the intersection improvements that 4 they paid out of pocket for and now, when you came 5 in, your developer had to -- had to essentially 6 help offset the cost of the signal that was already 7 there. 8 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: How much -- what's 9 the dollar figure that they would have to pay to 10 get that entrance? Can you give us an idea? 11 MR. ARNOLD: I don't know the answer to that. 12 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Well, it was already 13 approved. So it's already been negotiated, right? 14 MR. ARNOLD: No, sir. 15 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: The initial one was, 16 right? 17 MR. ARNOLD: No, sir. 18 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Okay. 19 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Mr. Arnold, did I 20 understand that the -- what the county is 21 attempting to do here is to create a road system so 22 that there's not a single access point, no 23 cul-de-sacs are created? Is that fire safety 24 issue? 25 MR. ARNOLD: No. The county doesn't have an 57 1 issue with cul-de-sacs, per se. But where you 2 touch more than one road, they want you to connect 3 to both of those if you can. 4 You know, so many of our communities don't, 5 and they would encourage you to do that to help 6 take traffic off (indiscernible) . 7 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Does it have to 8 be -- 9 MR. ARNOLD: I saw a hand up somewhere else. 10 Yes, sir. 11 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Does it have to be 12 main entrance? Could it be an emergency entrance? 13 MR. ARNOLD: I suspect it could be. I mean, 14 that's part of the discussion that we'd likely have 15 with the school district at some point, but I don't 16 have an answer for you tonight. 17 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: (Indiscernible) 18 the ambulances. 19 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Maybe I missed it 20 also. When you first started looking at the map, 21 you said you were driven, you were obligated to go 22 to look at that entrance because of the traffic on 23 Livingston, that the county wanted you to abide by? 24 MR. ARNOLD: The county encourages everybody 25 to connect to a local street before you connect to 58 L ff I 1 their arterial road system. 2 Livingston Road was meant to be a high-volume 3 capacity roadway, and the more access points you 4 have on Livingston Road, the volume of their 5 traffic flow is diminished, and they want you to 6 connect to the local street system where you can. 7 So they have a policy in their growth 8 management plan that says that we shall encourage 9 an interconnect where you can get one. And that's 10 what was approved. 11 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: A question to the 12 county. I mean, I've gone up and down Livingston 13 Road from Immokalee up to Bonita Beach, and there's 14 about four new developments there that don't have 15 traffic lights and access Livingston all by 16 themselves. Why can't this one be the same way? 17 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: (Indiscernible) . 18 MR. ARNOLD: Well, part of those is the sense 19 that they may not have an alternate access location 20 other than Livingston Road. That may be their only 21 form of legal access. 22 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Just because you 23 have an alternate, you have to use it? 24 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: An alternate, and 25 it still has to go out to Livingston. 1 59 1 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Right. 2 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: I mean, you just 3 go out onto Learning Lane, create a traffic backup 4 on Learning Lane, and you still go out to 5 Livingston. 6 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Right. 7 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: What have you 8 accomplished? 9 MR. JOHNSON: Everyone is posing excellent 10 questions and comments. You know, I don't have the 11 authority, per se, to override a transportation 12 planner's expertise to determine where the point of 13 access should be or where it shouldn't be. 14 My focus is on zoning, but if you will e-mail 15 me your concern, I can forward it to the 16 transportation planning department and they could, 17 you know, respond accordingly or -- 18 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Why aren't they 19 here, Mr. Johnson? 20 MR. JOHNSON: Well, because I'm the project 21 coordinator. 22 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Okay. 23 MR. JOHNSON: And I didn't know that that was 24 going to be the main focus of this discussion. 25 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Well, we need reps t 60 1 from the school board, the fire department and the 2 department of transportation or traffic, as well as 3 you -- 4 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Go ahead. 5 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: -- in terms of -- in 6 terms of the voting public, right? Okay. Thanks. 7 MR. ARNOLD: Anything else we haven't heard? 8 I think I get the gist of the issues, and, sir, if 9 you'd be happy to provide any of that information 10 to the county and us so that we can properly 11 address them, I'd appreciate it very much. 12 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Just one -- 13 MR. ARNOLD: Otherwise, I'm going to -- 14 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Going forward. I'm 15 sorry. 16 MR. ARNOLD: Okay. Sure. 17 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: You said there were 18 going to be more meetings. The next one would be 19 in the summer and the next one after that would be 20 in the fall? 21 MR. ARNOLD: Well, we don't have specific 22 dates, but we owe -- we owe Eric a resubmittal back 23 from the comments that they had. They will take 30 24 plus days to review that. Likely, there will be 25 other clean-ups that occur. 61 1 So, I mean, we start getting into March, 2 April, May getting to hearings. The Planning 3 Commission does meet throughout the year. So it's 4 likely we could have a Planning Commission hearing 5 in late spring, early summer, let's call it, but 6 you will obtain a notice from Collier County 7 government if you live within 500 feet, and there 8 will be those large, four by eight zoning signs get 9 posted on this property. In this case, since they 10 own this property, it will get prominently posted 11 on Learning Lane and on Livingston Road near the 12 intersection of Learning Lane. 13 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Okay. 14 MR. ARNOLD: So I think, as you navigate in 15 and out of your own community, I think it will be 16 very visible, you know, for those signage. 17 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Those will be the 18 plan dates. Once we (indiscernible) the HOA and 19 the board gets you all the board, could we have 20 further discussion before going into those formal 21 meetings? 22 MR. ARNOLD: We can. If you have an HOA board 23 or an HOA contact person, sometimes you all have 24 site committees and things, I mean, that's 25 something we'd be happy to talk to. 62 1 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Okay. 2 MR. JOHNSON: Thanks. I wanted to clarify 3 some things. 4 The question was asked, why isn't the county 5 -- why aren't the appropriate staff members, say, 6 transportation planning here tonight. 7 You know, I'm the project coordinator, so I 8 have received an e-mail either -- early this month 9 that there could be some discussion about traffic 10 on Learning Lane. So I apologize for not looking 11 into that a little bit deeper than we are tonight, 12 but that's what -- that's what tonight is for, is 13 to ask these questions, is to get that kind of 14 dialogue going back and forth. 15 So as the project coordinator, what I'm doing 16 is I'm taking notes, listening to what -- what 17 you're saying. I'm hoping that I can give you my 18 card and you can e-mail me your concerns and I can 19 forward it to the appropriate staff member. 20 Again, as I mentioned before, I'm evaluating 21 this project with the assumption that the previous 22 petition was approved and approved correctly. So 23 what I was hoping tonight to get from everyone, and 24 actually it's the developer's meeting, I just 25 happen to be doing a lot of talking here, is to 63 1 have that dialogue between the affected public and 2 the developer to try to hammer out any, you know, 3 things that can be agreed upon. 4 So I just wanted to clarify that. And like I 5 said, after the meeting is over, I'll be more than 6 happy to give you my card. Thanks. 7 MR. ARNOLD: Thanks, Eric. • 8 Yes, ma'am. 9 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: I'm sorry. I came 10 in late from work. But the senior living, I heard 11 you say 55 and older. 12 MR. ARNOLD: Yes. 13 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: But, I mean, I 14 just don't know, what type of facility is that? I 15 mean, you just have to be 55 and need to live there 16 or is there constant nurse care or -- 17 MR. ARNOLD: It could be either one of those 18 models. The county calls that senior housing. 19 They call it group housing, and it can take the 20 form of independent apartments, which I've worked 21 on, so it's age restrictive and independent living. 22 There are those that are assisted living. 23 There are those like Moorings Park that are 24 considered a -- if you're familiar with that 25 project, it's near Pine Ridge and Goodlette, it's a I 64 1 large, multi-faceted project that's continuing 2 care. So it's basically an age-in-place 3 environment, where they have everything from 4 regular apartment living for seniors all the way to 5 very healthcare that they offer as a component of 6 that. 7 So there's a full range of things that can be 1 8 senior housing. 9 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: That could be 10 there. So they're all options, okay. 11 MR. ARNOLD: Yes, ma'am. 12 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: May I please just 13 leave you with this one thought? 14 MR. ARNOLD: Okay. Sure. 15 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Thank you. My 16 husband and I do not have young children, but the 17 majority of this community is comprised of very, 18 very young families with babies on up to high 19 schoolers. 20 So, in addition to all of those children 21 getting out via Learning Lane, we have many 22 residents who go to work every day, who need to get 23 out at a certain time, not to mention the incoming 24 cars from those who drive their children every 25 single day. 65 1 It's unimaginable, I think we've certainly 2 made that point very clear, but having lived there 3 for almost two years, you literally cannot get out 4 the door. 5 So I can't even fathom what life would be like 6 with double or triple the number of cars coming in. 7 So if we could just impress upon you that 8 tremendous, tremendous potential problem, we'd 9 greatly appreciate it. 10 MR. ARNOLD: Thanks. 11 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Thank you. 12 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Wayne, let me -- 13 MR. ARNOLD: Yes, John. 14 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: -- make an 15 observation. 16 This is just the beginning of what we think is 17 opening up (indiscernible) communication. We want 18 to engage in an ongoing dialogue. There's very 19 good information in the public record, data 20 analysis, an environmental data report, there's a 21 traffic impact statement, there are master plans. 22 You can see exactly what was approved before, what 23 is being proposed now. 24 I encourage you to look at those things, read 25 them and become acquainted with them and we're 66 1 receptive to meeting again. We don't -- have no 2 obligation to meet again, but it's in our best 3 interest to make sure we understand your concerns 4 and you understand what we're proposing to do and 5 we have an ongoing dialogue. 6 So please get into that information, acquaint 7 yourselves with it, study it, and then before that 8 first public hearing, reach out to Wayne, reach out 9 to me and we'll come out and we'll visit with you 10 again and we'll go through your concerns and you'll 11 have a lot more information than you have right 12 now. I think that will be a very constructive part 13 of an ongoing process. 14 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: What's the easiest 15 way to get all that record, which I assume includes 16 when the mailings went out to who and all that? 17 MR. JOHNSON: I have that -- the county office 18 has the information regarding the original 19 petition. So you could, you know, submit an open 20 records request, take a look at the record anytime 21 you want between eight and five. So that's 22 available to you. 23 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Was that information 24 mailed to individuals in the community or was it 25 sent to Pulte directly? 1 I F 1 67 1 1 MR. JOHNSON: We'd have to look at the file. ( 2 I -- I started working with the county in 2015. So 1 3 I don't know the history of who was mailed and who 4 wasn't mailed the file (sic) , but we can uncover 5 that. 1 6 Yes, sir. 7 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: I'm just saying that 8 I was in the community over two years ago and I g 9 received that letter, so. s 1 10 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: You did, okay. 11 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: It must be, you 12 know, maybe there's a backlog because when you 13 moved in or whatever, but I received it and I'm 1 i 14 sure Pulte did, too, but -- 15 MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. 16 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Just one last 1 17 question. You said there were traffic impact j i 18 statements already made? How many with the I i 19 sequence of petitions did you make? 20 MR. ARNOLD: We just updated one for this 21 application that's pending. 22 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Okay. so you just 23 keep on updating the ones all the way back from '14 24 or even '11? 25 MR. ARNOLD: Well, they're -- this is a new 68 1 traffic impact statement. It's -- 2 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: So we would be able 3 to see what the impact statement was in '11 and '14 I 4 and updated to now? 5 MR. ARNOLD: Well, you would through his 6 records. They're not part of our application. We 7 don't keep resubmitting all the historical 8 information for a project, but we update and 9 provide new data. 10 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Okay. 11 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Just out of 12 curiosity, what happens if the impact statement is 13 wrong? 14 MR. ARNOLD: Well, that's why the county 15 employs a lot of good traffic engineers and traffic 16 planners to analyze the data we give them. 17 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Yeah, I understand 18 that, and I'm sure they're great people. They're 19 very smart. What happens if they're wrong? What's 20 the recourse? 21 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: What do you mean, if 22 they're wrong? 23 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: What do you mean, 24 wrong? 25 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Well, the impact 69 1 statement talks about the number of cars, the 2 emission, the noise issue, I'm sure. 3 MR. ARNOLD: No, sir. 4 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: It's traffic ) 5 generation. 6 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: It's a volume 7 (indiscernible) . 8 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: What happens if that 9 report is wrong? What happens if it's 10 extraordinarily understated? 11 MR. JOHNSON: Well, it's a professional 12 transportation engineer who has to generate it. 13 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: That's not the 14 issue. I understand (indiscernible) . 15 (Multiple simultaneous speakers.) 16 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: (Indiscernible) 17 courthouse. 18 MR. JOHNSON: Sure. 19 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: That will be part of 20 what (indiscernible) . 21 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: All I'm looking -- 22 all I'm asking is, if it's wrong, and it is 23 extraordinarily understated, is there any recourse 24 to the county? 25 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: To the county? 70 1 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Well, I mean, that's 2 who I suspect you go to. 3 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Frankly, I've been 4 doing this for 37 years. I've never had that 5 question before and I've never heard where's it's b been -- 7 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: You've never met me. 8 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: -- where it's been 9 wrong. 10 MR. ARNOLD: All right. Well, folks, thanks 11 for coming. I guess we're going to close out the 12 meeting, and like I said, get Eric's file 13 (indiscernible) . 14 (Recording concluded. ) 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 71 1 STATE OF FLORIDA 2 COUNTY OF COLLIER 3 4 I, Joyce B. Howell, do hereby certify that: 5 1. The foregoing pages numbered 1 through 70 6 contain a full, true and correct transcript of 7 proceedings in the above-entitled matter, transcribed 8 by me to the best of my knowledge and ability from a 9 digital audio recording. 10 2. I am not counsel for, related to, or 11 employed by any of the parties in the above-entitled ! 12 cause. 13 3. I am not financially or otherwise 14 interested in the outcome of this case. 15 16 SIGNED AND CERTIFIED: 17 18 Date: February 22, 2016 Joyce B. Howell 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 WIN POSTING INSTRUCTIONS (CHAPTER 8,COLLIER COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE FOR LAND DEVELOPMENT) A zoning sign(s) must be posted by the petitioner or the petitioner's agent on the parcel for a minimum of fifteen(15)calendar days in advance of the first public hearing and said sign(s)must be maintained by the petitioner or the petitioner's agent through the Board of County Commissioners Hearing. Below are general guidelines for signs, however these guidelines should not be construed to supersede any requirement of the LDC. For specific sign requirements, please refer to the Administrative Code,Chapter 8 E. 1. The sign(s) must be erected in full view of the public, not more than five (5) feet from the nearest street right-of-way or easement, 2. The sign(s)must be securely affixed by nails,staples,or other means to a wood frame or to a wood panel and then fastened securely to a post,or other structure. The sign may not be affixed to a tree or other foliage. 3. The petitioner or the petitioner's agent must maintain the sign(s) in place, and readable condition until the requested action has been heard and a final decision rendered. If the sign(s) is destroyed, lost, or rendered unreadable, the petitioner or the petitioner's agent must replace the sign(s NOTE: AFTER THE SIGN HAS BEEN POSTED, THIS AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE SHOULD BE RETURNED NO LATER THAN TEN (10) WORKING DAYS BEFORE THE FIRST HEARING DATE TO THE ASSIGNED PLANNER. AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED AUTHORITY,PERSONALLY APPEARED Sharon Umpenhour WHO ON OATH SAYS THAT HE/SHE HAS POSTED PROPER NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 10.03.00 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE ON THE PARCEL COVERED IN PETITION NUMBER - • e _tee - _ • 'lave RPUD i i ( 3800 Via Del Rey SIGN TORE OF APPLICANT OR AGENT STREET OR P.O.BOX Sharon Umpenhour Bonita Springs, FL 34134 NAME(TYPED OR PRINTED) CITY,STATE ZIP STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER The foregoing instrument was sworn to and subscribed before me this 17th day of May , 20_16, by Sharon Umpenhour , personally known to me e► he-predttoed �n tien and who did/did not take an oath. e of Not• Pub!' Joanne Janes Printed Name of Notary Public 4`"."•.•°.;N, JOANNEJANES My Commission Expires: * * MYCOl IISSIONtFF080820 (Stamp with serial number) �., �n , EXPIRES;March 14,2018 SWOT*Budget Notary Services Rev.3/4/2015 . ,, 44*,-1.,r /OM1. i!2 lar&.`O,M:$ 1 !=`' . � O E •i 6 6eF '.. 'J ^x S±$ i iy a '� �'� �" °� a 3i x�+. "} S Y $ .E. a eM :guj a • z s32 a I 4 E; 1. V +� 14. x" '0 8 Oma , • W�O� ar l• igl �, � a„ Z F z !,,,;;:112'.?."' c =M ;:i.a Ula Me Iia 0;0.3 ' �s.W IOC gal cso t W .� 's� la � ? §'` a• a ' a. m o g�3y as_ o� Z ea in C1 43.• w 2:. g333of:: o 11;--1t ® ,# W G e i-`°E-52=F., _ w ms 'd 'l. r --.1f11'1:.,Sa' ee a gQ ®•3 t ae ; � kLt d. mi a"�gia. «u ew- x18 "" ''.:F i `� o� �w2 ,54 n >erNpr. ...,2. 1...m a f,°4 a. z: ...y • l$ alit!: Y. 7 F d • yya! q� a g '''.2 � it CI it n5.^_;_.i P.s W~ 12 },1',X `,• 1"-.'0,...•',s`, - -max FYI ONo j. n:¢S4m u.•. OS 5}..e�M ti. Z ,r= :.lels.'esw> yG try '� g b •_. +S-d :3{ Pi w ii V i �3 3 � _ f� t bra d y. r ¢ a W " '`' a �' dyt'-• -41..'s�: 9 Isi .az z z �;,� a 1I a gg _ � � :;-.1 . 21..4 .1"..i:42::.:g a .�! ' ; ; ' S�f J • w= ±u,1a ruffs 1 �L E � �..,, t� ain i� cKi _, .,,, 111 ..• e i } W ='sa' cPa • '1 r'„'',$..1.4of 'zitril*.” ,i� z Q cy�W`� d ��'�1 a1�+°1;t� �' � =a niie` p �' Es 2 e� q E = 4 � :°'° F� Q 0 W sz.0 z m ,,, _ � �� "'? >t 3 'y.•' tdq�}ki =1 4C 4#�« .z S'd.« W N ! r e E t- f,.. "i',. ,1 a,- t Illgita Off u I.' ter{.. ", +f . 'Zsil W `43=1;1,1.2: .�o ie4rtOVZ CI �� t'' e. 161 = W v a x r1 = $` • <. v p w _ SAY e : !;: +kj'j 1 t0 eee� --• oil Inm a b i6 S'S .j fii ,E d y e'-'ay:i 8: g ?:,:-?,- -.....1,1 FO'' Z; .=1 _^ i is e- ar s. t n W aid la ae 77 9ss 33xs ',eat 4)I? ;gyp; �` 5 4 t '.� 3 ii 1 V LLl� 1•V 1.1V14 1 S!LLly 11 V'11\..1.:+ .1. V LLlA, ill V 1 l•.e.li i NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE INotice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the Collier County Planning Commission at 9:00 I s A.M.,on Thursday,June 2nd,2016,in the Board of County Commissioners Meeting Room,Third Floor,Collier E Government Center,3299 East Tamiami Trail,Naples FL.,to consider. i An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,Florida amending Ordinance No.2014- 1 34,the RMC-Enclave Residential Planned Unit Development,and amending Ordinance No.2004-41,the Collier County Land Development Code, by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of an additional 12.17±acres of land zoned Community Facility Planned Unit Development (CFPUD) known as the Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples CFPUD to the Residential Planned Unit Development(RPUD)zoning district known as the RMC-Enclave RPUD;by adding 48 residential dwelling units for a total of 162 residential dwelling units or by addingl 50 group housing units for a total of 500 group housing units;by amending the master plan;by repealing Ordinance No.11-18,the Grace Romanian Baptist Church of } Naples CFPUD;and by providing an effective date.The subject property is located at the northwest quadrant of Learning Lane and Livingston Road,in Section 13,Township 48 South,Range 25 East,Collier County,Florida x consisting of 40.55±acres.[PUDZ-PL20150001613] I o i. re TUSCANY QUAIL I5 RESERVE WEST If (DRI) MEDITERRA c 112 PEZZETINO 7 8 Z DI CIELO t - MEDITERRA a VETERANS MEMORIAL BLVD. '_ PROJECT ELLA 1 g RMC IA ENCLAVE DROSA LOCATION GRACE BRANDON 1 ROMANIA QUAIL ' BAPTIST CREEK t CHURCH PELICAN in} 1 ROYAL PALM 13 /1 STRAND W O y 17 ACADEMY ✓ (DRI) 18 R 8 m ; VI MARSILEA MADEIRA VILLAS - o All interested parties are invited to appear and be heard. Copies of the proposed ORDINANCE will be made available for inspection at the Collier County Clerk's Office, Fourth Floor, Collier County Government Center, 3299 East Tamiami Trail,Suite#401,Naples,FL,one week prior to the scheduled hearing.Written comments must be filed with the Zoning Division,Zoning Services Section,prior to Thursday,June 2nd,2016. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Collier County Planning Commission with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he will need a record of that proceeding,and for such purpose he 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. If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding, you are entitled,at no cost to you,to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Division,located at 3335 Tamiaml Trail East,Suite#101,Naples,FL 34112-5356,(239) 252-8380, at least two days prior to the meeting. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board of County Commissioners Office. Collier County Planning Commission Mark Strain,Chairman Co er Com-nty May 13,2016 Dear Property Owner: This is to advise you that because you may have interest in the proceedings or you own property located within 500 feet of the following described property that a public hearing will be held by the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) of Collier County, Florida, at 9:00 A.M., on June 2, 2016, in the Board of County Commissioners meeting room, third floor, Collier Government Center,3299 Tamiami Trail,Naples FL.,to consider: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,Florida amending Ordinance No.2014-34,the RMC-Enclave Residential Planned Unit Development, and amending Ordinance No. 2004-41, the Collier County Land Development Code, by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of an additional 12.17±acres of land zoned Community Facility Planned Unit Development (CFPUD) known as the Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples CFPUD to the Residential Planned Unit Development(RPUD)zoning district known as the RMC-Enclave RPUD;by adding 48 residential dwelling units for a total of 162 residential dwelling units or by adding 150 group housing units for a total of 500 group housing units; by amending the master plan; by repealing Ordinance No. 11-18, the Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples CFPUD; and by providing an effective date. The subject property is located at the northwest quadrant of Learning Lane and Livingston Road, in Section 13,Township 48 South,Range 25 East,Collier County,Florida consisting of 40.55±acres. [PUDZ-PL20150001613] You are invited to appear and be heard at the public hearing.You may also submit your comments in writing. 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 CCPC. 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 ME, 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 Collier County Planning Commission 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. If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Department, located at 3335 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 101, Naples, FL 34112-5356, (239) 252-8380, at least two days prior to the meeting. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board of County Commissioners Office. This petition and other pertinent information are kept on file and may be reviewed at the Growth Management Department, Zoning Division building located at 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida 34104. Please contact me at (239) 252-2931 or ericjohnson@colliergov.net to set up an appointment if you wish to review the file. Sincerely, j t 1�-- Eric L.Johnson,AICP,CFM,LEED Green Associate Principal Planner iiir _ y yyyy w as• i tl B $$$ $ Ria Q five © A i3- A ,,,� La0 = A iu J— R. ` kC awD4!I*jD A ! < c a v 11/ in o a n s, 0/0 0 W I -_-- 1 0afill11111'—÷ V ........[.:,.,iiilliiliOli .9. CARTNRIgIT LANE _ an = \R B 8 i C 7 A R gii:i: iii i is ex / avoa rioiservv�n ? � ;?iii ; L.. _ � qq R— m $ 5 _ —t R � i:iil} n. i s s 'ia \ oEtl woes casaeiiiiiiiiiiii!ii!i!iiiii!iNli in! iTi!iiiiiiii!iiiiiilaliii!!ill]]1 ;11 ft. au !n V Q�e __ s tl a Z 9u ` «. Y 7i p�'i; i:!ii'i a. Ci 7:' Q S .n of . i?iQ C ¢ Z m \ O:ii nN 71i. R . a iiia m e � � O a N. . N : i;i;iii; X ALtlEgRYLANE AIAR9leA PLAfE " Ailliiiiiiiii:ii9 A �j M � IIQ IIzI))B IB St-. 110 ,1. 2 I A� 0 E) a. N s J a 37N6 OL LON Q 0 a 9aNniwe 01 VNIAWLL 12PAINI_IIL:41 x«waNvai j wc.. O I.: [ 0 11.1 a. Z 1D 8l $ �'' AiSt ns`$ 11' 16 1_ /$ 1 yes U W �� J Z .. o n d V ]o9L'3L� ! - _ E__ � i __!Ai I ! v i I a.v ., `mn°sTOX conn i g g 0 `' jT1 ilL FIT 2 lig m i 0 OVOL NOL3ONIAll J g li Ell . _Mil U — 1 : 11 i 'gill in 16x I AI Ir iii i u 4,,,,.‘, z nb � i In IL. WARIA 311310000 .0.41"111--___25V Me_ i PI/ kb 9 ip A/41 I 4, 1 11 ::. F4qi. gu 4 !k! . k ATTACHMENT #5 Letters/Emails from Public Jk g'1 Ci { JohnsonEric From: GundlachNancy Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2016 9:15 AM To: ReischlFred; Smith Daniel; JohnsonEric; BeasleyRachel Cc: Bellows Ray; BosiMichael Subject: FW: The Enclave Project Good morning, Does the Enclave Project belong to you? If so, please respond to Mark Strain's email below. Sincerely, T 4 Nancy Gundlach,AICP, PLA# 1244 Principal Planner,Zoning Services Growth Management Department 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 (239)252-2484 nancygundlach@colliergov.net ATTENTION: Be advised that under Florida's Government-in-the-Sunshine law,information contained within this email becomes public record,unless protected by specific exemption. The law provides a right of access to governmental proceedings and documents at both the state and local levels. There is also a constitutionally guaranteed right of access. For more Information on F this law,visit: Florida's Sunshine Law From:StrainMark Sent:Monday, May 16,2016 6:38 PM To:GundlachNancy<NancyGundlach@colliergov.net> Subject: FW:The Enclave Project Hi Nancy,please distribute this email as usual. Thanks, Mow*/ 239.252.4446 Under FLorida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-maiL address reLeased in response to a pubLic records request, do not send electronic maiL to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 1 From:Jindamugs@ aol.com [mailto:lindamugsPaol.com1 Sent Monday, May 16, 2016 12:02 PM To: StrainMark Subject:The Enclave Project Dear Mr. Strain I live in the Camden Lakes development and would like to express my concern about the possibility of a senior project going next door to me in North Naples.With also possible access to Learning Lane. We are very opposed to both issues.Single family homes are a better fit for our neighborhood,W-e have.a:good.family -- residential area and feel a Senior Housing project would be a disruption.A single family quality neighborhood where children could walk to school would be a great addition to our area and would be best for our property values. The developer is seeking access to Learning Lane which we feel would add more congestion to the road, putting our children who walk to school in jeopardy. In addition to that there are many cyclists and parents in cars taking their children to school. Add on the buses,and people going to work and Learning Lane and Livingston Road become extremely congested. The developer wants to use that entrance as secondary.We don't feel there is a need for it. Camden Lakes has one entrance,as does Milano, Barrington Cove, Livingston Lakes and Delasol. We hope you will support us and vote against both options. Sincerely, Linda Albenga Camden Lakes Under Florida Law,e-mail addresses are public records.If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request,do not send electronic mail to this entity.Instead,contact this office by telephone or in writing. 2 JohnsonEric From: birchtrio@aol.com Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2016 3:51 PM To: birchtrio@aol.com Cc: jwalorl@jhmi.edu; DeaneConnie; mcclosjo@collier.k12.fl.us Subject: Fwd: Collier County Schools VME and North Naples Middle nAttachments:.., thank.you 22516..pdf - . �H ,�..- ..,.. , .. _. . _.. ..... Dear Chairperson Walborn I have enclosed a thank you letter to Jodi Walborn,Chair, CTST.The letter is included for your review. It focuses upon student safety, and traffic on Learning Lane along Livingston Road.The letter mentions issues and possible solutions concerning the present,and the potential Enclave development just north of Learning Lane. I greatly appreciate if you notify me of any meeting so our community may attend and discuss the issues, while you investigate and help resolve this issue. Thank you Mike Azzolino, Temporary Chair-issues of Learning Lane; Camden Lakes Community birchtrio@aol.com 16328 Camden Lakes Circle Naples, FL 34110 � I 1 / Ac--51.-4/ r v ,r 130 Michael A. Azzolino Jr. birchtrio@aol.com 16328 Camden Lakes Circle 239 - 596 - 6746 Naples, FL 34110 February 8, 2016 Re: A petition to deny access to Learning Lane, and reduce the scope of the proposed development neighboring Camden Lakes. On September 9,2014, the county approved " Ordinance Number 14-34, which allows 114 single family or multi-family dwelling units or up to 350 group housing units for seniors." This was approved before most of us closed on our homes'. Most of us were never informed of this change from building a church and school, to building two different housing proposals. It is regrettable our community leaders never informed us of the changes to our neighboring property; My understanding is there are three areas where fellow residents can attempt to alter the possible plans, 1. To request that the developers and future owners not be allowed any street access to Learning Lane. 2. To request that the developers not be allowed to build above the 35 foot height level. 3. To request that the developers reduce the size of their project due to quality of life issues, namely an immense volume of traffic increase by owner, visitor, staff, and service vehicles, density of housing and parking lot areas, noise level, flood concerns, and the potential reduction of our property values. I know a number of residents have contacted Scott Brooks, the chairman of the CL board. I emailed my concerns to him, and followed up with a phone call today: Here is what I gathered. - Scott Brooks confirmed Pulte will change the Candidate meeting scheduled for February 16th to Februaryl5th. so residents can attend the Proposed Development meeting on February 16th at Vanderbilt Presbyterian Church on Immokalee. That meetings begins at 5:30 PM: The Candidate meeting on fyy February 15th will be held at the CL clubhouse, beginning at 6:00PM - Mr Brooks, or another Pulte employee, will represent the Camden Lakes board at the development meeting on Februaryl6th. He recommends CL residents attend the proposed development meeting to display a stronger support for our positions. if I pointed out to Mr. Brooks that the community should have had an election months ago if Pulte had properly followed the Florida Statutes. Mr. Brooks agreed. In fact, it was due to a 1119116 letter to the board that prompted them to announce an election process. We were due a resident representative upon obtaining 50% of property closings. I did take Mr. Brooks to task for placing our residents in the unfavorable position of not having a resident representative earlier. That resident representative would have had the opportunity to urge the board to examine the development issues, contacted the school district about their response, and could have aligned Camden Lakes with nearby community associations. Mr. Brooks acknowledged these points. It is the responsibility of the board to gather the facts, solicit our i{ opinions, and represent the community according to our majority opinion. He agreed. Due to time restrictions, I proposed that community residents be permitted to sign a petition which details objections we have concerning the proposed development. He agreed that if he received such a petition from us it would be included in Pulte's presentation at the February 16th meeting. In light of not having a resident board member, the community is forced to play catch up, to have our interests' recognized. The petition follows on the next page. I urge all to come together on this issue, and sign the petition for the benefit of our community. I will be at the Clubhouse on Tuesday, February 9, between 6PM and 8 PM, and again on Wednesday, February 10, between 6PM and 8 PM to collect signatures. Signed papers can also be left at my address - 16328 CLC. I will send a copy of the signed petition to Mr. Brooks on Thursday, February 11 , Thank you { PETITION - Page 8 I, the undersigned, am a homeowner in Camden Lakes, Naples, Florida 34110. My signature demonstrates my request that the following points be presented and used to limit the construction ofthe adjacent property along Livingston Road and Learning Lane. 1. To request the developers not be allowed any street access to Learning Lane. • 2. To request the developers not be allowed to build above the 35 foot height level. 3. To request the developers reduce the size of their project due to quality of life issues, namely; immense traffic increase, owner, visitor, staff, and service vehicle parking and traffic, destiny of housing lots and parking spaces, noise level, a decrease of our buffer zones, and reduction our property value. Property Owner's Name Address Signature ( Please Print ) ( Please Print ) :i. . , • i • 1 1 Camden Lakes ,.., February 18,2016 l! To: 5ridl.JOhnson Principal Planner' It GrOWth Management Department—Planning and Regulation Zoning DiVisiOn: ,-:•-,e.-----.----•--,:----- 28.00•North.:HorseshoeDriVe. - Naplet,FL 34104 From:Camden Lakes PrePerty OWnerS'AsSOCIation,Inc. , Re'RMC-Enclaveand Grace Romanian Baptist 1 Dear Mr.Johnson,. My name is.:Scott Brooks and I am the President of the Board of Directors for the:above named association located in North Naples at Livingston Road and(earning Lane., .. I The purpose of this correspondence it to share the Concerns of many homeowners in our 155 hoMetornmunityat li it pertains the rezoning ofthe parcel of land immediately to our north known as the RMC Enclave RPUD and Grace I Romanian Baptist Church of Naples CFPUD, The concerns that have been brought to my attention by many are listed below,. ii . . . 1. The potential interconnect on Learning Lane for the safety.of-the school children that attend North Naples Middle School the current residents.of Camden Lakes,the volume of increased traffic by owners,visitors-, • i i Staff,construction and service vehicles i 2. The potential of having hundreds of additional residences in close proximity'of the new Camden,Lakes . 1 community which may be incompatible with a single family neighborhood, 3. The potential to have mid7rite bUildingS10.hbuse a..50B onit'Assitted Living facility that will interfere with ! the quality of life:(from the noise, Construction traffic, dirt and,parking facilities) Of the Camden Lakes 1 l Community.. On On behalf of the residents of Camden takes i would like to request that restrictions to any rezoning of the area include:Limited access to Learning Lane with the ekeption of perhaps an emergency means of ingress and egress. only, no vertical building tO exceed 3$feet in height and that there be no reduction in the buffer between Our 1 properties or perhaps even an increased buffer to betterprotectthe existingsinglefamily"neghborhood.. Thank you In advance for taking these concerns of the residents of Camden Lakes into consideration during the planning proCets. . , Respectfully,, scat Brooks President,'Camden Lakes Property Owners'Association Cc;Sharon Umpenhour Mike Azzolino Tanya Bosco. Michael A. Azzolino Jr. birchtrio@aol.com 16328 Camden Lakes Circle 239 - 596 - 6746 Naples, FL 34110 February 25, 2016 Jodi Walborn, Chair, CTST Re: Student, School, and traffic safety on Learning Lane Dear Chairperson Walborn Thank you for allowing me to attend your CTST meeting today to express Camden ;e Lakes Community's concerns regarding the potential Enclave development north of Learning Lane, off Livingston Road, and the effect it will pose to student safety, and school traffic issues. Thank you for allowing my daughter,Julie A. Cody, to have her letter, and the two maps I brought of the development area to be part of committee's record as CTST investigates the best safety and traffic solution for all. I was met by a receptive group, open to discussion at many levels, which provided with me information of past practices concerning similar issues. I came away from the meeting encouraged that a professional, experienced, government group recognizes our concerns, as they continue to obtain the best scenario regarding the safety issues raised. Some topics discussed were: - The vast volume of school associated traffic, the number of student walkers, both from the elementary and middle schools, the question of the best student crossing stations, and the use of volunteer crossing guards. - The examination of having a walker and bike only path if the new development has 162 single family homes using an adjacent parking lot for student drop off at the western end of Leaning Lane. - My belief the best north bound exit for any Enclave development is the use of the Fire House traffic light being fully utilized. ( Both of the developer's plans include two south bound points to Livingston Road. ) Mr. MCCloskey raised interesting points if the age 55 and older senior living development was built. That plan calls for 500 door units. Ms. Deane's words were reassuring, and in fact, all members were agreeable to work with our community, and other neighborhoods, as CTST works toward a best case solution. Thank you again, for understanding our concerns. Sincerely M. Azzolino Jr. Cc Johnson Eric From: Scott Brooks <scott.brooks@pultegroup.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 12:00 PM To: JohnsonEric Cc: BellowsRay; BosiMichael Subject: RE: RMC-Enclave/Grace Romanian Baptist Church Mr. Johnson, Thanks for the reply and for including my letter in the package for the Planning Commission. I'm sorry I was unable to attend last night's meeting, however; I am sure we had a showing of residents from Camden Lakes. Hopefully they received the information they were seeking and were able to gain a better understanding of the process. Sincerely, Scott Brooks From:JohnsonEric(mailto:EricJohnson@colliergov.net] Sent:Tuesday, February 16,2016 1:25 PM To:Scott Brooks<scott.brooks@pultegroup.com> Cc: BellowsRay<RayBellows@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael<MichaelBosi@colliergov.net> Subject FW: RMC-Enclave/Grace Romanian Baptist Church Mr.Brooks, Thank you for your comments. I will print your email and its attachment,and they will become part of the packet that is reviewed by the Collier County Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners. I also want to let you know that tonight at 5:30pm is the neighborhood information meeting(NIM)at Vanderbilt Presbyterian Church at 1225 Piper Blvd. At the NIM,you'll be to voice your concerns and ask the petitioner questions that you may have. I encourage you to attend. Respectfully, Eric L.Johnson,AICP,CFM Principal Planner Growth Management Department-Planning&Regulation Zoning Division-Zoning Services Section 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples,FL 34104 phone:239-252-2931 fax: 239-252-6503 LEER GREEN CAT County A.SSOCIA1 1 From:Scott Brooks [mailto:scott.brooks@pultegroup.com] Sent:Monday, February 15,2016 3:05 PM To:JohnsonEric<EricJohnson@colliergov.net> Cc:SUmpenhour�a gradyminor.com; birchtrio@aol.com;Tanya Bosco<tanya.bosco@gmail.com>; bnprins@yahoo.com Subject: RMC-Enclave/Grace Romanian Baptist Church Mr. Johnson, Please find the attached letter regarding the future development of the subject area listed above. Please give this your upmost consideration as plans for this area move forward. Sincerely, Scott Brooks President, Camden Lakes Property Owners' Association, Inc. f: liPuiteGroup sus Director DRE/HOA/Golf Course Operations Southwest Florida Division 24311 Walden Center Drive,Suite 300 Bonita Springs,Florida 34134 office 239.495.4800 I direct 239.495.4884 fax 239.495.4898 scott.brooksPpu Reg roup.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s).Any review,use,distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited.If you have received this communication in error,please notify the sender immediately by email and delete the message and any file attachments from your computer.Thank you. Under Florida Law,e-mail addresses are public records.If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request,do not sand electronic mail to this entity.Instead,contact this office by telephone or In writing. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s).Any review,use,distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited.If you have received this communication in error,please notify the sender immediately by email and delete the message and any file attachments from your computer.Thank you. 2 fi JohnsonEric From: Scott Brooks <scott.brooks@pultegroup.com> Sent: Monday, February 15, 2016 3:05 PM To: JohnsonEric Cc: SUmpenhour@gradyminor.com; birchtrio@aol.com; Tanya Bosco; bnprins@yahoo.com Subject: - RMC-Enclave/Grace Romanian Baptist Church,.,,,.:_. ii Attachments: Letter for CL.pdf i Mr. Johnson, Please find the attached letter regarding the future development of the subject area listed above. ii Please give this your upmost consideration as plans for this area move forward. Sincerely, Scott Brooks President, Camden Lakes Property Owners' Association, Inc. IPuIteGou D- Sc&a Director DRE/H0A/Golf Course Operations Southwest Florida Division 24311 Walden Center Drive,Suite 300 Bonita Springs,Florida 34134 office 239.495.4800 I direct 239.495.4884 fax 239.495.4898 scott.brooks@ Duitegroun.Com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE'This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s).Any review,use,distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited.If you have received this communication in error,please notify the sender immediately by email and delete the message and any file attachments from your computer.Thank you. 1 Camden Lakes February 13,2016 To: Eric L.Johnson Principal Planner Growth Management Department—Planning and Regulation Zoning Division 2800 North Horseshoe.Drive Naples,FL 34104 From:Camden Lakes Property Owners'Association,Inc. Re:RMC-Enclave and Grace Romanian Baptist Dear Mr.Johnson, My name is Scott Brooks and I am the President of the Board of Directors for the above named association located in North Naples at Livingston Road and Learning Lane. The purpose of this correspondence is to share the concerns of many homeowners in our 156 home community as it it pertains the rezoning of the parcel of land immediately to our north known as the RMC-Enclave RPUD and Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples CFPUD. The concerns that have been brought to my attention by many are listed below; 1. The potential interconnect on Learning Lane for the safety of the school children that attend North Naples Middle School,the current residents of Camden Lakes,the volume of increased traffic by owners,visitors, staff,construction and service vehicles. 2. The potential of having hundreds of additional residences in close proximity of the new Camden Lakes community which may be incompatible with a single family neighborhood. 3. The potential to have mid-rise buildings to house a 500 unit Assisted Living facility that will Interfere with the quality of life (from the noise, construction traffic, dirt and parking facilities) of the Camden Lakes Community. On behalf of the residents of Camden Lakes I would like to request that restrictions to any rezoning of the area include:Limited access to Learning Lane with the exception of perhaps an emergency means of ingress and egress only, no vertical building to exceed 35 feet in height and that there be no reduction in the buffer between our properties or perhaps even an increased buffer to better protect the existing single family neighborhood. Thank you in advance for taking these concerns of the residents of Camden Lakes into consideration during the planning process. Respectfully, Scott Brooks President,Camden Lakes Property Owners'Association Cc: Sharon Umpenhour Mike Azzolino Tanya Bosco • JohnsonEric From: Julie Anne Cody <julieanne1225@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 10:44 PM To: DeaneConnie Cc: jwalborl @jhmi.edu; JohnsonEric Subject: Re: Contacts for Community Traffic Safety Team Meeting (CTST) and . .the-proposed-Enclave development w..:,>._.. Good Evening Connie, r' Thank you so much for speaking with me today. I appreciate your patience and assistance.I did speak with Judy and she was also very helpful. I will be reaching to Eric tomorrow. I hope we can all work together to reach a solution. Thanks for you time, Julie Cody 1 Sent from my iPhone On Feb 17, 2016, at 5:35 PM, DeaneConnie<ConnieDeane@colliergov.net>wrote: Hi Julie: r Thanks for calling today and inquiring on the Community Traffic Safety Team Meeting (CTST) and the proposed Enclave development. In regard to CTST, I have learned the contact is Jodi Walborn. Her contact info is 738-3155 and iwalborl@ihmi.edu I have also spoken to her and have copied her on this message. She said she had spoken to you and to let you know that she is also the Safe Routes to School Community Educator. In regard to the proposed Enclave development,as you and I discussed the county staff person to talk to is Principal Planner Eric Johnson. His contact info is 252-2931 and EricJohnsonCacolliergov.net I am also copying Eric on this email. If I may be of further assistance please don't hesitate to contact me. Kind regardr, Connie Deane Community Liaison Communiy and Media Relations Section Collier County Growth Management Department 2885 S. Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 conniedeane@colliergov.net 239.252.8192 (main) 239.252.8365(desk) Under Florida Law,e-mail addresses are public records.It you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request,do not send electronic mail to this entity.Instead,contact this office by telephone or in writing. 1 JohnsonEric From: Julie Anne <julieanne1225@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 3:15 PM To: Johnson Eric; curatoka@collierschools.com Cc: Julie &Alan Cody; Jodi Walborn; DeaneConnie;walk@hhp.ufl.edu; ogilvida@collierschools.com; mcclosjo@collierschools.com; �..., aichteke@collierschoals.com; donale@collierschools.com; .., . , spraguju@collierschools.com; terryro@collierschools.com; patton@collierschools.com; turchg@collierschools.com; stumpda@collierschools.com; spencero@collierschools.com; morsell @collierschools.com; kutzt@collierschools.com; kincaije@collierschools.com; mitevte@collierschools.com; fishbj@collierschools.com;jacksoma@collierschools.com; franklda@collierschools.com; EastmaTh@collierschools.com Subject: Collier County Schools VME and North Naples Middle Good Afternoon, My name is Julie Cody and I live in Camden Lakes. I am a wife, a mother, a daughter, and a Collier County resident. I have a bachelor's degree in Communications and Education, a master's degree in Counseling, and certifications in Supervision and Director of Guidance/Administration. I moved to Florida almost two years ago. Prior to that I lived in New Jersey and worked for a Public University in the Educational Leadership Department. I also worked as a middle and high school guidance counselor before relocating to Florida for my husband's job. I'm telling you my background so you understand my intentions of this letter. Working in the school system and also going through my own schooling, has given me a keen appreciation for education. My husband and I specifically chose this area of Naples because of the school ratings. We could get the house we wanted for the price we could afford and our daughter would be in an A rated school zone. I am very impressed with what I have seen and heard regarding the quality of teaching at VME and North Naples and that can be attributed to the strong leadership in both schools. My daughter will probably attend VME in a few years and after that, North Naples. It is my hope that these schools continue the high levels of academic rigor and that their students continue to thrive in a safe environment. I along with many of my neighbors in Camden Lakes, recently found out that a senior community of approximately 500 dwellings is most likely going to be built adjacent to North Naples Middle School, located in between Livingston Road and Learning Lane. I understand Collier County is rapidly expanding and welcome the new opportunities and people that will be drawn to the area; however, I had concerns when I first learned of the expansion and they quickly escalated when I found out the new community was interested in using Learning Lane as their entrance. Many community members in Camden Lakes gathered together to see what we could do to protect Learning Lane. I along with many others, attended the community meeting held last week at Vanderbilt Presbyterian and learned that the county and builder have the option to build either a senior residence building of 500 units or a community of approximately 160 single family homes. We were told if a community was built, house prices would be comparable to our neighborhood, meaning they would range from the high $300's to the high $800's. In my opinion, a family-friendly neighborhood that is within the 2-mile school zone (which means future students would not require a bus to elementary, middle, or possibly the high school that may be built in the future) seems like a better suited community for the area. If the senior building is built, I am assuming it could house approximately 700 to 1,000 residents. I can't help but think of all the traffic that would generate. The volume of vehicles on Learning Lane would drastically increase and would continue even after building is completed. Residential traffic, workers, moving trucks, repair trucks, health care providers, lawn and pool maintenance, UPS, furniture deliveries, and various other vendors would constantly be coming in and out of the community via.Learning•Lane-the•road our--students•walk on-everyday <I have concerns,about.the.: impact of emergency vehicles that may need to get to the residents in the senior community. If an ambulance needed to get in and had to use Learning Lane, it may have a very hard time doing so during school drop off and pick up hours. That does not seem fair to anyone, especially those in need of medical attention. I also have concerns about the noise of the sirens and how that could potentially distract from instruction and learning, not to mention the impact it could have during state testing, especially for students who struggle with concentration. I understand Collier County is a supporter of the University of Florida's Walking School Bus Program. Many students in our area, as young as 6, are not provided with a bus so they must walk on Learning Lane to school. I am an advocate for walking but I fear the potential hazards these children may face, and as a consequence, the potential liability the district could face if Learning Lane is opened up to a new community. I can't help but to worry about the groups of children I see walking Learning Lane (whether it's after school dismissal or after their after school program) often times they have earbuds in and are texting or playing on their phones. I know they should be more cognizant of their surroundings, but kids are kids, and right now they are on a fairly safe street. If Learning Lane becomes the entrance to the new community, would a crossing guard be implemented to help assist with their safety? Would our elementary students be provided with a bus?Who would inform the parents that their children's safe school road was being shared by a senior community with construction vehicles? Opening Learning Lane up to such a large community may present dangers for our children and drivers who use the road. School employees and parents that travel on Learning Lane are familiar with the traffic and congestion that already exists during start time and dismissal. I worry that their vehicles may be subjected to damage on a daily basis; I would hate to see a school employee or parent start their day with a flat tire because of construction debris in the road. I am also concerned about Learning Lane itself. Currently there are speed bumps and stop signs on the road. If Learning Lane is the entrance point, trucks and tractors would be on the road each and every day wearing down the speed bumps. Who would be responsible for the repair of the roads?Who would enforce the 20 mph speed limit? I fear the potential hazards that could exist to the students walking on their school road. Learning Lane is a tobacco free and drug and alcohol free zone. Who would ensure that it remains that way? It is my understanding that there are two other possible entrance points for the senior community that may be built, one being on Livingston Road (directly across from the fire station and ambulance headquarters). There is a light there now; in my opinion, that seems like a much more convenient access point. Not only does it keep our children safe on Learning Lane, but it also provides for easier access to those going to and from the new community. I am writing to Mrs. Kathleen Curatolo because I believe as school board member of district two, you have a strong influence and interest of every student, parent, and teacher at VME and North Naples. I am also writing to Mr. Eric Johnson, because you held the community meeting last week and have an impact on our county. I have copied many other people on this email as well because I 2 feel they are also vested in our community and our students. I am only speaking for myself in this letter, but as you know many homeowners in Camden Lakes signed a petition against having Learning Lane as the access point for the new community. My hope is that we can all bring some perspective to this decision. We have the power to keep Learning Lane safe by not allowing it as an access point for the possible senior community of 500 dwellings. If access via Learning Lane is granted and problems arise, there is no going back in time. I am sorry for the long email, but I had to express my concerns. I want to know that I did everything in my power to protect our students in District Two. I would think that every builder, county official, school administrator, and homeowner 4r,:.,.would.agree-that-you cannot-put:a price-tag on the.safety,of-children,,_ , ,...:;kr. „-,,.— : ,�...... ,.._.,::..-. .. . Children learn best when they feel safe. Let's all work together to make sure our students continue to feel safe on their way to and from school. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Julie Cody 3 JohnsonEric From: Julie Anne Cody <julieanne1225@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 4:35 PM To: JohnsonEric Subject: Re: Collier County Schools VME and North Naples Middle Hi Eric, Thank you for getting back to me, I appreciate your quick response. I look forward to seeing some of the responses from those you forwarded this to. If you need to speak with me,my cell phone is(973)715-6688. Thanks again, Julie Sent from my iPhone On Feb 22, 2016, at 5:51 PM,JohnsonEric<EricJohnson@colliergov.net>wrote: Ms. Cody, • Thank you for your email. I'm pleased that you attended the Neighborhood Information Meeting(NIM) last week with regards to the project known as RMC Enclave and Grace Romanian Baptist Church (PUDA-PL20150001613). The NIM is one of the best forums for concerned residents and property owners to voice their concerns directly to the agent,Mr. D.Wayne Arnold, who represents the applicant, Enclave—Livingston,LLC. For your edification(and everyone who receives this email),I attached the Master Plan and the proposed changes to the PUD Document. I also wanted to let you know that I will be forwarding your email to the applicant's agent(who may or may not respond),the County Transportation Planner to whom this project was assigned,as well as our point-of-contact for the School District. As I receive answers to your questions from them,I will then,in turn,forward them to you, As always,your email is now part of the public record and will be included in the back up material,which will be reviewed by the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC)and Board of County Commissioners (BCC). Feel free to contact me anytime. Thank you. Respectfully, Eric L.Johnson,AICP,CFM Principal Planner Growth Management Department-Planning&Regulation Zoning Division-Zoning Services Section 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples,FL 34104 phone: 239-252-2931 fax: 239-252-6503 <image001.png><I ma ge002.png> fr 3{, From:Julie Anne [mailto:lulieanne1225@yahoo.com] Sent:Monday, February 22, 2016 3:15 PM To:JohnsonEric<Ericlohnson@colliergov.net>;curatoka@collierschools.com Cc:Julie&Alan Cody<julieanne1225@yahoo.com>;Jodi Walborn<iwalborl@ihmi.edu>; DeaneConnie <ConnieDeane@colliergov.net>;walk@hho.ufl.edu;osilvida@collierschools.com; mcclosio@collierschools.com;Jichteke@@collierschools.com;.dohale@collierschools.com; _ - spraguiu@collierschools.com;terryro@collierschools.com;patton@collierschools.com; turchg@collierschools.com; stumpda@collierschools.com;spencero@collierschools.com; morsell@collierschools.com; kutzt@collierschools.com; kincaiie@collierschools.com; mitevte@collierschools.com;fishbj@collierschools.com;iacksoma@collierschools.com; franklda@collierschools.com; EastmaTh@collierschools.com Subject:Collier County Schools VME and North Naples Middle Good Afternoon, My name is Julie Cody and I live in Camden Lakes. I am a wife, a mother, a daughter, and a Collier County resident. I have a bachelor's degree in Communications and Education, a master's degree in Counseling, and certifications in Supervision and Director of Guidance/Administration. I moved to Florida almost two years ago. Prior to that I lived in New Jersey and worked for a Public University in the Educational Leadership Department. I also worked as a middle and high school guidance counselor before relocating to Florida for my husband's job. I'm telling you my background so you understand my intentions of this letter. Working in the school system and also goingthrough myown schooling, has given me a keen 9 appreciation for education. My husband and I specifically chose this area of Naples because of the school ratings. We could get the house we wanted for the price we could afford and our daughter would be in an A rated school zone. I am very impressed with what I have seen and heard regarding the quality of teaching at VME and North Naples and that can be attributed to the strong leadership in both schools. My daughter will probably attend VME in a few years and after that, North Naples. It is my hope that these schools continue the high levels of academic rigor and that their students continue to thrive in a safe environment. I along with many of my neighbors in Camden Lakes, recently found out that a senior community of approximately 500 dwellings is most likely going to be built adjacent to North Naples Middle School, located in between Livingston Road and Learning Lane. I understand Collier County is rapidly expanding and welcome the new opportunities and people that will be drawn to the area; however, I had concerns when I first learned of the expansion and they quickly escalated when I found out the new community was interested in using Learning Lane as their entrance. Many community members in Camden Lakes gathered together to see what we could do to protect Learning Lane. I along with many others, attended the community meeting held last week at Vanderbilt Presbyterian and learned that the county and builder have the option to build either a senior residence building of 500 units or a community of approximately 160 single family homes. We were told if a community was built, house prices would be comparable to our neighborhood, meaning they would range from the high $300's to the high $800's. In my opinion, a family-friendly neighborhood that is within the 2-mile school zone 2 (which means future students would not require a bus to elementary, middle, or possibly the high school that may be built in the future) seems like a better suited community for the area. If the senior building is built, I am assuming it could house approximately 700 to 1,000 residents. I can't help but think of all the traffic that would generate. The volume of vehicles on Learning Lane would drastically increase and would continue even after building is completed. Residential traffic, workers, moving trucks, repair trucks, health - care providers, lawn•a•nd-pool•rnaintena-nce, UPS,furniture deliveries, andwarious vendors would constantly be coming in and out of the community via Learning Lane, the road our students walk on every day. I have concerns about the impact of emergency vehicles that may need to get to the residents in the senior community. If an ambulance needed to get in and had to use Learning Lane, it may have a very hard time doing so during school drop off and pick up hours. That does not seem fair to anyone, especially those in need of medical attention. I also have concerns about the noise of the sirens and how that could potentially distract from instruction and learning, not to mention the impact it could have during state testing, especially for students who struggle with concentration. I understand Collier County is a supporter of the University of Florida's Walking School Bus Program. Many students in our area, as young as 6, are not provided with a bus so they must walk on Learning Lane to school. I am an advocate for walking but I fear the potential hazards these children may face, and as a consequence, the potential liability the district could face if Learning Lane is opened up to a new community. I can't help but to worry about the groups of children I see walking Learning Lane (whether it's after school dismissal or after their after school program) often times they have earbuds in and are texting or playing on their phones. I know they should be more cognizant of their surroundings, but kids are kids, and right now they are on a fairly safe street. If Learning Lane becomes the entrance to the new community, would a crossing guard be implemented to help assist with their safety? Would our elementary students be provided with a bus? Who would inform the parents that their children's safe school road was being shared by a senior community with construction vehicles? Opening Learning Lane up to such a large community may present dangers for our children and drivers who use the road. School employees and parents that travel on Learning Lane are familiar with the traffic and congestion that already exists during start time and dismissal. I worry that their vehicles may be subjected to damage on a daily basis; I would hate to see a school employee or parent start their day with a flat tire because of construction debris in the road. I am also concerned about Learning Lane itself. Currently there are speed bumps and stop signs on the road. If Learning Lane is the entrance point, trucks and tractors would be on the road each and every day wearing down the speed bumps. Who would be responsible for the repair of the roads? Who would enforce the 20 mph speed limit? I fear the potential hazards that could exist to the students walking on their school road. Learning Lane is a tobacco free and drug and alcohol free zone. Who would ensure that it remains that way? It is my understanding that there are two other possible entrance points for the senior community that may be built, one being on Livingston Road (directly across from the fire station and ambulance headquarters). There is a light there now; in my opinion, that seems like a much more convenient access point. Not only does it keep our children 3 safe on Learning Lane, but it also provides for easier access to those going to and from the new community. I am writing to Mrs. Kathleen Curatolo because I believe as school board member of district two, you have a strong influence and interest of every student, parent, and teacher at VME and North Naples. I am also writing to Mr. Eric Johnson, because you held the community meeting last week and have an impact on our county. I have copied many other people on this email as well because I feel they are also vested in our Y= community and our students. l-am only-speaking-for myself-in this:letter, but•as you.= :, know many homeowners in Camden Lakes signed a petition against having Learning Lane as the access point for the new community. My hope is that we can all bring some perspective to this decision. We have the power to keep Learning Lane safe by not allowing it as an access point for the possible senior community of 500 dwellings. If access via Learning Lane is granted and problems arise, there is no going back in time. I am sorry for the long email, but I had to express my concerns. I want to know that I did everything in my power to protect our students in District Two. I would think that every builder, county official, school administrator, and homeowner would agree that you cannot put a price tag on the safety of children. Children learn best when they feel safe. Let's all work together to make sure our students continue to feel safe on their way to and from school. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Julie Cody Under Florida Law,e-mail addresses are public records.If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request,do not send electronic mail to this entity.Instead,contact this office by telephone or in writing. <15 Exhibit C -MP-2015 (11x17).pdf> <14 RMC-Enclave Exhibits A-F 2015.pdf> 4 1 JohnsonEric From: Julie Anne Cody <julieanne1225©yahoo.com> Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2016 9:29 AM To: JohnsonEric Subject: Re: Collier County Schools VME and North Naples Middle 16r,..i 2 is 1TC..%•o _, :...:.,_. _., . �....� ,.... „ , ,, -, Good morning Yes he did send an email with his phone number. I will be reaching out to him tomorrow. Thanks Julie Sent from my iPhone ?: 1 On Feb 26,2016, at 1:22 PM,JohnsonEric<Ericiohnson@colliergov.net>wrote: Did Mr. Eastman from the School District contact you? Eric Johnson Principal Planner From:Julie Anne Cody lmailto:iulieanne1225@ vahoo.coml Sent:Wednesday, February 24,2016 4:35 PM To:JohnsonEric<EricJohnson@colliergov.net> Subject: Re:Collier County Schools VME and North Naples Middle Hi Eric, Thank you for getting back to me,I appreciate your quick response. I look forward to seeing some of the responses from those you forwarded this to. If you need to speak with me,my cell phone is (973)715-6688. Thanks again, Julie Sent from my iPhone On Feb 22, 2016, at 5:51 PM,JohnsonEric<EricJohnson@colliergov.net> wrote: Ms. Cody, Thank you for your email. I'm pleased that you attended the Neighborhood Information Meeting(NIM)last week with regards to the project known as RMC Enclave and Grace Romanian Baptist Church(PUDA-PL20150001613). The NIM is one of the best forums for concerned residents and property owners to voice their concerns directly to the agent, Mr. D. Wayne Arnold,who represents the applicant,Enclave—Livingston,LLC. For your edification (and everyone who receives this email),I attached the Master Plan and the proposed changes to the PUD Document. I also wanted to let you know that I will be forwarding your email to the applicant's agent(who may or may not respond),the County Transportation Planner to whom this project was assigned,as well as our point- 1 of-contact for the School District. As I receive answers to your questions from them,I will then,in turn,forward them to you. As always,your email is now part of the public record and will be included in the back up material,which will be reviewed by the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) and Board of County Commissioners (BCC). Feel free to contact me anytime. Thank you. Respectfully; . .. Eric L.Johnson,AICP,CFM Principal Planner Growth Management Department-Planning&Regulation Zoning Division-Zoning Services Section 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples,FL 34104 phone: 239-252-2931 fax:239-252-6503 <image001.png><image002.png> From:Julie Anne [mailto:iulieanne1225@vahoo.coml Sent:Monday, February 22,2016 3:15 PM To:JohnsonEric<EricJohnson@colliergov.net>;curatoka@collierschools.com Cc:Julie&Alan Cody<julieanne1225@vahoo.com>;Jodi Walborn <jwalborl@ihmi.edu>;DeaneConnie<ConnieDeane@colliereov.net>; walk@hhp.ufl.edu;ogilvida@collierschools.com;mcclosio@coliierschools.com; Iichteke@collierschools.com;donale@collierschools.com;spraguiu@collierschools.com; terrvro@collierschools.com;patton@collierschools.com;turchg@collierschools.com; stumpda@collierschools.com;spencero@collierschools.com; morsell@collierschools.com;kutzt@collierschools.com;kincaile@collierschools.com; mitevte@collierschools.com;fishbi@collierschools.com;jacksoma@collierschools.com; franklda@collierschools.com; EastmaTh@collierschools.com Subject:Collier County Schools VME and North Naples Middle Good Afternoon, My name is Julie Cody and I live in Camden Lakes. I am a wife, a mother, a daughter, and a Collier County resident. I have a bachelor's degree in Communications and Education, a master's degree in Counseling, and certifications in Supervision and Director of Guidance/Administration. I moved to Florida almost two years ago. Prior to that I lived in New Jersey and worked for a Public University in the Educational Leadership Department. I also worked as a middle and high school guidance counselor before relocating to Florida for my husband's job. 2 I'm telling you my background so you understand my intentions of this letter. Working in the school system and also going through my own schooling, has given me a keen appreciation for education. My husband and I specifically chose this area of Naples because of the school ratings. We could get the house we wanted for the price we could afford and our daughter would be in an A rated school zone. I am very impressed with c what I have seen and heard regarding the quality of teaching at VME and North Naples and that can be attributed to the strong leadership in both schools. My:daughter.will probably attend VME in a few years and after that, North Naples. It is my hope that these schools continue the high levels of academic rigor and that their students continue to thrive in a safe environment. I along with many of my neighbors in Camden Lakes, recently found out that a senior community of approximately 500 dwellings is most likely going to be built adjacent to North Naples Middle School, located in between Livingston Road and Learning Lane. I understand Collier County is rapidly expanding and welcome the new opportunities and people that will be drawn to the area; however, I had concerns when I first learned of the expansion and they quickly escalated when I found out the new community was interested in using Learning Lane as their entrance. Many community members in Camden Lakes gathered together to see what we could do to protect Learning Lane. I along with many others, attended the community meeting held last week at Vanderbilt Presbyterian and learned that the county and builder have the option to build either a senior residence building of 500 units or a community of approximately 160 single family homes. We were told if a community was built, house prices would be comparable to our neighborhood, meaning they would range from the high $300's to the high $800's. In my opinion, a family-friendly neighborhood that is within the 2-mile school zone (which means future students would not require a bus to elementary, middle, or possibly the high school that may be built in the future) seems like a better suited community for the area. If the senior building is built, I am assuming it could house approximately 700 to 1,000 residents. I can't help but think of all the traffic that would generate. The volume of vehicles on Learning Lane would drastically increase and would continue even after building is completed. Residential traffic, workers, moving trucks, repair trucks, health care providers, lawn and pool maintenance, UPS, furniture deliveries, and various other vendors would constantly be coming in and out of the community via Learning Lane, the road our students walk on every day. I have concerns about the impact of emergency vehicles that may need to get to the residents in the senior community. If an ambulance needed to get in and had to use Learning Lane, it may have a very hard time doing so during school drop off and pick up hours. That does not seem fair to anyone, especially those in need of medical attention. I also have concerns about the noise of the sirens and how that could potentially distract from instruction and learning, not to mention the impact it could have during state testing, especially for students who struggle with concentration. 3 II3 I understand Collier County is a supporter of the University of Florida's Walking School Bus Program. Many students in our area, as young as 6, are not provided with a bus so they must walk on Learning Lane to school. I am an advocate for walking but I fear the potential hazards these children may face, and as a consequence, the potential liability the district could face if Learning Lane is opened up to a new community. I can't help but to worry about the groups of children I see walking Learning Lane (whether it's after school dismissal or after their after school program) -often times.-they have earbudsIn and are texting or playing:on their:: phones. I know they should be more cognizant of their surroundings, but kids are kids, and right now they are on a fairly safe street. If Learning Lane becomes the entrance to the new community, would a crossing guard be implemented to help assist with their safety? Would our elementary students be provided with a bus?Who would inform the parents that their children's safe school road was being shared by a senior community with construction vehicles? Opening Learning Lane up to such a large community may present dangers for our children and drivers who use the road. School employees and parents that travel on Learning Lane are familiar with the traffic and congestion that already exists during start time and dismissal. I worry that their vehicles may be subjected to damage on a daily basis; I would hate to see a school employee or parent start their day with a flat tire because of construction debris in the road. I am also concerned about Learning Lane itself. Currently there are speed bumps and stop signs on the road. If Learning Lane is the entrance point, trucks and tractors would be on the road each and every day wearing down the speed bumps. Who would be responsible for the repair of the roads?Who would enforce the 20 mph speed limit? I fear the potential hazards that could exist to the students walking on their school road. Learning Lane is a tobacco free and drug and alcohol free zone. Who would ensure that it remains that way? It is my understanding that there are two other possible entrance points for the senior community that may be built, one being on Livingston Road (directly across from the fire station and ambulance headquarters). There is a light there now; in my opinion, that seems like a much more convenient access point. Not only does it keep our children safe on Learning Lane, but it also provides for easier access to those going to and from the new community. I am writing to Mrs. Kathleen Curatolo because I believe as school board member of district two, you have a strong influence and interest of every student, parent, and teacher at VME and North Naples. I am also writing to Mr. Eric Johnson, because you held the community meeting last week and have an impact on our county. I have copied many other people on this email as well because I feel they are also vested in our community and our students. I am only speaking for myself in this letter, but as you know many homeowners in Camden Lakes signed a petition against having Learning Lane as the access point for the new community. My hope is that we can all bring some perspective to this decision. We have the power to keep Learning Lane safe by not allowing it as an access 4 point for the possible senior community of 500 dwellings. If access via Learning Lane is granted and problems arise, there is no going back in time. I am sorry for the long email, but I had to express my concerns. I want to know that I did everything in my power to protect our students in District Two. I would think that every builder, county official, school administrator, and homeowner would agree that you cannot put a price tag on the safety of children. Y • Children learn.best when they,feel safe,Let's work together.to make sure our students continue to feel safe on their way to and from school. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Julie Cody Under Florida Law,e-mail addresses are public records.If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request,do not send electronic mail to this entity.Instead,contact this office by telephone or in writing. <15 Exhibit C -MP-2015 (11x17).pdf> <14 RMC-Enclave Exhibits A-F 2015.A df> 5 [ { JohnsonEric From: Julie Anne <julieanne1225@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 4:33 PM To: JohnsonEric Subject: Re: Collier County Schools VME and North Naples Middle Good Afternoon Eric, Thanks for checking in. On Monday, March 28, 2016 6:08 PM,JohnsonEric<EricJohnson@colliergov.net>wrote: Good evening Julie. I'm going through my emails. Is there anything that you would like me to personally follow up on? Eric Johnson Principal Planner From:Julie Anne Cody[mailto:julieanne1225@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2016 9:29 AM To: JohnsonEric<EricJohnson@colliergov.net> Subject: Re: Collier County Schools VME and North Naples Middle Good morning Yes he did send an email with his phone number. I will be reaching out to him tomorrow. Thanks Julie Sent from my iPhone On Feb 26, 2016, at 1:22 PM, JohnsonEric<EricJohnson@colliergov.net>wrote: Did Mr. Eastman from the School District contact you? Eric Johnson Principal Planner From:Julie Anne Cody[mailto:iulieanne1225@vahoo.com] Sent:Wednesday, February 24, 2016 4:35 PM To: JohnsonEric<EricJohnson@colliergov.net> Subject: Re: Collier County Schools VME and North Naples Middle Hi Eric, Thank you for getting back to me, I appreciate your quick response. I look forward to seeing some of the responses from those you forwarded this to. If you need to speak with me, my cell phone is (973) 715-6688. Thanks again, } Julie Sent from my iPhone On Feb 22, 2016, at 5:51 PM, JohnsonEric <EricJohnson@ycollierbov.net> wrote: Ms. Cody, Thank ufY pleased d u attended the Neighborhoode o Information you Meeting NM) Istweek that regards to the project known as RMC Enclave and Grace Romanian Baptist Church (PUDA-PL20150001613). The NIM is one of the best forums for concerned residents and property owners to voice their concerns directly to the agent, Mr. D. Wayne Arnold, who represents the applicant, Enclave—Livingston, LLC. For your edification (and everyone who receives this email), I attached the Master Plan and the proposed changes to the PUD Document. I also wanted to let you know that I will be forwarding your email to the applicant's agent (who may or may not respond), the County Transportation Planner to whom this project was assigned, as well as our point-of-contact for the School District. As I receive answers to your questions from them, I will then, in turn,forward them to you. As always, your email is now part of the public record and will be included in the back up material, which will be reviewed by the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) and Board of County Commissioners (BCC). Feel free to contact me anytime. Thank you. Respectfully, Eric L. Johnson, AICP, CFM Principal Planner Growth Management Department- Planning & Regulation Zoning Division -Zoning Services Section 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 phone: 239-252-2931 fax: 239-252-6503 <image001.png><image002.png> From:Julie Annetmailto:iulieannel225@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 3:15 PM To:JohnsonEric<EricJohnson@colliergov.net>;curatoka@collierschools.com Cc: Julie &Alan Cody<julieanne1225@vahoo.com>;Jodi Walborn <iwalborl@jhmi.edu>; DeaneConnie<ConnieDeane@colliergov.net>; walk@hhp.ufl.edu;ogilvida@collierschools.com; mcclosio@collierschools.com; lichteke@collierschools.com;donale@collierschools.com; spraquiu@collierschools.com;terrvro@collierschools.com; patton@collierschools.com;turchq@collierschools.com; 2 stumodaPcollierschools.com; spenceroPcollierschools.com; morsel1@ collierschools.com; kutztPcollierschools.com; kincaijePcollierschools.com; mitevtePcollierschools.com; fishbiPcollierschools.com;jacksomaPcollierschools.com; frankldaPcollierschools.com; EastmaThacollierschools.com Subject: Collier County Schools VME and North Naples Middle Good Afternoon, My name IS Julie COdy and I live in Camden Lakes. I am a wife, a mother, a daughter, and a Collier Countyresident. I have a bachelor's degree in Communications and Education, a master's degree in Counseling, and certifications in Supervision and Director of Guidance/Administration. I moved to Florida almost two years ago. Prior to that I lived in New Jersey and worked for a Public University in the Educational Leadership Department. I also worked as a middle and high school guidance counselor before relocating to Florida for my husband's job. I'm telling you my background so you understand my intentions of this letter. Working in the school system and also going through my own schooling, has given me a keen appreciation for education. My husband and I specifically chose this area of Naples because of the school ratings. We could get the house we wanted for the price we could afford and our daughter would be in an A rated school zone. I am very impressed with what I have seen and heard regarding the quality of teaching at VME and North Naples and that can be attributed to the strong leadership in both schools. My daughter will probably attend VME in a few years and after that, North Naples. It is my hope that these schools continue the high levels of academic rigor and that their students continue to thrive in a safe environment. I along with many of my neighbors in Camden Lakes, recently found out that a senior community of approximately 500 dwellings is most likely going to be built adjacent to North Naples Middle School, located in between Livingston Road and Learning Lane. I understand Collier County is rapidly expanding and welcome the new opportunities and people that will be drawn to the area; however, I had concerns when I first learned of the expansion and they quickly escalated when I found out the new community was interested in using Learning Lane as their entrance. Many community members in Camden Lakes gathered together to see what we could do to protect Learning Lane. I along with many others, attended the community meeting held last week at Vanderbilt Presbyterian and learned that the county and builder have the option to build either a senior residence building of 500 units or a community of approximately 160 single family homes. We were told if a community was built, house prices would be comparable to our neighborhood, meaning they would range from the high $300's to the high $800's. In my opinion, a family-friendly neighborhood that is within the 2-mile school zone (which means future students would not require a bus to elementary, middle, or possibly the high school that may be built in the future) seems like a better suited community for the area. 3 If the senior building is built, I am assuming it could house approximately 700 to 1,000 residents. I can't help but think of all the traffic that would generate. The volume of vehicles on Learning Lane would drastically increase and would continue even after building is completed. Residential traffic, workers, moving trucks, repair trucks, health care providers, lawn and pool maintenance, UPS, furniture deliveries, and various other vendors would constantly be coming in and out of the community via Learning Lane, the road our students walk on every day. I have concerns about the impact of emergency vehicles that may need to get to the residents in the senior community. If an ambulance needed to get in and . had to use Learning Lane, it may have a very hard time doing so during school drop off and pick up hours. That does not seem fair to anyone, especially those in need of medical attention. I also have concerns about the noise of the sirens and how that could potentially distract from instruction and learning, not to mention the impact it could have during state testing, especially for students who struggle with concentration. I understand Collier County is a supporter of the University of Florida's Walking School Bus Program. Many students in our area, as young as 6, are not provided with a bus so they must walk on Learning Lane to school I am an advocate for walking but I fear the potential hazards these children may face, and as a consequence, the potential liability the district could face if Learning Lane is opened up to a new community. I can't help but to worry about the groups of children I see walking Learning Lane (whether it's after school dismissal or after their after school program) often times they have earbuds in and are texting or playing on their phones. I know they should be more cognizant of their surroundings, but kids are kids, and right now they are on a fairly safe street. If Learning Lane becomes the entrance to the new community, would a crossing guard be implemented to help assist with their safety? Would our elementary students be provided with a bus?Who would inform the parents that their children's safe school road was being shared by a senior community with construction vehicles? Opening Learning Lane up to such a large community may present dangers for our children and drivers who use the road. School employees and parents that travel on Learning Lane are familiar with the traffic and congestion that already exists during start time and dismissal. I worry that their vehicles may be subjected to damage on a daily basis; I would hate to see a school employee or parent start their day with a flat tire because of construction debris in the road. I am also concerned about Learning Lane itself. Currently there are speed bumps and stop signs on the road. If Learning Lane is the entrance point, trucks and tractors would be on the road each and every day wearing down the speed bumps. Who would be responsible for the repair of the roads? Who would enforce the 20 mph speed limit? I fear the potential hazards that could exist to the students walking on their school road. Learning Lane is a tobacco free and drug and alcohol free zone. Who would ensure that it remains that way? 4 It is my understanding that there are two other possible entrance points for the senior community that may be built, one being on Livingston Road (directly across from the fire station and ambulance headquarters). There is a light there now; in my opinion, that seems like a much more convenient access point. Not only does it keep our children safe on Learning Lane, but it also provides for easier access to those going to and from the new community. - l-am writing to Mrs.•Kathleen.Curatolo.-because.) believe•asschoo)-board- �•. .�r: member of district two, you have a strong influence and interest of every student, parent, and teacher at VME and North Naples. I am also writing to Mr. Eric Johnson, because you held the community meeting last week and have an impact on our county. I have copied many other people on . this email as well because I feel they are also vested in our community and our students. I am only speaking for myself in this letter, but as you know many homeowners in Camden Lakes signed a petition against having Learning Lane as the access point for the new community. My hope is that we can all bring some perspective to this decision. We have the power to keep Learning Lane safe by not allowing it as an access point for the possible senior community of 500 dwellings. If access via Learning Lane is granted and problems arise, there is no going back in • time. I am sorry for the long email, but I had to express my concerns. I want to know that I did everything in my power to protect our students in District Two. I would think that every builder, county official, school administrator, and homeowner would agree that you cannot put a price tag on the safety of children. Children learn best when they feel safe. Let's all work together to make sure our students continue to feel safe on their way to and from school. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Julie Cody Under Florida Law,e-mail addresses are public records.If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request,do not send electronic mail to this entity.Instead,contact this office by telephone or in writing. <15 Exhibit C - MP-2015 (11x17).pdf> <14 RMC - Enclave Exhibits A-F 2015.pdf> 5 JohnsonEric From: Julie Anne <julieanne1225@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 4:52 PM To: JohnsonEric Subject: Re: Collier County Schools VME and North Naples Middle Good Afternoon Eric, Thanks for checking in. I am still very opposed to having Learning Lane as the access point for the senior living facility for many reasons, safety being the number one reason. If the 500+ dwelling unit uses Learning Lane, residents, workers, maintenance personnel, delivery vehicles, and construction trucks are all going to add to the already congested entrance on Livingston Lane. This puts teachers, parents, and most importantly students at risk. I for one would like to prevent a tragedy from possibly occurring and one way to ensure safety is to have a different entrance point for the new community. The intersection at Livingston Rd and Learning Lane is already a dangerous one. Just last week my husband was hit by a woman who ran a red light on Livingston. He was hit in the morning (during school drop off hours). This reckless driver could have easily hit a student using the cross walk. If we open up Learning Lane to such a large community with residents and workers on site all day and all night, we are putting those who use Learning Lane (especially our student walkers) at risk. I have been in contact with other representatives at both the county and state level. I understand the impact of elementary walkers is of the only concern. I myself do not see a difference between a 5th grader walking to school as opposed to a 6th grader. I was informed that if an unsafe walking environment arises due to the senior living facility, the state would intervene for 5 years to provide a safer means for students to get to and from school, but after the 5 years, it would be Collier County's responsibility to ensure the continued safety standards are met. I can only assume this would be an added cost for the county and one that can be avoided now, if the new senior living facility uses a different access point. Our community here in Camden Lakes is getting ready to elect a new board. We have had several meetings about how our community and the students could be impacted if Learning Lane is the entrance point. Many in the community share similar beliefs and would like to preserve Learning Lane and ensure the safety of our students. Once the new board is elected, I will turnover the contacts to them. I do appreciate your continued support and look forward to hopefully working together to keep our students safe. Thank you, Julie Cody On Wednesday, March 30,2016 4:32 PM,Julie Anne<julieanne1225@yahoo.com>wrote: Good Afternoon Eric, Thanks for checking in. On Monday, March 28,2016 6:08 PM,JohnsonEric<EricJohnson@colliergov.net>wrote: 1 Good evening Julie. I'm going through my emails. Is there anything that you would like me to personally follow up on? Eric Johnson Principal Planner From: Julie Anne Cody [mailto:julieanne1225@yahoo.comj Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2016 9:29 AM To: JohnsonEric <EricJohnson@colliergov.net> Re:Collier County Schools VME and North Naples Middle Good morning Yes he did send an email with his phone number. I will be reaching out to him tomorrow. Thanks Julie Sent from my iPhone On Feb 26, 2016, at 1:22 PM, JohnsonEric <EricJohnson(a'7collierdov.net>wrote: Did Mr. Eastman from the School District contact you? Eric Johnson Principal Planner From:Julie Anne Cody [mailto:iulieanne1225Cilyahoo.coml Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 4:35 PM To:JohnsonEric<EricJohnsorOcollieruov.net> Subject: Re: Collier County Schools VME and North Naples Middle Hi Eric, Thank you for getting back to me, 1 appreciate your quick response. I look forward to seeing some of the responses from those you forwarded this to. If you need to speak with me, my cell phone is (973) 715-6688. Thanks again, Julie Sent from my iPhone On Feb 22, 2016, at 5:51 PM, JohnsonEric <EricJohnsonCa colliergov.net> wrote: Ms. Cody, Thank you for your email. I'm pleased that you attended the Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) last week with regards to the project known as RMC Enclave and Grace Romanian Baptist Church (PUDA-PL20150001613). The NIM is one of the best forums for concerned residents and property owners to voice their concerns directly to the agent, Mr. D. Wayne Arnold, who represents the applicant, Enclave—Livingston, LLC. For your edification (and everyone who receives this email), I attached the Master Plan and the proposed changes to the PUD Document. I also wanted to let you know that I will be forwarding your email to the applicant's agent (who 2 may or may not respond), the County Transportation Planner to whom this project was assigned, as well as our point-of-contact for the School District. As I receive answers to your questions from them, I will then, in turn,forward them to you. As always, your email is now part of the public record and will be included in the back up material, which will be reviewed by the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) and Board of County Commissioners (BCC). Feel free.to contact me anytime. Thank you: „. ."` Respectfully, Eric L. Johnson, AICP, CFM Principal Planner Growth Management Department- Planning & Regulation Zoning Division -Zoning Services Section 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 phone: 239-252-2931 fax: 239-252-6503 <image001.png><image002.png> From:Julie Anne [mailto:iulieanne1225@vahoo.com] Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 3:15 PM To:JohnsonEric<EricJohnson@colliernov.net>;curatoka@collierschools.com Cc:Julie &Alan Cody<julieanne1225@vahoo.com>;Jodi Walborn <jwalbor1@jhmi.edu>; DeaneConnie <ConnieDeane@collieraov.net>; walk@hhr .ufl.edu; ooilvida@collierschools.com; mcclosio@collierschools.com; lichteke@collierschools.com;donale@collierschools.com; spraouiu@collierschools.com; terrvro@collierschools.com; patton@collierschools.com;turcho@collierschools.com; stumpda@collierschools.com;spencero@collierschools.com; morsell @collierschools.com; kutzt@collierschools.com; kincaiie@collierschools.com; mitevte@collierschools.com; fishbj@collierschools.com;jacksoma@collierschools.com; franklda@collierschools.com; EastmaTh@collierschools.com Subject: Collier County Schools VME, and North Naples Middle Good Afternoon, My name is Julie Cody and I live in Camden Lakes. I am a wife, a mother, a daughter, and a Collier County resident. I have a bachelor's degree in Communications and Education, a master's degree in Counseling, and certifications in Supervision and Director of Guidance/Administration. I moved to Florida almost two years ago. Prior to that I lived in New Jersey and worked for a Public University in the Educational Leadership Department. I also worked as a middle and high school guidance counselor before relocating to Florida for my husband's job. 3 I'm telling you my background so you understand my intentions of this letter. Working in the school system and also going through my own schooling, has given me a keen appreciation for education. My husband and I specifically chose this area of Naples because of the school ratings. We could get the house we wanted for the price we could afford and our daughter would be in an A rated school zone. I am very impressed with what I have seen and heard regarding the quality of teaching at VME and North Naples and thatcan be attributed to the strong leadership in both . schools. My daughter will probably attend VME in a few years and after that, North Naples. It is my hope that these schools continue the high levels of academic rigor and that their students continue to thrive in a safe environment. I along with many of my neighbors in Camden Lakes, recently found out that a senior community of approximately 500 dwellings is most likely going to be built adjacent to North Naples Middle School, located in between Livingston Road and Learning Lane. I understand Collier County is rapidly expanding and welcome the new opportunities and people that • will be drawn to the area; however, I had concerns when I first learned of the expansion and they quickly escalated when I found out the new community was interested in using Learning Lane as their entrance. Many community members in Camden Lakes gathered together to see what we could do to protect Learning Lane. I along with many others, attended the community meeting held last week at Vanderbilt Presbyterian and learned that the county and builder have the option to build either a senior residence building of 500 units or a community of approximately 160 single family homes. We were told if a community was built, house prices would be comparable to our neighborhood, meaning they would range from the high $300's to the high $800's. In my opinion, a family-friendly neighborhood that is within the 2-mile school zone (which means future students would not require a bus to elementary, middle, or possibly the high school that may be built in the future) seems like a better suited community for the area. If the senior building is built, I am assuming it could house approximately 700 to 1,000 residents. I can't help but think of all the traffic that would generate. The volume of vehicles on Learning Lane would drastically increase and would continue even after building is completed. Residential traffic, workers, moving trucks, repair trucks, health care providers, lawn and pool maintenance, UPS, furniture deliveries, and various other vendors would constantly be coming in and out of the community via Learning Lane, the road our students walk on every day. I have concerns about the impact of emergency vehicles that may need to get to the residents in the senior community. If an ambulance needed to get in and had to use Learning Lane, it may have a very hard time doing so during school drop off and pick up hours. That does not seem fair to anyone, especially those in need of medical attention. I also have concerns about the noise of the sirens and how that could potentially distract from instruction and learning, not to mention the impact it could have during state testing, especially for students who struggle with concentration. 4 I understand Collier County is a supporter of the University of Florida's Walking School Bus Program. Many students in our area, as young as 6, are not provided with a bus so they must walk on Learning Lane to school. I am an advocate for walking but I fear the potential hazards these children may face, and as a consequence, the potential liability the district could face if Learning Lane is opened up to a new community. I can't help but to worry about the groups of children I see walking Learning Lane (whether it's after school dismissal or-after:theirafter school program) :,. often times they have earbuds in and are texting or playing on their phones. I know they should be more cognizant of their surroundings, but kids are kids, and right now they are on a fairly safe street. If Learning Lane becomes the entrance to the new community, would a crossing guard be implemented to help assist with their safety?Would our elementary students be provided with a bus? Who would inform the parents that their children's safe school road was being shared by a senior community with construction vehicles? Opening Learning Lane up to such a large community may present dangers for our children and drivers who use the road. School employees and parents that travel on Learning Lane are familiar with the traffic and congestion that already exists during start time and dismissal. I worry that their vehicles may be subjected to damage on a daily basis; I would hate to see a school employee or parent start their day with a flat tire because of construction debris in the road. I am also concerned about Learning Lane itself. Currently there are speed bumps and stop signs on the road. If Learning Lane is the entrance point, trucks and tractors would be on the road each and every day wearing down the speed bumps. Who would be responsible for the repair of the roads? Who would enforce the 20 mph speed limit? I fear the potential hazards that could exist to the students walking on their school road. Learning Lane is a tobacco free and drug and alcohol free zone. Who would ensure that it remains that way? It is my understanding that there are two other possible entrance points for the senior community that may be built, one being on Livingston Road (directly across from the fire station and ambulance headquarters). There is a light there now; in my opinion, that seems like a much more convenient access point. Not only does it keep our children safe on Learning Lane, but it also provides for easier access to those going to and from the new community. I am writing to Mrs. Kathleen Curatolo because I believe as school board member of district two, you have a strong influence and interest of every student, parent, and teacher at VME and North Naples. I am also writing to Mr. Eric Johnson, because you held the community meeting last week and have an impact on our county. I have copied many other people on this email as well because I feel they are also vested in our community and our students. I am only speaking for myself in this letter, but as you know many homeowners in Camden Lakes signed a petition against having Learning Lane as the access point for the new community. My hope is that we can all bring some perspective to this decision. We have 5 ii. the power to keep Learning Lane safe by not allowing it as an access point for the possible senior community of 500 dwellings. If access via Learning Lane is granted and problems arise, there is no going back in time. l am sorry for the long email, but I had to express my concerns. want to know that I did everything in my power to protect our students in District Two. I would think that every builder, county official, school administrator, and homeowner would agree that you cannot put a price tag on the safety of children. Children learn best when they feel safe. Let's all work together to make sure our students continue to feel safe on their way to and from school. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Julie Cody Under Florida Law,e-mail addresses are public records.If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request,do not send electronic mail to this entity.Instead,contact this office by telephone or in writing. <15 Exhibit C - MP-2015 (11 x17).pdf> <14 RMC - Enclave Exhibits A-F 2015.pdf> 6 JohnsonEric From: Blair Gurick<ylblair@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2016 12:27 PM To: JohnsonEric Subject: Camden lakes safety Dear Mr.Eric Johnson we are out of town on the June 2 meeting regarding the driveway on learning Lane for the new construction being done in the grace Romanian Baptist church property. I am writing you this letter as a parent of three young children ages 9,6 and almost 2. as a concerned parent in the neighborhood at Camden Lakes knowing that my children along with many others are walking to school at Veterans Memorial elementary and soon North Naples middle school. my email is to simply ask that you would consider not allowing the new builders to put in a entrance to this new neighborhood on learning Lane but instead having their entrance be on Livingston Road...so many young kids walk and ride bikes up and down learning Lane each morning and afternoon. adding more traffic to learning Lane would be a major hazard and a future spot for children on bikes and footgetting injured or even hit by cars that are rushing in and out and not paying attention to kids. thank you so much for considering the young kids and their safety and keeping these roads calm and less crowded thank you so much for your time!! Love, Blair Gurick t Johnson Eric From: Blair Gurick <ylblair@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2016 10:02 PM To: JohnsonEric Subject: Re: Camden lakes safety Thank you so very much!! Love,Blair Gurick >On May 19,2016, at 5:16 PM,JohnsonEric<EricJohnson@colliergov.net>wrote: >Thank you for email and comments. I will print it and put it into the file. I will also include it in the packets that will be reviewed by the decision makers. > >Eric Johnson >Principal Planner > Original Message >From: Blair Gurick[mailto:ylblair @gmail.com] >Sent:Wednesday,May 18, 2016 12:27 PM >To: JohnsonEric<EricJohnson@colliergov.net> >Subject: Camden lakes safety >Dear Mr.Eric Johnson >we are out of town on the June 2 meeting regarding the driveway on learning Lane for the new construction being done in the grace Romanian Baptist church property. >I am writing you this letter as a parent of three young children ages 9, 6 and almost 2. as a concerned parent in the neighborhood at Camden Lakes knowing that my children along with many others are walking to school at Veterans Memorial elementary and soon North Naples middle school.my email is to simply ask that you would consider not allowing the new builders to put in a entrance to this new neighborhood on learning Lane but instead having their entrance be on Livingston Road...so many young kids walk and ride bikes up and down learning Lane each morning and afternoon. adding more traffic to learning Lane would be a major hazard and a future spot for children on bikes and footgetting injured or even hit by cars that are rushing in and out and not paying attention to kids. thank you so much for considering the young kids and their safety and keeping these roads calm and less crowded thank you so much for your time!! >Love, Blair Gurick >Under Florida Law,e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request,do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead,contact this office by telephone or in writing. JohnsonEric From: golfoftn@comcast.net Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 3:36 PM To: JohnsonEric Subject: RMC/Enclave Project Hello Eric George Paul here.We met Tuesday night at the church.I wanted to request a couple things from the County and appreciate your help getting my request handled. Thx...we need: 1)a complete summary history of both parcels bordering learning lane and Livingston road. We are looking for when it started as a parcel of agricultural land,when it became a parcel for a church and another for agricultural,when it changed to residential along with the church. Just looking for dates and when zoning changes were approved. Just a brief history. 2)Copies of all public notices affecting both parcels and when they we mailed out and a list of who they were mailed to. Thank u for your help. Let me know when I can come to your office and review and pick up these docs. Thank u Eric. George Paul Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Smartphone • 1 JohnsonEric From: golfoftn@comcast.net Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 11:04 AM To: JohnsonEric Subject: Fw: RMC/Enclave Project Hello Eric Forwarding u my last message.Not sure u got it as I did not hear from you.Please let me know the process for getting this info. Much a appreciated.George Paul Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Smartphone } Original message From:golfoftn@comcast.net Date:Thu,Feb 18,2016 3:35 PM To:ericjohnson @colliergov.net; Subject:RMC/Enclave Project Hello Eric George Paul here,We met Tuesday night at the church.I wanted to request a couple things from the County and appreciate your help getting my request handled. Thx...we need: 1)a complete summary history of both parcels bordering learning lane and Livingston road. We are looking for when it started as a parcel of agricultural land,when it became a parcel for a church and another for agricultural,when it changed to residential along with the church. Just looking for dates and when zoning changes were approved. Just a brief history. 2)Copies of all public notices affecting both parcels and when they we mailed out and a list of who they were mailed to. Thank u for your help. Let me know when I can come to your office and review and pick up these does. Thank u Eric. George Paul Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Smartphone 1 fi JohnsonEric From: golfoftn@comcast.net Sent: Monday, March 28, 2016 7:49 PM To: JohnsonEric Subject: Re: RMC/Enclave Project3 Thx Eric. I would like to take a look at the complete file. Let me get back to you next week. Thx. Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Smartphone Original message From: JohnsonEric Date: Mon,Mar 28, 2016 6:16 PM To:golfoftn@comcast.net; Subject:FW: RMC/Enclave Project3 Mr. Paul, Did you want to look through the original file? Let me know and we can set up a viewing area for you. In the meantime, I attached the ordinance approving the original project. Thanks! Eric Johnson Principal Planner From:JohnsonEric Sent:Monday, February 22,2016 5:34 PM To:'golfoftn@comcast.net'<golfoftn@comcast.net<a=""»</golfoftn@comcast.net<> Cc:DeaneConnie<conniedeane@colliergov.net<a=""»; BellowsRay </conniedeane@colliergov.net<><raybellows@colliergov.net<a=""»; BosiMichael </ravbellows@colliergov.net<><michaelbosi@colliergov.net<a="">>;SanchoBrandon </michaelbosicolliergov.net<><brandonsa ncho@colliergov.net<a="">></brandonsancho@colllergov.net<> Subject: RE:RMC/Enclave Project2 Good afternoon,Mr.Paul. Yes,I did receive your emails. I apologize for not contacting your sooner-I am still trying to figure out how to best answer your questions. I will have to do some research regarding the history of the property in question and get back to you. I don't want to be too hasty and give you the wrong answers. By the way,you are always more than welcome to review the file(s)yourself. We can set up an area in the office where you can review at your own leisure and request copies of documents as you see fit. Let me know if that is a more attractive option for you. Respectfully, Eric L.Johnson,AICP,CFM Principal Planner Growth Management Department-Planting&Regulation Zoning Division-Zoning Services Section 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples,FL 34104 1 phone:239-252-2931 fax:239-252-6503 LEER GREEN i t County ASSOCIATE • From:golfoftn@comcast.net [mailto:golfoftn@comcast.net] Sent:Monday, February 22,2016 11:04 AM To:JohnsonEric<EricJohnson@colliergov.net> Subject:Fw: RMC/Enclave Project Hello Eric Forwarding u my last message.Not sure u got it as I did not hear from you.Please let me know the process for getting this info. Much • appreciated.George Paul Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Smartphone Original message From:gol foftn @ c omcast,net Date:Thu,Feb 18,2016 3:35 PM To:ericj ohnson @ co lliergov.net; Subject:RMC/Enclave Project Hello Eric George Paul here.We met Tuesday night at the church.I wanted to request a couple things from the County and appreciate your help getting my request handled. Thx...we need: 1)a complete summary history of both parcels bordering learning lane and Livingston road. We are looking for when it started as a parcel of agricultural land,when it became a parcel for a church and another for agricultural,when it changed to residential along with the church. Just looking for dates and when zoning changes were approved. Just a brief history. 2)Copies of all public notices affecting both parcels and when they we mailed out and a list of who they were mailed to. Thank u for your help. Let me know when I can come to your office and review and pick up these docs. Thank u Eric. George Paul Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Smartphone Under Florida Law,e-mail addresses are public records.If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request,do not send electronic mail to this entity.Instead,contact this office by telephone or in writing. 2 JohnsonEric From: StrainMark Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2016 5:14 PM To: JohnsonEric Subject: FW: Enclave Development Project on 6/2/16 CCPC Agenda _ rt Please distribute as typical ark/ 239.252.4446 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. From: Karen F Paul [mailto:kpau11969@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2016 10:47 PM To: StrainMark Subject: Enclave Development Project on 6/2/16 CCPC Agenda Dea Mr. Strain, I am a resident of Camden Lakes, and I am emailing you to voice my concern about the future Enclave Development on your agenda for 6/2/16. I am opposed to a Senior Group Housing Project and I hope you will vote against this project as well. I feel that single family homes would be the best use of the land and would keep a consistent feel and character to the surrounding area. The developer may alternatively request single family homes for the Enclave Development, and I feel this would be a welcomed addition to our neighborhood and keep homogeneity to the area. Lastly, it is my understanding that the developer may seek access onto Learning Lane and I oppose this as well. Adding additional traffic to this already busy road will increase safety concerns for the children and pedestrians who use the road regularly. Thank you for taking the time to read this and for your careful consideration on this important vote. Regards, Karen Hobbs Paul Under Florida Law,e-mail addresses are public records.If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request,do not send electronic mail to this entity.Instead,contact this office by telephone or in writing. 1 JohnsonEric From: StrainMark Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2016 5:18 PM To: JohnsonEric Subject: FW: CCPC June 2nd Oppose Enclave Senior Group Living Community Please distribute as typical M cwici 239.252.4446 Under Florida Law, e-mail. addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address reLeased in response to a pubLic records request, do not send electronic wait to this entity. Instead, contact this office by teLephone or in writing. From: golfoftn©comcast.net[mailto:golfoftn@comcastnet] Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2016 10:49 PM To: StrainMark Subject: CCPC June 2nd Oppose Endave Senior Group Living Community Dear Chairman Strain: I am writing to you this evening to encourage you to oppose the Enclave developers possible Senior Group Living Community at the June 2nd meeting. We live in Camden Lakes an adjacent community.We believe that this area is a wonderful family residential corridor with great schools and nearby shopping.We do not think that a commercial business with seniors living in a group community fits well into this area on Livingston Road with many family neighborhoods.We also oppose any use of Learning Lane due to concerns about child safety. Thank you for your consideration. George Paul Camden Lakes Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Smartphone Under Florida Law,e-mail addresses are public records.If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request,do not send electronic mail to this entity.Instead,contact this office by telephone or in writing. 1 i 1 JohnsonEric From: N <bnprins@yahoo.com> 1 Sent: Friday, February 12, 2016 10:51 AM To: JohnsonEric Cc: bnprins@yahoo.com Subject: PL20150001613 RMC ENCLAVE RPUD P 1 1 Hello Eric i Can you kindly provide me with the depth and length of the preserve along Learning Lane for this proposed project. 1 Thank you 1 Nanette Prins Sent from my iPad i 1 JohnsonEric From: N <bnprins@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2016 12:40 PM To: JohnsonEric Subject: Re: PL2O150O01613 RMC ENCLAVE RPUD Hello Eric To be honest with you,this email response is confusing. One sections states a minimum of 50 feet, but towards the end of the email it states 20 feet for land over 20 acres. the property in question is more than 20 acres. Twenty feet is not a acceptable buffer between us and the road. Regards Nanette Prins Sent from my iPad On Feb 12, 2016, at 2:50 PM,JohnsonEric<EricJohnson@colliergov.net>wrote: Nanette, Please see the applicant's response to your question. Thanks! Eric Johnson Principal Planner From:Sharon Urnpenhour[mailto:SUmoenhour@gradvminor.comi Sent: Friday, February 12,2016 2:23 PM To:JohnsonEric<EricJohnsonPcolliergov.net> Cc:Wayne Arnold<WArnold@gradvminor.com> Subject: RE: P120150001613 RMC ENCLAVE RPUD Eric, The Master Plan is conceptual and we are still going through the ERP process. The minimum width will be an average of 50 feet in width as required by LDC Section 3.05.07.H.b.iii (Preservation Standards). The length of the preserve along Learning Lane will be over 1,000 feet,unless the interconnection is made and then it would break in that area to allow access. LDC Section 3.05.07-Preservation Standards H. Preserve standards. b. Minimum dimensions.Thin linear and perimeter"picture frame-shaped" preserves are discouraged, unless such preserve shapes are dictated by environmental or environmental regulatory considerations. Connections to other preserves,conservation areas, natural flowways,natural water bodies,water management lakes,estuaries,government owned or targeted lands for preservation purposes or existing listed wildlife habitat,when present,are encouraged to establish the largest contiguous natural area possible. The following minimum widths shall apply: 1 iii. An average of 50 feet in width but not less than 20 feet for property of twenty acres and greater. Sharon Umpenhour Senior Planning Technician <Image002.jpg> Q.Grady Minor and Associates,P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey • Bonita Springs,FL 34134 Phone-239.947,1144 Fax-239.947.0375 Email-sumpenhour@gradyminor.com Web-http://www.gradyminor.com DISCLAIMER:This communication from Q.Grady Minor&Associates,P.A.,along with any attachments or electronic data is intended only for the addressee(s) named above and may contain information that Is confidential,legally privileged or otherwise exempt from disclosure.The recipient agrees and accepts the following conditions:The electronic file/data is for Informational purposes only and Is the responsibility of the recipient to reconcile this electronic file/data with the approved and certified"plan of record"along with actual project site conditions.Q.Grady Minor&Associates,P.A.reserves the right to revise,update and improve its electronically stored data without notice and assumes no responsibility due to a virus or damages caused by receiving Ills email. ----Original Message----- From:JohnsonEric[mailto:EricJohnson@colliergov.net] Sent: Friday, February 12,2016 1:07 PM To:Wayne Arnold Cc:Sharon Umpenhour Subject: FW: PL20150001613 RMC ENCLAVE RPUD Wayne, Do you know the answer to this question that was posed to me? It'll probably be a topic of discussion at your NIM next week. Thanks! Eric Johnson Principal Planner Original Message From:N [mailto:bnprins@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, February 12,2016 10:51 AM To:JohnsonEric<EricJohnson@colliergov.net> Cc: bnprins@yahoo.com Subject: PL20150001613 RMC ENCLAVE RPUD Hello Eric Can you kindly provide me with the depth and length of the preserve along Learning Lane for this proposed project. Thank you Nanette Prins 2 JohnsonEric From: N <bnprins@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2016 11 :42 AM To: JohnsonEric Subject: Fwd: Eric Johnson zoning Petition number PL20150001613 RMC Enclave RPID 43 ii Subject:Eric Johnson zoning Petition number P120150001613 RMC Enclave RPID Hello Eric Thank you for allowing me to email you with my concerns about the proposed zoning changes to the land adjacent to Camden Lakes at Learning Lane and Livingstone. I was alarmed when I read about the proposed changes. When we purchased our home we thought,at the most, a church would be built in the lot. We selected this development because it is a quiet neighborhood and children can safely walk to the local school. Now the county is looking to change our peaceful,safe area and potentially allow a large residential dwelling(162 homes) or a even larger development for up to 500 seniors with a road running into Learning Lane. These proposed changes are upsetting too many of the residents at Camden Lakes.We are concerned about: The safety of children walking along Learning Lane. The added traffic and congestion along Learning Lane. The possibility of a multi story building with an additional few hundred vehicles in and out of Learning is very simple frightening. We are concerned about the depth of the preserved land running along Learning Lane.Will all of the existing trees remain? These trees act as noise buffer for the traffic along Livingstone plus they are environmentally necessary and ecesticly pleasing. Thank you for listening. I hope you take our concerns into account when deciding about the rezoning. Nanette Prins 1 JohnsonEric From: N <bnprins@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 10:16 PM To: JohnsonEric Subject: Fwd: Local development group plans new 55+ luxury community for Naples. Enclave proposed zoning Hello Eric I am sorry that I did not meet you Tuesday night. It was late,I needed to go home plus to be honest I was discouraged by the meeting. { Yesterday I.was given the attached link regarding the zoning area in question. Interesting! Is this a done deal?If this is all true,I feel betrayed by the county. Can you explain this newspaper article? Regards,Nanette http://www.naplesnews.corn/business/IocaI-development-group-plans-new-55-luxury- community-for-naples-ep-1276414230-33083793 I.html Sent from my iPad i Local development group plans new 55+luxury community for Naples. Page 1 of 3 journalmediagroup € PRINT -15 fi Local development group plans new 55+ luxury community for Naples. Posted:Sept.21,2015 The Livingston Naples,a 55+age-qualified community,is being planned and will be developed by Enclave-Livingston, a limited partnership headed by general partners Randy Kurtz and Mitch Melheim,both Naples custom homebuilders and real estate investors. The partnership includes eight additional limited partners. "This idea came about after Mitch and I were approached by clients, friends and neighbors who expressed a desire for a local adult community that would parallel the Naples lifestyle to which they had become accustomed,"said Kurtz. "From the outset,it was our goal to replicate that sense of style and quality, calling on Kurtz Homes' 33-year's of experience in creating unique Naples high-end custom homes." The site for The Livingston is in North Naples on Livingston Road at Learning Lane,immediately south of Mediterra. "We purchased more than 28 acres of unentitled land at this location 21/2 years ago,"Kurtz said, "and we were successful in obtaining entitlements for up to 350 units of senior living. Subsequently, an opportunity presented itself for us to acquire an adjacent 12-plus acres,which would bring our aggregate total to in excess of 40 acres. This additional land would allow even more flexibility in creating a unique environment for the community." http://www.printthis.clickability.corn/pt/cpt?expire--&title—Local+development+group+pla... 2/18/2016 Local development group plans new 55+luxury community for Naples. Page 2 of 3 Melheim said the company is in the process of obtaining entitlements for the additional 12 acres, which if matching the original 28 acres,would result in combined zoning for the entire 40-acre site of up to approximately 500 age- qualified residences. "While the entitlements may total 500 units,we have no intention of building that many,"he said. "We believe a more intimately proportioned number of customized,luxuriously designed, easy-living residences would be in line with our '! vision for the community." Enclave-Livingston has retained three firms to assist in the planning and development of the project. A market study and analysis,which included two research receptions for local residents held in March and April at The Ritz-Carlton, Naples and The Club at Mediterra,was completed by The ProMatura Group of Oxford,Mississippi. ProMatura,headed by Margaret A.Wylde,is a global market research and advisory firm specializing in 50+consumers and their housing, services, consumer products, customer services, marketing and sales. Also retained was Lawson Group Architects, a 29-year-old architectural,planning and interior design firm headquartered in Sarasota specializing in senior housing. Lawson is collectively responsible for the design of numerous projects internationally with a construction value exceeding$9 billion. Rounding out the design and planning team is Stofft Cooney Architects of Naples. Led by partners Randy Stofft and John Cooney,the firm has become one of the largest architectural firms in Southwest Florida. "We were very encouraged by the results of ProMatura's market study which examined lifestyle, scale,scope of services and amenities in order to determine the character of the community, and concluded that our concept was valid and the development should go forward,"Kurtz said. "We are now in the stages of refining the particulars of the plan to determine what the specific residences, amenities and health services will be.At the same time,we http://www.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?expire=&title=Local+development+group+pla... 2/18/2016 • Local development group plans new 55+luxury community for Naples. Page 3 of 3 are in the process of establishing a relationship with an experienced operator who shares our vision for the community,"he said. { Find this article at: http://www.naplesnews.com/business/local development-group-plans-new-55-luxury-community-for-naples-ep-1276414230- 330837931,html I Check the box to include the list of links referenced in the article. • http://www.printthis.clickability.com/pt'cpt?expire—&title=Local+development+group+pla... 2/18/2016 JohnsonEric From: B Prins <bnprins@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, March 28, 2016 1:36 PM To: JohnsonEric; Nanette Prins Subject: PL20150001613 RMC ENCLAVE Hello Eric Would you kindly let me know how we will be notified of the next } meeting regarding the proposed zoning changes to the land at Livingston and learning Lane? Will we receive a letter in the mail, will there be sign posting or will the meeting notice be printed in the newspaper? thank you in advance Nanette Prins !k i JohnsonEric From: B Prins <bnprins@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2016 11:54 AM To: JohnsonEric Subject: PL2015-1613 RMC-Enclave June 2 2016 meeting Hello Eric, I would like to voice my concerns regarding the June 2 meeting for the Collier County Planning Commission for PL2015-1613 RMC- Enclave. I believe that is the correct identifier. I am a resident of Camden Lakes, located at Livingston and Learning Lane in North Naples. My family and I are distressed at the safety of the children, at the thought that a road may be built within the new development, Enclave Livingston, to join Learning Lane near North Naples Middle School. For the safety of the many children, and future growing population of the school children, walking to the school, I ask that you please vote against this road. My family and I are opposed to this potential road. I believe the new development plans already have one or two entrances on Livingston, why do they need another entrance? With the added new road many children, pedestrians, cyclists and residents in physical jeopardy. Additionally, one of the reasons we moved into this neighborhood is because it is surrounded by other single family home developments. We understood that there was the possibility of a church being built on this land, but now the developer is proposing a 500 unit senior living facility, which would be five or six stories tall. There is a big difference between a church steeple and what is basically a high rise apartment building. This area is populated by single family homes, a high rise building . . .. ... would not be compatible with the surrounding homes or family environment. Please feel free to contact me to discuss. Thank you for your attention to my concerns. Please vote against the road joining in at the North Naples Middle School from this new development and please understand our concerns regarding a 500 unit high rise apartment building senior development. Thank you Nanette Prins 2 JohnsonEric From: StrainMark Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2016 5:22 PM To: JohnsonEric r, Subject: FW: PL2015...1613 June 2 2016 meeting Please distribute as typical Mark/ 239.252,4446 Under FLorida Low, e-mail addresses ore public records. If you do not want your e-maiL address reLeased in response to a pubLic records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by teLephone or in writing. From: B Prins[mailto:bnprins@yahoo.com] Sent:Thursday, May 19, 2016 12:28 PM To: StrainMark Subject: PL2015...1613 June 2 2016 meeting Hello Mr. Strain; I would like to voice my concerns regarding the June 2 meeting for the Collier County Planning Commission for PL2015-1613 RMC- Enclave. I believe that is the correct identifier. I am a resident of Camden Lakes, located at Livingston and Learning Lane in North Naples. My family and I are distressed at the safety of the children, at the thought that a road may be built within the new development, Enclave Livingston, to join Learning Lane near North Naples Middle School. For the safety of the many children, and future growing population of the school children, walking to the school, I ask that you please pt } vote against this road. My family and I are opposed to this potential road. I believe the new development plans already have one or two entrances on Livingston, why do they need another entrance? With the added new road many children, pedestrians, cyclists and residents will be in physical jeopardy. _ ...._.... ..:.: , :•u ..,, Additionally, one of the reasons we moved into this neighborhood is because it is surrounded by other single family home developments. We understood that there was the possibility of a church being built on this land, but now the developer is proposing a 500 unit senior living facility, which would be five or six stories tall. There is a big difference between a church steeple and what is basically a high rise apartment building. This area is populated by single family homes, a high rise building would not be compatible with the surrounding homes or family environment. Please feel free to contact me to discuss. Thank you for your attention to my concerns. Please vote against the road joining in at the North Naples Middle School from this new development and please understand our concerns regarding a 500 unit high rise apartment building senior development. fi Thank you Nanette Prins Under Florida Law,e-mail addresses are public records.It you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request,do not send electronic mail to this entity.Instead,contact this office by telephone or in writing. I. 2 JohnsonEric From: StrainMark Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2016 6:09 PM To: JohnsonEric Subject: FW: Enclave development on Livingston Please distribute as is typical. 239.252.4446 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic matt to this entity. Instead, contact this office by teLephone or in writing. From: Barry Weissman [mailto:bwweissman@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, May 18,2016 3:43 PM To: Strain Mark Subject: Enclave development on Livingston Dear Mr. Strain We are writing you as concerned homeowners of the Camden Lakes Community in North Naples. As you are aware, the Enclave project will be neighboring Camden Lakes. The developer has proposed a Senior Group Housing project with access to the North Naples Middle School entry road. (Learning Lane) We are opposed to both items. We ask for you to consider voting against these. We believe that single family homes would be a more consistent use of the land. We are in a corridor with the majority being good family residential homes. We built here because of good schools and a safe walk to schools and we feel that a senior group housing project may be a disruption. However, a single family development would be a great addition and best for our property values. Regarding the developer seeking Learning Lane access, we strongly oppose this and ask for your support. There is already a lot of traffic on this road and at the intersection. The safety of students, pedestrians, and bikers would be at huge risk with additional traffic. The developer is asking for this as a 'secondary' entrance for just convenience and therefore not essential. In fact, Camden Lakes, Barrington Cove, Milano, Delasol and Livingston Lakes only have one entrance not supported by a traffic light. We thank you for taking the time to read and understand our concerns. We have been County residents full-time for 16 years and appreciate the care and consideration the k I 'I I Planning Commission puts into each project. This has made Naples a great place to live and work. I,. !i I It is our hope that all will not approve the senior group housing project, but will vote for single family homes instead. In addition, please do not allow auto access to Learning Lane and keep the road safe for children and families. Thank you very much. 'i Sincerely, Barry c -frar JV 16353 Camden Lakes Circle Naples, FL 34110 Home: 239-431-7944 bwweissmanacomcast.net yE b Under Florida Law,e-mail addresses are public records.If you do not want your e-mail address released In response to a public records request,do not send electronic mail to this entity.Instead,contact this office by telephone or in writing. a I a I }t} Pqq' 2 \\\\\ }t S\ , \ I, I 1 1 1 1 ', 11 } v4 t 1" tt 1 E ME ce \,A- - ACN , •�rd`nan pfoPosed t 1 F Ee 5 i S� S :ry 1 i ORDINANCE NO. 16- r AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2004-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH ESTABLISHED 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 THE RESIDENTIAL RMF-6 ZONING DISTRICT TO A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (RPUD) ZONING DISTRICT FOR A PROJECT KNOWN AS THE ONYX RPUD TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF UP TO 48 SINGLE FAMILY AND/OR MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD is APPROXIMATELY ONE-HALF MILE NORTH OF RATTLESNAKE- HAMMOCK ROAD IN SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 8.72± ACRES; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 06-53 AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. [PUDZ-PL20140000890) WHEREAS, Tim Hancock, AICP of Stantec,representing Polly Ave. LLC,petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to change the zoning classification of the herein described property. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: SECTION ONE: Zoning Classification. The zoning classification of the herein described real property located in Section 16, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida is changed from the Residential RMF-6 zoning district to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district for a 8.72±acre project to be known as the Onyx RPUD to allow up to 48 residential dwelling units in accordance with the RPUD Documents attached hereto as Exhibits "A" through "F" and incorporated herein by reference. The appropriate zoning atlas map or maps, as described in Ordinance No. 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, is/are hereby amended accordingly. SECTION TWO: Repeal of Ordinance No. 06-53. a Ordinance No. 06-53 is hereby repealed in its entirety. [14-CPS-01384) 128 Onyx RPUD 1PUDZ-PL20140000890 5/19/16 1 of2 SECTION THREE: Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super-majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida,this day of , 2016. ATTEST BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: By: Deputy Clerk DONNA FIALA, Chairman Approved as to form and legality: { c Heidi Ashton-Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney Attachments: Exhibit A—Permitted Uses Exhibit B—Development Standards Exhibit C—Master Plan Exhibit D—Legal Description Exhibit E—Deviations Exhibit F—Developer Commitments [14-CPS-01384] 128 Onyx RPUD\PUDZ-PL20140000890 5/19/16 2 of 2 EXHIBIT A FOR ONYX RPUD PERMITTED USES: This 8.72 acre residential project shall be developed with up to 48 residential dwelling units, through utilization of Transfer of Development Right (TDR) credits, or up to 35 residential dwelling units without the use of TDR credits and may be developed with single family, townhouses, multifamily, or a mixture of the three, subject to the development standards contained herein.The project density will be a maximum of 5.5 residential units per gross acre. Prior to SDP and/or plat approval for dwelling units In excess of the 35 base units, the owner must provide documentation that the required number of TDR credits have been redeemed to permit the additional 13 dwelling units for a maximum dwelling unit count of 48. The owner must provide the necessary individual TDR credit tracking numbers for each TDR credit required as a separate exhibit to the SDP and/or plat application titled TDR Credit Verification Sheet. The Master Concept Plan shall be designed to ensure the harmonious placement of all of the uses in a manner that achieves maximum compatibility with the nearby neighborhood, and one that incorporates a uniform plan of development enhanced by complimentary landscape improvements, Residential (R1 The maximum number of residential dwelling units shall not exceed 48 units. Residential development will be designed to accommodate single-family,townhouse, or multi- family dwelling types, compatible recreational facilities, essential services and customary accessory uses. No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or in part,for other than the following primary uses: A. Principal Uses 1. Multi-family dwellings 2. Single-family dwellings,including zero lot line 3. Townhouses 4. Any other principal use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted principal uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) or Hearing Examiner by the process outlined in the LDC, B. Temporary Uses 1. Model units Page 1 of 10 Onyx RPUD P120140000890 Revised May 9,2016 ii ii 2, Project information and Sales centers 3. Construction administrative offices for the developer and authorized contractors and consultants, including temporary access ways and parking areas. 4. Sales and administrative offices for the developer, project management or managing development association, including temporary access ways and parking areas. C. Accessory Uses and Structures ( 1, Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with principal uses permitted in this District, 2. Community Use Area (inclusive of recreation facilities and maintenance structures) 3. Garages. 4. Administration facilities intended to serve the residents and guests of the proposed development. 5. Swimming Pools, Tennis courts and other similar recreational facilities and buildings to serve residents and their guests. 6. Guardhouses and Gatehouses 7. Any other accessory use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted accessory uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals (BTA) or Hearing Examiner by the process outlined in the LDC. Amenity Center (AC). A. Princjo9l Uses 1. Community Use Area (inclusive of recreation facilities and maintenance structures) 2. Administration facilities intended to serve the residents and guests of the proposed development. 3. Swimming Pools, Tennis courts and other similar recreational facilities and buildings to serve residents and their guests. 4. Guardhouses and Gatehouses Page 2 of 10 Onyx RPUO PL20140000890 Revised May 9,2016 s I 5. Any other accessory use which is comparable In nature with the foregoing list of permitted accessory uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) or Hearing Examiner by the process outlined in the LDC. B,Temporary Uses 1. Project information and Sales centers 2. Construction administrative offices for the developer and authorized contractors and c; consultants, including temporary access ways and parking areas. 3. Sales and administrative offices for the developer, project management or managing development association, including temporary access ways and parking areas. C.Accessory Uses and Structures 1, Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with principal uses permitted in this District. Preserve IP) A. Principal Uses 1. Preserves. B. Accgssory Uses and Structures 1. Non-paved biking, hiking,and nature trails,and boardwalks. 2. Water management structures required by permitting agencies. 3. Native preserves and wildlife sanctuaries. Page 3 of 10 Onyx RPUD PL20140000890 Revised May 9,2016 M1 EXHIBIT B DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: Table I below sets forth the development standards for Single-Family and Multi-Family Residential land uses within the proposed Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD). Standards not specifically set forth within this application shall be those specified in applicable sections of the LDC in effect as of the date of approval of the SDP or Subdivision plat. TABLE I -RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ' MULTi-FAMILY SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING& DWELLING/ZERO AMENITY ACCESSORY TOWNHOUSE LOT LiNE C(AC)R STRUCTURES (R) (R) MINIMUM LOT AREA N/A 3,500 square feet N/A N/A MINIMUM LOT WiDTH 60 Feet 35 Feet N/A N/A r MINIMUM FLOOR AREA OF 900 square 1,000 square feet 750 square N/A BUILDINGS feet (per unit) feet , MINIMUM BUILDING SETBACK 70 feet 70 feet 35 feet 35 feet (From Polly Avenue) MINIMUM BUILDING SETBACK 150 feet 150 feet 150 feet 150 feet (From Sunset Avenue) MINIMUM BUILDING SETBACK 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet (from Santa Barbara Avenue) , MINIMUM BUILDING SETBACK 20 feet 20 feet 15 feet 15 feet 1 (From Adkins Ave ROW) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN STRUCTURES Principal Structure 25 feet 12 feet N/A Accessory Structure 15 feet 0 or 10 feet 10 feet SPS MINIMUM INTERNAL SETBACKS Front Yard 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feel Side Yard 20 feet 6 feet, or 0' on one 10 feet 10 feet side and 12'on the other Rear Yard 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet LAKES 20 feet 20 feet PRESERVE 25 feet 10 feet MAXIMUM ZONED HEIGHT 2 stories& 35 2 stories&35 feet 1 story&25 35 feet feet feet MAXIMUM ACTUAL HEIGHT 2 stofBt feet et& 42 2 stories &42 feet 1 story&25 42 feet Footnotes apply to all tracts and lots in the PUD: Page 4 of 10 Onyx RPUD PL20140000890 Revised May 9,2016 1 tk . S I. Setback from a lake tract for all principal and accessory uses may be zero feet (0') provided architectural bank treatment is Incorporated Into the design. Architectural bank treatments shall Include any structural materials used to retain earth such as concrete stone or wood placed per LDC requirements. 2. If the parcel is directly accessed by a public or private road right-of-way, setback Is measured from the adjacent road right-of-way line and or easement line per the LDC. n' Sidewalks shall be located in the road right-of-way. 3. if the parcel is directly accessed by a private driveway, setback Is measured from the back of curb (if curbed) or edge-of-pavement (if not curbed).This would apply to multi- family development tracts that do not have platted road rights-of-way. 4, Front yard setback from the back of sidewalk to the face of the garage door must be a minimum of 23 feet for internal private roads. Page 5 of 10 Onyx RPUD P120140000890 Revised May 9,2016 T-- -,--. — - - r - - ? wX-� r Q F- F- a e e4 6..Ra OD ,,,e a ae. Z 0 n 1A r r "i N qp g wv Iiii 1 Q. X W 1 W OMf N os M c'i M VN• P 0 csi d .- o 0 ae F w Z r :1, w a LU W x -i )` CO 11i U a Q . a a fx w co . 0LLl s M CC > U t U 0 -I g Q W N Ce - w 0 U r` w N = 0 J } m q LL Z N = a te !- — V g w x w U. w Q % '- f0 LU W w a 0 ¢ Za a ce 0 w 0_ Z N Q fifi Lcial LLI2 ss C4oza wL x n z w E ~ a Z � oWoJaw < aUo, w U cn w o a 3a �, jin w a w ! Dwace °iav ? vS1u ce N Z ce $ a a o U a U a m r� a. IT f < co o :4-- . c) , IMOa Ot)ala newts A 'VQNAOe J.O]rO id •— .t.wv.T'yrg•fev-gg,., T» :r, ...vir,9 �r ., ..+N rrr �r 7,F.ri. �►t ,17-•.t_ wr�'77.4, .`17.7,', rr^".7,7 rial \ 17: \ .,,,&;ems_.r ., _�z-l_.,..,. ....c.-.a�,a.a.‘..+ ` 4r_.._-._:Lw.::....254,t, :',,,,w,-'1.'':"...4-,,d::,-.8:.:.';: `,,--6.:. '?'_.� - f-.,"i-'.wc=._c.:-SL-.w i.e:t ,Li W 0. . ti, -.) ._ , 1 til i't 1 NJ g !..I - - - - - ---- - '§ - `1 I il r.:',dki XOY91:,... Sad4ne3, of . }L r Ii��l`' i'. i l3s r!! g. ri aZ � 1{� a. . 1i ` a) 6 C ` i.i1 iI i P W 4 roa � r I - .:,� _ . X774,7 _ a ;l"" .. ,,iP • Ohl ��r� Xa6 -- $ .o._ -- _ acs J 8 ii i4.«r....91.NOLLO36 s 11:7167: -:-:-7--•'�aeAav0Nno9103rOad atm/winos VtlV9MV9 V1NYS R i t • 1 r -- I 1. R. E 1 I `.'• I 1 1 ;. :. k c4 ):'..t: E+ram'7Rr!!!t!,''!�y!.�',�+yNI+,`!�1!.•w,Jy!':�.;!!". 4"^',.•,x: r' F:f t'IFt7t'�w ^~\ i W �.-. , .;.i..... ....::-_,.. .i.,..,:::.!...,:: :-.15.1,7:47:7—r-. ... .-.- '..:: ::::.:::: 11 ! : I. 1 '-i) ,---------n ..::,„ i , , ,:..1.,, , , Lu „, ,,Lii it, . . • .... _ ..,„:„ s, , : 0 4, ,,EAF , . ,• " , b. . ,., 0 .. :.... . „„ c ,-,, , z _ 41/41 ,5 ci._ i :) •!1 0 d' iC:1 — — — --.L---- — -- N"....„.4... 1.'; L i 71- ' i.7:1 0- it A . 't:'....".: _ .....g I G. 0tx D .) t.._,.....i.1 l';':-.;:.. ct_ w ; — :' i 5 0 , . . ;i1:,..r.r0-1.... 1-::/#--14Tctrs-a,ft::::::-Af.,:;:D.t.).-07-Ctf.,!::.1-45 ''''''''''''' III : :1 _ji,,,...21,„,.. _,....... 1.2_ d i-#40'. /) --- ,,_., ,. ' p A2NONR09103fOtld .,i,4 `' 1 f i 6 a,Vn3,no6 Vavetive VIM'S - �sL44 I) !o�' lo 6 su i(C• EXHIBIT D LEGAL DESCRIPTION: (AS SHOWN IN O,R.BOOK 3864, PAGE 123) PARCEL ONE: EAST HALF (E 1/2) OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER (SW 1/4) OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER (SW 1/4) OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW 1/4) OF SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, LESS THE NORTH 30 FEET,THE EAST 30 FEET, AND THE SOUTH 30 FEET,THEREOF, COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA. AND PARCEL TWO: WEST HALF (W 1/2) OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER (SW 1/4) OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER (SW 1/4) OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW 1/4) OF SECTION 16,TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, LESS THE NORTH 30 FEET, AND THE SOUTH 30 FEET,THEREOF, COLDER COUNTY, FLORIDA, Page T of 10 Onyx RPUD PL20140000890 Revised May 9,2016 EXHIBIT E DEVIATIONS: Nothing in this PUD Document shall approve a deviation to the LDC unless It is listed in this Exhibit E. 1. A deviation from LDC Section 6.06.02.A.2 which requires that a 5-foot wide sidewalk be provided on both sides of public and private rights-of-way or easements which are internal to the site, to Instead provide a 5-foot wide sidewalk on one side of the private right-of-way as depicted in the master plan (Exhibit C). The sidewalk may only be omitted on one side of a street which Is Immediately adjacent to the rear of the structures and where no driveway accesses are provided. When residential units front on or have driveway access to both sides of a street, sidewalks shall be provided on both sides of the right of way. 2. A deviation from LDC Section 2.03.07 D.4.g which requires, upon the issuance of approval of a site development plan or subdivision plat that is part of a PUD or DRI, TOR credits and TDR Bonus credits shall be redeemed at a rate proportional to percentage of the PUD or DRI's approved gross density that is derived through TDR credits and TDR Bonus credits, to instead permit the developer to construct all units from base density (35 units) before requiring application of TDR credits. Page Iof10 Onyx RPUD P120140000890 Revised May 9,2016 fi li EXHiBIT F DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS: PROPOSED DENSITY AND TRANSFERLOF DEVELOPMENT Rion(TDR) 1, The overall project density is 5.5 dwelling units per acre (48 unit maximum) and will be based upon surveyed acreage (8.72 acres) inclusive of existing right-of-way reservations and or easement dedications. 2, Prior to the approval of an SDP or Plat that includes any units beyond the 35 base units; required TDR credit(s) shall be redeemed from designated and qualified Sending Lands. ATTACHED GARAGE, 1. Each dwelling unit shall have a garage attached to the principal structure. SOLiD WASTE 1. Solid Waste will be provided by curb side pick-up of individual trash receptacles for each dwelling unit. Dumpsters will not be used for solid waste disposal, except during construction. ENVIRONMENTAL, 1. Preserve Area Calculation: 7.46 acres (existing vegetation) x 15% = 1.12 acres to be preserved. ?UBUc UT1Li es 1. Water and wastewater connections will be made at locations approved at the time of SDP or subdivision plat review and final approval. TRANSPORTATION The development of the land within this PUD shall be subject to and governed by the following conditions: 1. The maximum trip generation allowed by the proposed uses (both primary and ancillary) may not exceed 33 PM Peak Hour,two way trips. 2. The Owner, or its successors and assigns, shall construct a right ingress turn lane at the site's access point on Santa Barbara, which may be placed in the County right of way. A right of way permit will be required and 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, street lights, transit stops, sidewalk, drainage and utility improvements determined needed by County including slope and clear zones, owner Page 9 of 10 Onyx RPUD PL20140000890 Revised May 9,2016 I � • 4 or its successors and 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. Owner or its successors and assigns, will convey the road right of way to County at no cost to County within 60 days of County's written request, free and clear of an 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 to construct 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 County. 3. All internal roads, driveways, alleys, pathways and sidewalks, as well as pedestrian interconnections to adjacent developments shall be operated and maintained by an entity created by the developer. Collier County shall hove no responsibility for maintenance of any such facilities. LANDSCAPING 1. In order to support a canopy tree with a minimum of 20-foot crown spread as required in LDC Section 4.06.05. individual lots must accommodate enough space for the entire 20-foot canopy tree to be located wholly within the lot boundaries, except where the lot is adjacent to a lake maintenance easement or landscape buffer easement, in which case a portion of the 20-foot canopy may protrude into such area. MONITORING REPORT One entity (hereinafter the Managing Entity} shall be responsible for PUD monitoring until close- out of the PUD, and this entity shall also be responsible for satisfying all PUD commitments until close-out of the PUD. At the time of this PUD approval, the Managing Entity is Polly Avenue. ! • Should the Managing Entity desire to transfer the monitoring and commitments to a successor entity, then it must provide a copy of a legally binding document that needs to be approved for legal sufficiency by the County Attorney. After such approval, the Managing Entity will be released of its obligations upon written approval of the transfer by County staff, and the successor entity shall become the Managing Entity. As Owner and Developer sell off tracts, the Managing Entity shall provide written notice to County that Includes an acknowledgement of the commitments required by the PUD by the new owner and the new owner's agreement to comply with the Commitments through the Managing Entity, but the Managing Entity shall not be relieved of its responsibility under this Section, When the PUD is closed-out, then the Managing Entity is no longer responsible for the monitoring and fulfillment of PUD commitments. Page 10 of 10 Onyx RPUD P120140000890 Revised May 9,2016 AGENDA ITEM 9-C Co er County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING DIVISION—ZONING SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: JUNE 02, 2016 SUBJECT: PUDZ-PL20140000890 ONYX RPUD PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT/AGENT: Owner/Applicant: Polly Ave,LLC 1111 Kane Concourse, Suite 217 Bay Harbor Island, FL 33154 Agents: Tim Hancock,AICP R. Bruce Anderson Stantec Cheffy Passidomo,P.A. 3200 Bailey Lane 850 Park Shore Drive, Suite 300 Naples, FL 34105 Naples,FL 34103 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner is requesting the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) to consider an application to amend the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the subject property from Residential Multi-Family-6 (RMF-6) zoning district to a Residential Planned Unit Development(RPUD)zoning district for a project known as the Onyx RPUD,to allow for the development of up to forty-eight(48) single-family and/or multi-family dwelling units. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property,consisting of 8.72 acres,is located on the east side of Santa Barbara Boulevard, approximately 1.5 miles north of Rattlesnake-Hammock Road in Section 16, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County,Florida. PUDZ-PL20140000890 Onyx RPUD Page 1 of 17 May 21,2016 l L L—I Q ® u> al Y I ILb cc cc A Iu z n NON 1 Q w 1tu— I 5 _ tlJ V R �A O a zw, a Z < Q R Tn WON A K A a i ^ z Li gc 7n 3/1dfnC a OUYn32108 13swns — 2-2— 5 e i• C r. ...... ........... 7.................... .. ..... - it_ 10'. 0 _ ...... ........... -7.•) _._ ••::::: :.•::::•.,.., Q ®-1'1:12 �—In wsnw • Z Cr)�.r Li' « CWYn31MR YwVwwMS V1NK QWATYIOB mom v1NY5 �Y^tea x y R a a i 7 a x 0 s s 0 TT 0 Y O - =��s6��ea�Fas �`** i N R `a A A R I A I�{ �� LL cr ¢ 8 : AU111: f: 8 E i i ci 1 1 4:042,04,tf" NI• CC \1;" 1 \-- D 0" 1 41. 1 : Vi 1 2 ell /---1:=3 i 1 \ „4. g co u? k rt 11 8 2 U . 0 .., 1 u. it, 40 l<\ . . . _, D. 3n06 01 10N / 7 0 D a z, li 3 i as I tt r Er h Rd - m Hi x€ 14 ; n O LIJ it 1,5 3 '� All a -- 111i 11.0 aw�noe U311100 � I n / 1 it O t -Le) l n g11 \ a.II N.11 2 ft re 0 i li 11 °1 1 ; -I Mims 11 1/ ; A 1/1 ' " 1- hilliN tr :i1, 41 n 1 s W -----/' 4 li, a `" g avow wwva 1114100 4" I 11 MIMI INS 30161.1 Nwowo Fj S1YIl W0MY31 An 3241-- ili R 6 ti i PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The petitioner,who owns the subject property, is requesting to rezone 8.72 acres for the purpose of constructing up to 48 dwelling units. Although the exact mix of unit types has not yet been determined at this time,the petitioner is requesting approval for single-family,townhouse,or multi- family dwellings. The petitioner is also requesting provisions for recreational facilities and accessory uses/structures(see Attachment#1 Proposed PUD Ordinance). SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: This section of the staff report identifies the land uses and zoning classifications for properties surrounding the subject site. North: Unimproved Adkins Avenue road easement, then farther north is a water management area, zoned Rural Agricultural (A) and Planned Unit Development(PUD) (3.25 dwelling units per acre). East: Right-of-way for Sunset Boulevard, then farther east is single-family residential, zoned A [0.2 dwelling units per acre (1 du/5 acres)]. South: Right-of-way for Polly Avenue, then farther south is single-family residential, zoned A [0.2 dwelling units per acre(1 du/5 acres)]. West: Right-of-way for Santa Barbara Boulevard, then farther west is Tract N (drainage easement) of Royal Wood Golf and Country Club,zoned PUD(3.34 dwelling units per acre). PUDZ-PL20140000890 Onyx RPUD Page 2 of 17 May 21,2016 ROYALW1JbUS '} ' � G riLY9 t ,.1, II ,,ri ..L ,„ Subject Property 1' �I �t1 m 5930.'r . '550.,1 .11':. l,nINA102 , ' * y��6�(+ 7 1 '^It - ° tii 5536 175 f r Umf BL�DG,B 1 .. A 8'S 1 17 . 9/ g ., n ins A V g Umf R203 __ r g 01/1#j'Yq ro4.b. k: _ _ i.�, ic:a tr ,e I , . kj f145 , ,, nit�2ot".• ,„ or - l' , iMb a fJ IF , r 4 1877 , _ i . .,y 7] AAA RoY.a,1 ' .4 it S 4,7 oV'i C7 iF.. m j gy } ' 1 3455 ¢o". �a� .„ d Imo..` '4 I ''3947 44 c i i t Ia,:..ar 7I of Aerial(County GIS) GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN(GMP)CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element(FLUE): The subject property is designated Urban,Urban Mixed Use District,Urban Residential Subdistrict, as identified on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and in the FLUE of the GMP. Relevant to this petition, this Subdistrict permits residential development(variety of unit types)at a base density of four (4) dwelling units per gross acre (DU/A) and recreation and open space uses. This project is relying on the Residential In-fill density bonus provision of the FLUE for an additional one and one- half(1.5) DU/A; that provision includes a requirement to utilize TDR (Transfer of Development Rights) Credits. Density calculation and explanation is shown below. 8.72 acres X 5.5 DU/A=47.96 DUs 4 48 DUs (OR,48 DUs/8.72 acres= 5.5 DU/A) Base Density 4 DU/A(8.72 ac. X 4 DU/A= 34.88 DUs) Infill Bonus TDR Credit Density 1 DU/A(8.72 ac. X 1 DU/A=8.72 DUs) Infill Bonus non-TDR Density 0.5 DU/A(8.72 ac. X 0.5 DU/A=4.36 DUs) Total Sum: 47.96 4 48 DUs (34.88 DUs+ 8.72 DUs+4.36 DUs) Of the forty-eight(48)total DUs, nine (9) DUs are derived from TDR Credits. Since TDR Credits cannot be transferred in fractions,the TDR figure of 8.72 DUs must be rounded up to nine(9)DUs derived from TDR Credits. PUDZ-PL20140000890 Onyx RPUD Page 3 of 17 May 21,2016 1 Per LDC Section 2.03.07 D.4.g., TDR Credits must be used (redeemed) proportionately for each Plat or SDP that includes dwelling units. The petitioner is requesting a deviation (Exhibit E, #2) from this requirement so as to allow the base density (35 DUs) to be constructed prior to the redemption of TDR Credits. Justification offered is based upon financial hardship that would be incurred to acquire the TDR Credits for the first phase of development. Staff has no objection to this deviation request. Staff evaluated this petition for consistency with the Residential Infill density bonus provision and in light of certain FLUE policies, and finds the petition to be consistent with the FLUE. For the complete FLUE consistency evaluation, please see Attachment #2 - Comprehensive Planning Consistency Review. Transportation Element: In evaluating this project, staff reviewed the applicant's Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) for consistency with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan(GMP) using the 2014 and 2015 Annual Update and Inventory Reports(AUIR). Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states the following: "The County Commission shall review all rezone petitions, SRA designation applications, conditional use petitions, and proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) affecting the overall countywide density or intensity of permissible development, with consideration of their impact on the overall County transportation system,and shall not approve any petition or application that would directly access a deficient roadway segment as identified in the current AUIR or if it impacts an adjacent roadway segment that is deficient as identified in the current AUIR, or which significantly impacts a roadway segment or adjacent roadway segment that is currently operating and/or is projected to operate below an adopted Level of Service Standard within the five year AUIR planning period, unless specific mitigating stipulations are also approved. A petition or application has significant impacts if the traffic impact statement reveals that any of the following occur: a. For links (roadway segments) directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2%of the adopted LOS standard service volume; b. For links adjacent to links directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2%of the adopted LOS standard service volume; and c. For all other links the project traffic is considered to be significant up to the point where it is equal to or exceeds 3%of the adopted LOS standard service volume. Mitigating stipulations shall be based upon a mitigation plan prepared by the applicant and submitted as part of the traffic impact statement that addresses the project's significant impacts on all roadways." The proposed rezoning to allow a maximum of forty-eight (48) residential units on the subject property that will generate approximately thirty-three (33) PM peak hour (single-family detached PUDZ-PL20140000890 Onyx RPUD Page 4 of 17 May 21,2016 calculation), peak direction trips on the immediately adjacent roadway link. The current RMF-6 zoning allows a maximum of twenty-seven (27) residential units on the property that generate approximately twenty-one (21) PM peak hour,peak directional trips on the adjacent roadway link. Therefore the proposed forty-eight (48) residential unit development represents a net increase of twelve (12) PM peak hour trips. Based in the 2015 AUIR, the adjacent roadway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed new trips for the proposed project within the five (5)-year planning period. Therefore, the subject rezoning can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP. Conservation and Coastal Management Element(CCME): Environmental Planning staff found this project to be consistent with the Conservation & Coastal Management Element (CCME). A minimum of 1.12 acres of native vegetation is required to be retained for the PUD. GMP Conclusion: The GMP is the prevailing document to support land use decisions such as this proposed rezoning. Staff is required to make a recommendation regarding a finding of consistency or inconsistency with the overall GMP as part of the recommendation for approval,approval with conditions,or denial of any rezoning petition. This petition is consistent with the GMP. ANALYSIS: Applications for amendments to,or rezoning to,the PUD shall be in the form of a PUD master plan of development along with a list of permitted and accessory uses and a development standards table. The PUD application shall also include a list of developer commitments and any proposed deviations from the LDC. Staff has completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition, including the criteria upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5,Planning Commission Recommendation (commonly referred to as the"PUD Findings"), and Section 10.02.08.F, Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission Report (referred to as "Rezone Findings"), which establish the legal basis to support the CCPC's recommendation.The CCPC uses the aforementioned criteria as the basis for their recommendation to the BCC,who in turn use the criteria to support its action on the rezoning or amendment request. Environmental Review: Environmental Planning staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD Document to address environmental concerns. The subject property is small, approximately 8.72 acres in size, and surrounded on all sides by existing roads or undeveloped public right-of-way (ROW), therefore isolating any potential preserve from possible future connection to adjacent parcels. The proposed preserve, as conceptually shown on the PUD master plan, exceeds the minimum width requirement for preserves,which is twenty(20)feet for property less than ten(10) acres. On-site native habitats are impacted with exotic vegetation and consist solely of pine flatwoods with no listed wildlife species observed or known to occur on the subject property. Therefore, the type and quality of habitat and presence of listed species did not factor in on the selection of the preserve. Land uses adjacent to the ROW abutting the proposed preserve consist of single-family homes situated on A-zoned parcels. A more intense use, Santa Barbara Boulevard, occurs on the other (west) side of the property. Although preserves, which are linear in shape, are PUDZ-PL20140000890 Onyx RPUD Page 5 of 17 May 21,2016 discouraged by LDC Section 3.05.07 1-1.1.b, the configuration and location of the preserve can be justified for the reasons stated above. Landscape Review: Approved. No comment. School District: At this time there is sufficient capacity for the proposed development at the elementary,middle,and high school levels. This finding is for planning and informational purposes only and does not constitute either a reservation of capacity or a finding of concurrency for the proposed project. At the time of platting or SDP, the development would be reviewed for concurrency to ensure there is capacity either within the concurrency service area the development is located within or adjacent concurrency service areas such that the level of service standards are not exceeded. Transportation Review: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petition request, the PUD Document,master plan, and as noted above, for consistency with the transportation elements of the GMP. Transportation Planning staff is recommending approval of the request. Utilities Review: Approved. No comment. Zoning Services Review: When evaluating this proposed amendment,staff analyzed the 1)proposed density, 2) proposed uses, 3) associated development standards, and 4) open space requirements. The analysis is as follows: Proposed Density - The subject property currently contains a density cap of 3.2 dwelling units per acre pursuant to Ordinance 06-53 (known as the Manus Rezone, RZ-2005-AR-8427). Under this ordinance,the subject property was approved for a total of twenty-seven(27)multi-family dwelling units on 8.68 acres. Among other stipulations,the developer was required to convey a seventy(70)- foot wide easement along the then-future Santa Barbara Boulevard Extension. The original petition (RZ-2005-AR-8427), which staff supported, requested to rezone from A to Residential Multi- Family 12(RMF-12)with a density of seven(7)dwelling units per acre for a total of sixty-one(61) multi-family dwelling units. Of notable consideration, the Santa Barbara Extension right-of-way improvement project was completed subsequent to when the original petition was approved in 2006. With respect to the proposed density of this petition, it is staff's opinion the proposed project contains critical design elements that help promote compatibility. The master plan intentionally focuses the intensity of the development towards the northwest boundary of the parcel,to a six (6) lane roadway along the western boundary and a water management area of the adjacent property to the north. Preserve areas along the east and south sides of the subject property would help mitigate how the project interfaces with the immediately adjacent A-zoned properties. Staff supports the proposed density of this petition based on the proposed setbacks, placement of preserve and water management areas, location of the access points for vehicular ingress/egress, and landscape buffering as illustrated on the PUD Master Plan. Proposed Uses - The purpose and intent of the RMF-6 is to provide for single-family, two-family and multi-family residences having a low profile silhouette, surrounded by open space, being so situated that it is located in close proximity to public and commercial services and has direct or PUDZ-PL20140000890 Onyx RPUD Page 6 of 17 May 21,2016 convenient access to collector and arterial roads on the County major road network. The RMF-6 district corresponds to and implements the urban mixed use land use designation on the future land use map of the Collier County GMP. The RMF-6 allows single-family dwellings and multi- family/dwellings as permitted uses; however, if developed as a cluster housing development, then conditional use approval is required. Staff determined the uses proposed in this PUD would be compatible with the uses already allowed in the RMF-6. Development Standards- Staff compared the development standards of the proposed uses with that 1 of the RMF-6 zoning district, generally, and with the cluster housing provisions found in Section 4.02.04 of the LDC. The comparison is as follows: (See following page) it PUDZ-PL20140000890 Onyx RPUD Page 7 of 17 May 21,2016 I I I I Table 1. Development Standards Comparison i Onyx Multi- Onyx Single- RMF-6 Zoning District Cluster Housing LDC family Dwelling family 1 &Townhouse Dwelling/ZLL Minimum Lot Area N/A 3,500 s.f. 6,500 s.f.(for SF) 3,000 s.f. 12,000 s.f. (for duplex) 5,500 s.f.(per unit for 3+ y units) 1 1: I i f i Minimum Lot Width 60 feet 35 feet 60 feet(for SF) 40 feet 80 feet(for duplex) 20 feet(cul-de-sac) 100 feet(for 3+units) Minimum Floor Area 900 s.f. (per unit) 1,000 s.f. 750 feet N/A Internal Setback 20 feet' 20 feet' 25 feet(for SF) 20 feet (front) . 25 feet(for duplex) 10 feet(side entry 30 feet(for 3+units) garage) Internal Setback 20 feet' 6 feet,or zero(0) 10 feet(SF waterfront) ZLL on 1 (side) feet on one side 7.5 feet(SF non-water) one side 10 feet 1 and 12 feet on the 10 feet(duplex water) I other' 10 feet(duplex non-water) No ZLL 5 feet i 15 feet(3+units water) 15 feet(3+units non-water) 1 Internal Setback 20 feet' 20 feet' 20 feet(for SF) 10 feet I (rear) 20 feet(for duplex) ; 20 feet(for 3+units) PUD Perimeter 20 feet 20 feet N/A N/A Setback(north) PUD Perimeter 150 feet 150 feet N/A N/A Setback(east) PUD Perimeter 70 feet 70 feet N/A N/A Setback(south) PUD Perimeter 20 feet 20 feet N/A N/A Setback(west) Minimum Distance 25 feet 12 feet N/A N/A between Structures 15 feet 0 or 10 feet N/A 1 (principal accessory) Maximum Height (zoned) 2 stories&35 feet 2 stories&35 feet 35 feet N/A Maximum Height (actual) 2 stories&42 feet 2 stories&42 feet Per underlying zoning 1 district 1 1. Setback from a lake tract for all principal and accessory uses may be zero (0) feet provided architectural bank treatment is incorporated into the design. Architectural bank treatments shall include any structural materials used to retain earth such as concrete stone or wood placed per LDC requirements. PUDZ-PL20140000890 Onyx RPUD Page 8 of 17 May 21,2016 fi Open Space Requirements - The total area required for open space is sixty percent(60%) or 4.674 acres. A note on the master plan indicates that 4.67 acres would be provided,which complies with the LDC; however, the land use summary table only indicates that 0.42 acres of"additional open space" would be provided. Open space would likely be accounted for within portions of internal rights-of-way, residential areas, and the amenity center. Open space would also likely be achieved throughout the water management areas, preserves, and perimeter buffers. Compliance with open space requirements must be demonstrated at the time of Plat or SDP. Staff determined the proposed density, uses, and development standards of the proposed single- family and/or multi-family/townhouse residential uses would be comparable to the RMF-6 zoning district(including in connection with Ordinance 06-53)and cluster housing standards. Compliance with open space requirements must be demonstrated at the time of Plat or SDP. DEVIATION DISCUSSION: This petitioner is requesting two (2) deviations, which are itemized in Exhibit E of the PUD Document. The petitioner's justification and staff analysis/recommendation are as follows: Proposed Deviation#1 A deviation from LDC Section 6.06.02.A.2, which requires that a five (5)-foot wide sidewalk be provided on both sides of public and private right-of-ways or easements which are internal to the site,to instead provide a five (5)-foot sidewalk on one side of the private right-of-way as depicted in the master plan(Exhibit C). The sidewalk may only be omitted on one side of a street which is immediately adjacent to the rear of the structures and where no driveway accesses are provided. When residential units front on or have driveway access to both sides of a street, sidewalks shall be provided on both sides of the right-of-way. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant responded as follows: "Due to the limited number of units and the design of the site, the applicant is requesting to allow for a sidewalk on one side of the internal roadway where the residential uses will only be accessing the road on one side. The eastern portion of the internal roadway will provide access to the homes on the eastern side of the road. Therefore a sidewalk on the western portion of the roadway is not necessary. A sidewalk will be provided on both side (sic) of the roadway to the western and southern portions of the internal roadway as shown on the MCP." Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that the proposed master plan contains a unique residential lot configuration in that the middle row of units have rights-of-way on both the front and rear sides of each lot;therefore, it is reasonable to expect sidewalks to be required only along the front sides of each lot. Furthermore, staff finds the proposed sidewalk layout shown on the master plan appears to provide adequate sidewalk access for all of the proposed residential lots. Additionally, staff finds that in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3,the petitioner has demonstrated that"the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and PUDZ-PL20140000890 Onyx RPUD Page 9 of 17 May 21,2016 3 LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Proposed Deviation#2 A deviation from LDC Section 2.03.07 D.4.g which requires,upon the issuance of approval of a site development plan or subdivision plat that is part of a PUD or DRI, TDR credits and TDR Bonus credits shall be redeemed at a rate proportional to percentage of the PUD or DRI's approved gross density that is derived through TDR Credits and TDR Bonus Credits,to instead permit the developer to construct all units from base density(35 units)before requiring application of TDR Credits. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant responded as follows: "The referenced section of the LDC, as it relates to the proportionate percentage of units being constructed based on the required TDR's represents a disproportionate up front expense for a small-scale project such as this. Due to the limited size, scope and the developer's intent to build the project in limited phases, the applicant seeks permission through this deviation to construct 35 units in a first phase in consideration of the base zoning contained within the RPUD. SDP or Plat approval for the second phase, containing the remaining 13 units, shall be granted once proof is provided showing the required number of TDR's have been redeemed, and all other requirements for the SDP or Plat have been met." Staff Analysis and Recommendation: The justification offered is based upon financial hardship that would be incurred to acquire the TDR Credits for the first phase of development. Staff has no objection to this deviation request and recommends APPROVAL. Of the thirteen (13) density bonus units requested,nine (9)would require redemption of TDR Credits,which must occur prior to,or concurrent with,the four(4)non-TDR bonus units. PUD FINDINGS: LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5 states that, "In support of its recommendation, the CCPC shall make findings as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the following criteria in addition to the findings in LDC Section 10.02.08": 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land,surrounding areas,traffic and access,drainage, sewer,water,and other utilities. Potable water and sanitary sewer lines are in the vicinity of the subject parcel. The master plan shows there is an existing eight(8)-inch water main and eight (8)-inch sanitary sewer line within the Santa Barbara Boulevard right-of-way. The master plan also shows the location of the existing six(6)-inch force main as well. The project proposes two(2)points of vehicular ingress/egress along Adkins Avenue. PUDZ-PL20140000890 Onyx RPUD Page 10 of 17 May 21,2016 2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contracts,or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as i they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Documents submitted with the application,which were reviewed by the County Attorney's Office, demonstrate unified control of the property. The applicant states the property is under the unified control of the current property owner, "whose sole beneficiary is Jorge Savloff,Managing Member." 3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals,objectives,and policies of the Growth Management Plan(GMP). County staff has reviewed this petition and has offered an analysis of the relevant goals, objectives,and policies of the GMP within the GMP Consistency section of this staff report (or within an accompanying memorandum). 4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses,which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. The applicant has responded to this criterion by stating as follows: "In addition to the use of native vegetation, buffering, increased setbacks, and building height limitations, the owner has agreed to ensure that each unit will include one attached garage.This self-imposed requirement is intended to ensure that apartment-style development with a high amount of at-grade parking lots will not be developed in this location. This commitment has been made , I in concert with the neighbors who have participated in the public process to date." I 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The total area required for open space is sixty percent (60%) or 4.67 acres. The land use summary in the master plan indicates that 3.32 acres would be open space. This equates to 42.6%,which is less than the minimum required. The applicant states the project would be compliant by "utilizing active or passive recreation areas as well as required yards and landscape areas which will meet or exceed the sixty percent(60%)requirement. Compliance with open space requirements must be demonstrated at the time of platting. 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities,both public and private. The applicant has responded to this criterion by stating as follows: "The development may be phased over the course of 2-3 years, and adequacy of roadway capacity, water and sewer availability, school capacity and fire/EMS service has been shown to be available." The proposed rezoning petition represents a net increase in the number of peak hour trips; however, as noted in the GMP Consistency section of this staff report,the adjacent roadway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed new trips.Operational impacts PUDZ-PL20140000890 Onyx RPUD Page 11 of 17 May 21,2016 will be addressed at time of first development order (SDP or Plat). Additionally, the project's development must comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals are sought. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. The area has adequate supporting infrastructure, such as wastewater systems and potable water supplies to accommodate this project based upon the commitments made by the petitioner and the fact that adequate public facilities requirements will be addressed when development approvals are sought. 8. Conformity with PUD regulations,or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. Two (2)deviations are being requested with this petition. Staff supports both deviations. Rezone Findings: LDC Subsection 10.02.08.F states, "When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and recommendations to the planning commission to the Board of County Commissioners...shall show that the planning commission has studied and considered proposed change in relation to the following when applicable": 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals,objectives,and policies of the Future Land Use Map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan. Comprehensive Planning staff determined the subject petition is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the FLUM and elements of the GMP. 2. The existing land use pattern. The existing land use pattern (of the adjacent properties) is described in the Surrounding Land Use and Zoning section of this staff report. Staff determined the proposed uses are appropriate for this area of the County. The PUD density would be approximately 5.5 dwelling units per acre, which is consistent with the density rating system in the FLUE of the GMP and would further the County's TDR Program. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. The Official Zoning Map shows the parcels are directly adjacent to Waterford Estates PUD and the Royal Wood Golf and Country Club PUD. Therefore, it is staff's opinion that rezoning these parcels from RMF-6 to RPUD would not create an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. PUDZ-PL20140000890 Onyx RPUD Page 12 of 17 May 21,2016 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. The subject parcel is currently owned by the Polly Ave,LLC. The square-shaped boundary of the new RPUD is not illogically drawn. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning necessary. The proposed change is not necessary,per se; but it is being requested in compliance with the LDC provisions to seek such changes. The rezoning to RPUD also allows for the two (2) deviations. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. Staff does not anticipate the new uses would adversely impact living conditions in the neighboring community. 7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development,or otherwise affect public safety. The proposed rezoning represents a net increase in the number of peak hour trips;however, the adjacent roadway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed new trips. The project's development must also comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations and operational improvements when development approvals are sought at time of SDP or PPL review. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. The proposed change will not create a drainage problem as the applicant will be required to submit a SFWMD permit and all required stormwater documentation to County staff to be evaluated during the development review process. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. It is not anticipated that this amendment would significantly reduce light or air to the adjacent areas. PUDZ-PL20140000890 Onyx RPUD Page 13 of 17 May 21,2016 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area. This is a subjective determination based upon anticipated results, which may be internal or external to the subject property. Property valuation is affected by a host of factors including zoning; however, zoning by itself may or may not affect values, since value determination is driven by market value.There is no guarantee that the project will be marketed in a manner comparable to the surrounding developments. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the or improvement development p P of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. Staff does not anticipate the rezoning to RPUD would be a deterrent to the improvement or development of the vacant property to the south of Polly Avenue; neither would it have any effect on the adjacent water management area to the north;nor the adjacent properties to the west;nor in connection with the Royal Wood Golf and Country Club PUD;nor the adjacent properties to the east,which have already been developed with residential uses. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare. If the proposed development complies with the GMP through the proposed amendment,then that constitutes a public policy statement supporting zoning actions when they are consistent with said Comprehensive Plan. In light of this fact,the proposed change does not constitute a grant of special privilege. Consistency with the FLUE is further determined to be a public welfare relationship because actions consistent with plans are in the public interest. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. The property may still be developed within the parameters of the current RMF-6 zoning district at a density cap of 3.2 units per acre;however,the petitioner is requesting a density bonus,which is allowed under the GMP. A density bonus requires a rezoning and therefore,the petition can be evaluated and action taken as deemed appropriate through the public hearing process. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County. It is staff's opinion the proposed uses and associated development standards will ensure that the project is not out of scale with the needs of the community. 15. Whether is it impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. The petition was reviewed on its own merit for compliance with the GMP and the LDC,and staff does not specifically review other sites in conjunction with a specific petition. PUDZ-PL20140000890 Onyx RPUD Page 14 of 17 May 21,2016 16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration, which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. Any development anticipated by the PUD Document would require considerable site alteration,and this project will undergo extensive evaluation relative to all federal,state,and local development regulations during the platting or SDP process, and again later as part of the building permit process. 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, as amended. The project will have to meet all applicable criteria set forth in LDC Section 6.02.00 regarding Adequate Public Facilities (APF) and the project will need to be consistent with all applicable goals and objectives of the GMP regarding adequate public facilities, except as may be exempt by federal regulations. This petition has been reviewed by County staff responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP as part of the amendment process and those staff persons have concluded that no Level of Service will be adversely impacted with the commitments contained in the PUD Document. The concurrency review for APF is determined at the time of PPL or SDP review. 18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners (BCC)shall deem important in the protection of the public health,safety,and welfare. To be determined by the BCC during their advertised public hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC)RECOMMENDATION: The project does not require review by the Environmental Advisory Council (EAC), since the project does not meet the EAC scope of land development project reviews identified in Chapter 2, Article VIII,Division 23, Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): Davidson Engineering, Inc. conducted a NIM on February 17, 2015 at the Collier County South Regional Library, located at 8065 Lely Cultural Pkwy. The NIM summary is provided in Attachment#4—NIM Summaries and Legal Notices. The applicant then hired a new agent to work on the petition. Stantec conducted another NIM on October 26, 2015 at New Hope Ministries, located at 7675 Davis Boulevard. However, because no newspaper advertisement was procured, this NIM could not be counted as an official NIM. Since the applicant's petition activity extended beyond one (1) year from the date of the first NIM (i.e., February of 2015), the original NIM was considered outdated and a new NIM would be required. A new NIM was held on May 12, 2016 at New Hope Ministries. The agent mentioned that all buildings would be no more than two(2)stories or 35 feet in height. Also, there would be a one hundred fifty (150)-foot setback from Sunset Boulevard and seventy(70)-foot setback from Polly Avenue. The public and the agent also engaged in discussion that included but was not limited to the following: a wall along Santa Barbara PUDZ-PL20140000890 Onyx RPUD Page 15 of 17 May 21,2016 Boulevard, an apparent drainage problem in the area, finished floor elevation(s), unit size(s), the type of construction for each building, self-governance of the new community, rental vs. condominiums,project phasing, location of utilities,and the cost of construction. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney's Office reviewed this staff report on May 16,2016. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the CCPC forward this petition to the BCC with a recommendation of approval. Attachments: 1) Proposed Ordinance 2) Comprehensive Planning Consistency Review 3) Density Map 4) NIM Summaries and Legal Notices 5) Letters/Emails from Public 6) Application& Support Material 1 PUDZ-PL20140000890 Onyx RPUD Page 16 of 17 May 21,2016 PREPARED BY: E-21 k it �4 //6, ERIC JOHNS N,AICP, CFM, PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE ZONING DIVISION REVIEWED BY: RAYMOND V. BELLOWS,ZONING MANAGER DATE ZONING DIVISION S-/C-17 MIKE BOSI, AICP,DIRECTOR DATE ZONING DIVISION APPROVED BY: ' ? '7 AMES FRENCH,DEPUTY DEPARTMENT HEAD DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT cL4f- an DAVID S. WILKISON, DEPARTMENT HEAD DATE D GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT PUDZ-PL20140000890 Onyx RPUD Page 17 of 17 ATTACHMENT #2 Comprehensive Planning Consistency Review I 3E 4 C • er County Growth Management Department Zoning Division Memorandum To: Eric Johnson,AICP, CFM, Principal Planner,Zoning Services Section From: David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Manager, Comprehensive Planning Section Date: May 3, 2016 Subject: Future Land Use Element(FLUE) Consistency Review PETITION NUMBER: PUDZ-PL20140000890 REV: 7 (April 28 and May 3, 2016) PETITION NAME: Onyx RPUD REQUEST: Rezone +_8.72 acres from RMF-6, Residential Multi-family zoning district (site is limited to 3.2 DU/A per Ord. 06-53)to RPUD, Residential Planned Unit Development, to permit a maximum of 48 residential dwelling units at a density of 5.5 units per acre. LOCATION: The subject project is located approximately 2.5 miles south of Davis Boulevard (SR 84), on the east side of Santa Barbara Boulevard, north side of Polly Avenue, and west side of Sunset Blvd., in Section 16, Township 50 South, Range 26 East. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS: The subject property is designated Urban (Urban— Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict), as identified on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP). Relevant to this petition, this Subdistrict permits residential development (variety of unit types) at a base density of four(4)dwelling units per gross acre (DU/A) and recreation and open space uses. This project is relying on the Residential In-fill density bonus provision of the FLUE for an additional one and one- half(1.5)DU/A. Density calculation and explanation is shown below. 8.72 acres X 5.5 DU/A=47.96 DUs 4 48 DUs (OR,48 DUs/8.72 acres=5.5 DU/A) Base Density 4 DU/A(8.72 ac. X 4 DU/A=34.88 DUs) Infill Bonus TDR Credit Density 1 DU/A(8.72 ac. X 1 DU/A=8.72 DUs) Infill Bonus non-TDR Density 0.5 DU/A(8.72 ac. X 0.5 DU/A=4.36 DUs) Total Sum: 47.96 4 48 DUs (34.88 DUs+ 8.72 DUs +4.36 DUs) Of the 48 total DUs, 9 DUs are derived from TDR Credits. Since TDR Credits cannot be transferred in fractions,the TDR figure of 8.72 must be rounded up to 9 DUs derived from TDR Credits. Per Land Development Code (LDC) Section 2.03.07 D.4.g., TDR Credits must be used (redeemed) proportionately for each Plat or SDP that includes DUs. The petitioner is requesting a deviation(Exhibit E, #2) from this requirement so as to allow the base density (35 DUs) to be constructed prior to redemption of TDR Credits. Justification offered is based upon financial hardship that would be 1 { incurred to acquire the TDR Credits for the first phase of development. Staff has no objection to this deviation request, The Residential In-fill provision is listed below, and further below are certain FLUE policies, followed by staff analysis in bold, italicized text within brackets. To encourage residential in-fill in urban areas of existing development outside of the Coastal High Hazard Area, a maximum of 3 residential dwelling units per gross acre may be added if the following criteria are met: [The site is outside of the CHHA, which is identified on the Future Land Use Map series, and the requested bonus is for 1.5 DU/A.] a. The project is 20 acres or less in size;[The project is 8.72 acres.] b. At time of development, the project will be served by central public water and sewer; [Provided for within PUD Exhibit F,Development Commitments,Public Utilities.] c. The project is compatible with surrounding land uses; [The site is located in the Urban Residential Subdistrict which is identified as an appropriate location for residential land uses; allowable density is as provided for by the Density Rating System, though eligible density is not an entitlement The Comprehensive Planning Section leaves the determination of compatibility to Zoning Services staff as part of their review of the petition in its entirety (also see FLUE Policy 5.4 below).) d. The property in question has no common site development plan with adjacent property; [The property has no common site development plan with adjacent properties.] e. There is no common ownership with any adjacent parcels; [Santa Barbara Boulevard is located west of the site, and the properties to the north, east(across Sunset Blvd) and south (across Polly Ave.)have no common ownership with the subject site.] f. The parcel in question was created prior to the adoption of this provision in the Growth Management Plan on January 10, 1989; [Collier County Property Appraiser's records indicate that the subject parcels were in existence prior to 1989.] g. Of the maximum 3 additional units, one (1) dwelling unit per acre shall be transferred from Sending Lands. [This is provided for in PUD Exhibit A,Permitted Uses, P'paragraph, and PUD Exhibit F, Development Commitments, Proposed Density and TDRs; and, is explained in petition Attachment A,Deviation and Justification Summary, #2. Of the 13 density bonus units requested, 9 will require redemption of TDR credits - which must occur prior to, or concurrent with, the 4 non-TDR bonus units.] h. Projects qualifying under this provision may increase the density administratively by a maximum of one dwelling unit per acre by transferring that additional density from Sending Lands. [The project applicant proposes to obtain the required 9 TDR credits if the project is developed beyond the base density of 35 DUs(4 DU/A). See above comment regarding timing of TDR redemption.] Policy 5.4 New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses as set forth in the Land Development Code. [Comprehensive Planning leaves this determination to Zoning Services staff as part of their review of the petition in its entirety. However, staff would note that in reviewing the appropriateness of the requested uses/densities on the subject site, the compatibility analysis might include a review of both the subject proposal and surrounding or nearby properties as to allowed use intensities and densities, development standards (building heights, setbacks, landscape buffers, etc.), building mass, building location, traffic generation/attraction, etc. Regarding surrounding densities, staff notes the surrounding lands to the northeast, east, southeast and south are all zoned A, Rural Agricultural; lands to the north are zoned "A" and Waterford 2 Estates PUD (19.4 acres, approved for 63 DUs at 3.25 DU/A, undeveloped except for Collier County water management pond); and, lands to the west, across the 6-lane divided Santa Barbara Blvd, are zoned Royal Wood Golf and Country Club PUD (239.84 acres, approved for 800 DUs at 3.34 DU/A, developed). All surrounding properties are designated Urban Residential on the FLUM and are eligible for a base density of 4 DU/A, and possibly eligible for one or more density bonuses; eligible density is not an entitlement] Policy 7.1 The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their properties to fronting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code. [The RPUD Master Plan does not depict direct access to Santa Barbara Boulevard — a collector road, as identified within the Transportation Element—but does provide access to it via unimproved Adkins Avenue.] Policy 7.2 The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic signals.[The RPUD Master Plan depicts a single loop road to provide internal access for all residential units.] Policy 7.3 All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and their interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type. The interconnection of local streets between developments is also addressed in Policy 9.3 of the Transportation Element. [Interconnections are not possible. The eastern, western and southern boundaries are adjacent to existing public roads, and the northern boundary abuts unimproved Atkins Avenue. The development's primary access will be via a dedicated right-of-way through unimproved Atkins Avenue to Santa Barbara Boulevard. Policy 7.4 The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities with a blend of densities, common open spaces, civic facilities and a range of housing prices and types. [The PUD allows for multi family, townhouse, single-family, and single-family zero lot line;and,provides for open space and preservation area consistent with the Land Development Code(LDC). Regarding provision of sidewalks,Deviation #1 provides that sidewalks will be provided on both sides of all streets except may be provided on only one side of a street "which is immediately adjacent to the rear of the structures and where no driveway accesses are provided." Exhibit C,PUD Master Plan, depicts sidewalks on both sides of streets except on the west side of the easterly street-the potential area where the deviation would be applicable. Staff has no objection to this deviation.] CONCLUSION: Based upon the above analysis,staff determines that the proposed PUD rezone may be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan. IN CITYVIEW cc: Michael Bosi,AICD,Zoning Director Ray Bellows,Zoning Manager PUDZ-PL20140000890 Onyx RPUD-REV6 G:iCDES Planning Services\Consistency Reviews120161PUDZ dw/5-3.16 3 1\ 001 EN1. �3 Dens‘ty Map F�a i':'''':-.,!:',G�'13" 3 k •F4 'y �" %y� BUD J tJC1..'tr. • • p_3_„- : '. ) , , t • i • 7 n -J,1:9° `7.`0 „0. . i 'moi ` q ;.:.., w , Zoning: E Cf 1 :4'44 ' �s3 ZONING:'RMF-6 ` RMF-6.(3)' : . . y, . ..a a:��*fit . < . „ ;; ,, ti ti t Zonint`J: PUD l' .' 4a .lR 6r iia y{" '� �t �' 4` moo . It `,: r �f — 4,". - , , 4 'r- t 2, r x Onyx RPUD )- 1 Z i .; -.--') - ; i. , h, ,A ailk It it -'.. .:::',,i4" - , -: 4 %. ‘ ''' i' 1 i �,t ..," i� r _ .t .tt \-m-,4q4.-, .4 ° ,,,,, ;" ,riord...V. •k `,t14 i, 1 * wa' 4+, lot • {f"' _t„,&.-1/4; ,4 k ]c��1 i> ,• D .. . J "Zoning IP - -- -' C,41 z ti , �„itRo taWam --,-- 3,34 ,: 43e.x DAeo �G: .C" f , , 4t, 14 t : 4 s :,�^� r 1 l'f. ! '`':dl'ir � ',-4f-1:',4k -A `+ e',, ',�'' - '"• M` , 1 '1 a '‘'';'-'414 • �i e„ '`'. iii �w' *t! �,, * 7 -,,,_,-!„....„.4.4,.. >.,,,..*,,,, � 4 "Art E-Li Di '4 •![!E[l!H lID Aa'. , ' �e` J �, 1.4-"`. .., ,' �.Huntington Woods - f 1_ Aa q1 ;� �- �,0 ,Calf€1n....�..1��' •, 1 �. i.re„' . �� m�# , .., ' Mia dak y 2a ,- * i as W- , '. g ti�uri 9 ,,tea t 4' Denit ya 2 9 :�F_ - , 1 `� ; ..7 . - *. RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK RD � �`,� Vic+ ��*'�p ��.�. z.�.n y - — ., ,,i,,�.YY�`Y�i C:,, ~C' i,...., A.,,,.,—AMA=-� «.:�u. . ues r'...fs'.z t.�ae.eFv�.,. v _ ._ ��, GROSS DENSITY UNITS PER ACRE (UPA) N 0 150 300 600 900 FOR ONYX RPUD AND Faa1 a€.:April m,zore SURROUNDING PROPERTIES €5 m•PpniieU♦•ato MLP a,.wn wmpem.nio.vre,.+ \11 4 \\\\t� r� "t. ,‘,\ 01 N ' ce`' PCN Nit` : IS;“ ega\ r aes a N OM Su 1 j:. AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE I hereby certify that pursuant to Ordinance 2004-41, of the Collier County Land Development Code, I did cause the attached newspaper advertisement to appear and I did give notice by mail to the following property owners and/or condominium and civic associations whose members may be affected by the proposed land use changes of an application request for a rezoning, PUD amendment, or conditional use, at least 15 days prior to the scheduled Neighborhood Information Meeting. For the purposes of this requirement, the names and addresses of property owners shall be deemed those appearing on the latest tax rolls of Collier County and any other persons or entities who have made a formal request of the county to he notified. The said notice contained the laymen's description of the site property of proposed change and the date, time, and place of a Neighborhood Information Meeting. Per the attached letters, property owner's list, and copy of newspaper advertisement which are hereby made a part of this Affidavit of Compliance / (Signature of Applicant) State of Florida County of Collier The foregoing Affidavit of compliance was acknowledged before me this -3 day of I t 04- , 2016 by I . (C.v ,who is e�onal� known to me or who has produced as identification. (Signature of Notary Public) (Notary Seal) I - :.e t-+ Printed Name of Notary Y SABINA E HARDY- MY COMMISSION Y FF 169669 ;g EXPIRES'.January 14,2019 v sf�, • Bonded Thru Notary Public Undanviders G:1NIM Procedures/Affidavit Of Compliance-NIM Oct2010.Doc 1 1 1 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. i 3200 Bailey Lane,Suite 200, Naples,FL 34105 1 { s w I April 22, 2016 Dear Property Owner: 1 The public is invited to attend a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) held by Polly Ave, LLC on PUDZ-PL20140000890, a request to rezone 18,72 acres from RMF-6, Residential Multi-family zoning k district, to Residential Planned Unit Development(RPUD). 1 Date: May 12, 2016 Time: 5:30 PM Location Name: New Hope Ministries Event Center Address: 7675 Davis Blvd., Naples, Florida 34104 • 1 Subject Property: The subject property consists of 8.72±acres located on the north side of Polly Ave, less than 1 mile north of Rattlesnake Hammock Road at the intersection with Santa Barbara Boulevard, in Section 16, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. 1 LOCATION MAP i I 1 _]_ i M'Niokw.RO ( 11111i11111 4111 I S 4 ,....01 `� . V -- I Adk .AVE ��\ 3 YY : ;J. 1111111 , 1 --t `I lo4�AVE E �� ll , tP i s r'crc Locaion `- '_ �_ _- —_. Ewell sr -r = „ ■■ 41• ■n '„' I4 /C m nnnnnuw.� . sr \/ .•ir�ir�• .nn�•� 9 HIMMI IIIIh‘"c'J ► If ! iunnnnn l .0 ,nn-6mmumut� AHemak „m„,„, o'I minium LP RPUD Rezone Description: A request to rezone ±8.72 acres from RMF-6, Residential Multi-family zoning district, to Residential Planned Unit Development(RPUD)to permit a maximum of 48 dwelling units which is a density of 5.5 units per acre with a maximum height of two stories. A RPUD Rezone application is currently being reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Department. Design with community it mind February 2, 2015 Error!Reference source not found. Page 2 of 2 Reference: Error! Reference source not found. In order to provide you an opportunity to become fully aware of the proposed RPUD Rezone and to give you an opportunity to provide input, we are holding a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM). WE VALUE YOUR INPUT Business and property owner, residents and visitors are welcome to attend the presentation and • discuss the proposed RPUD with the applicant and County Staff. If you are unable to attend this meeting, but have questions or comments, they can be directed by mail, phone, fax or e-mail to: Tim Hancock, AICP Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 3200 Bailey Lane, Suite 200 Naples, Florida 34105 Phone(239)649-4040 Fax: (239)643-5716 Email:tim,hancock@stantec.com Sincerely, Stantec Consulting services Inc. /{df� 217,1‘ Tim Hancock Senior Associate Phone: (239)649-4040 Fax: (239)643-5716 Tim.Hancock@stantec.com • lit, .1 , ;, AMHERST COVE CONDO ASSOS INC ANAGNOST CO-TR ET AL,NICK G 5975 AMHERST DR THE NICK G ANAGNOST REV/TR NAPLES, FL 34112 UTD 2/22/01 PO BOX 816 MONTOUR FALLS,NY 14865 ANDREW,STEPHEN J& MARYANNE L ARMANTROUTJR, FREDDIE E 16 WADSWORTH RD TAMMY S ARMANTROUT ARLINGTON, MA 2476 3499 SUNSET BLVD NAPLES, FL 34112 BALLARD, DAVID H & BARBARA L BARBARA F JONES TRUST 6059 POLLY AVE 3000 COUNTY BARN RD NAPLES, FL 34112 NAPLES, FL 34112 BAYER, ERICH H& MARIANNE P BEATY, ALLEN J &SHARON M 879 HERITAGE HLS UNIT A PO BOX 31 SOMERS, NY 10589 NAPLES, FL 34112 BEDNAR, ALAN J & PATRICIA 0 BLAISING, PATRIC H&ANNE E 3535 ROYAL WOOD BLVD 3645 ROYAL WOOD BLVD NAPLES, FL 34112 NAPLES, FL 34112 ry • BLOOM,JAMES STEWART BLOOMFIELD RIDGE ASSOC INC 6072 POLLY AVE C/O SANDCASTLE COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT NAPLES, FL 34112 9150 GALLERIA COURT SUITE 201 NAPLES,FL 34109 BOLGAR, FRANCESCA CLIFFORD F GREGOIRE REV TRUST 4036 ROYAL WOOD BLVD 650 SARATOGA C1R#204 NAPLES, FL 34112 NAPLES, FL 34102 COLLIER CNTY COUPLAND,GENE ALAN C/0 REAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT HELYN CHRISTINE COUPLAND 3335 TAMIAMI TR E,STE 101 3953 ROYAL WOOD BLVD NAPLES, FL 34112 NAPLES, FL 34112 CRANBROOK COLONY COMMONS ASSOC DANG,TIN C/O BICKNELL PROPERTY MGMT THUY TRAN 2375 TAMIAMI TRI N STE 206 6090 EVERETT ST NAPLES, FL 34103 NAPLES, FL 34112 DE LOS SANTOS, FELIMON F NOVA DI ORIO,AMELIO V& MARY N KENNY Y DIAZ LOPEZ DE NOVA 15 ALYSSA DR 6067 POLLY AVE WAKEFIELD, MA 1880 NAPLES, FL 34112 DIPAOLO TR, PAUL&ANNETTE DORIA,ALBERT&VERONICA DIPAOLO FAMILY TRUST 5735 WASHINGTON ST 3601 ROYAL WOOD BLVD NAPLES, FL 34112 NAPLES,FL 34112 DOUGHERTY TR,JANE V DOUGLAS, KEITH JANE V DOUGHERTY TRUST ELIZABETH BELLAVANCE 3909 ROYAL WOOD BLVD 4106 ABERARDER LINE RR2 NAPLES, FL 34112 CAMAELACHI,ON NON1E0 EDWARDS,JEFFERY M ELBA DEVELOPMENT CORP 6050 EVERETT ST 600 5TH AVE S STE 207 NAPLES, FL 34112 NAPLES, FL 34102 EVELY, NORMAN &MARY ANN FAIOLA TR,ALICE M 6080 EVERETT ST GERARD P FAIOLA FMLY TR EST NAPLES, FL 34112 ALICE M FAIOLA FMLY IRREV TR WOBURN, MA 1801 FARAH, PIERRE FIDALGO,JOSE A FARAH,ANITA ILUMINADA FIDALGO 4107 ROYAL WOOD BLVD 6135 EVERETT ST NAPLES, FL 34112 NAPLES, FL 34112 FISCHER, GUY P FITZPATRICK THOMAS J& MARY A 6145 ADKINS AVE 3711 ROYAL WOOD BLVD NAPLES, FL 34112 NAPLES, FL 34112 FONTAINE, RALPH E&SUZANNE D GOLF,JERRY J&DEBBIE 3865 ROYAL WOOD BLVD 2445 N DE COOK CT NAPLES, FL 34112 PARK RIDGE, IL 60068 GONZALEZ, MADERLINE GOREY, PAULJ EDILEYDIS GONZALEZ PAUL J GOREY II 6066 ADKINS AVE 3733 ROYAL WOOD BLVD NAPLES, FL 34112 NAPLES, FL 34112 GRIFFIN, KIMBRA LYNN HINGSTON,SHIRLEY 6145 POLLY AVE JAMES LAVINSKI NAPLES, FL 34112 3755 ROYAL WOOD BLVD NAPLES, FL 34112 HOLDERS OF MASTR ASSET SEC TRU HOLLINGER, KURT& MARY MCCALLA RAYMER LLC 10398 PLANK RD 225 E ROBINSON ST#155 MILAN, MI 48160 ORLANDO, FL 32801 HUMES, STEVEN G&GLADYS JONES, BENNY F 4313 SUNSET BLVD 430 SAN JUAN AVE NAPLES, FL 34112 NAPLES, FL 34113 JONES, ROBERT O JONES,WILLIAM L& BARBARA F 6100 POLLY AVE 3000 COUNTY BARN RD NAPLES, FL 34112 NAPLES, FL 34112 JULA,TAMMY TOOMAN LAMINA, ROBERT W BARBARA MATTHEWS ROBERT WILLIAM LAMINA JR 6059 EVERETT ST 4126 ROYAL WOOD BLVD NAPLES, FL 34112 NAPLES, FL 34112 LAPORTE, DONALD J & PATRICIA A LEMLEY, ROGER L&JETTA 2001 MARINA DR#410 3533 SUNSET BLVD QUINCY, MA 2171 NAPLES, FL 34112 LEWIS, BARBARA A LOOKER,THERESA M &JOSEPH P 4096 ROYAL WOOD BLVD 307 SHAKER LANE NAPLES, FL 34112 WEST CHESTER, PA 19380 LUTZ,CHARLES A& MARY M MACDONALD, BRIAN 3931 ROYAL WOOD BLVD CATHLEEN A MACDONALD NAPLES, FL 34112 6085 EVERETT ST NAPLES, FL 34112 MACOMBER, EUGENE G MCCANDLESS,JOHN C MACOMBER,ANITA P 6134 ADKINS AVE 3557 ROYAL WOOD BLVD NAPLES, FL 34112 NAPLES, FL 34112 • MCENDREE, MICHAEL L&TAMMY S MCKINNEY,CHARLES D 6025 EVERETT ST BARBARA ANN MCKINNEY NAPLES, FL 34112 4041 ROYAL WOOD BLVD NAPLES, FL 34112 MEECH,JOHN R&SANDRA F MORGAN,ANDY 699 MESSINA DR 172 HICKORY RD WADSWORTH, OH 44281 NAPLES, FL 34108 • MORGAN, ANDY R MULLIN, MARY R 172 HICKORY RD 3777 ROYAL WOOD BLVD NAPLES, FL 34108 NAPLES, FL 34112 MURPHY, LANCE W& MAUREEN A MYERS,CORNELIA 4010 ROYAL WOOD BLVD 3667 ROYAL WOOD BLVD NAPLES, FL 34112 NAPLES, FL 34112 • NANNEMAN, RICHARD J &KAREN K NELSON, LINDA RAE 3651 SUNSET BLVD ADRIANA CUEVAS ROMAN NAPLES, FL 34112 6058 EVERETT ST NAPLES, FL 34112 NORMA R FARMILO TRUST OBERMILLER,WAYNE L&SUZANNE 4036 KENT CT 3489 ROYAL WOOD BLVD NAPLES, FL 34116 NAPLES, FL 34112 ORCHELL, SHIRLEY ANN POLLY AVE LLC KELLY M MC GILL 2601 COLLINS AVE 6122 POLLY AVE MIAMI BEACH, FL 33140 NAPLES, FL 34112 PRICE, RICHARD W&ANITA L RAYMOND&YOLANDA FERN REV TRU 3579 ROYAL WOOD BLVD 3623 ROYAL WOOD BLVD NAPLES, FL 34112 NAPLES, FL 34112 REINHARD,MARIA RHODES, DANIEL L MARION DIGNAM fNGRIU REINHARD 4300 SUNSET BLVD 4063 ROYAL WOOD BLVD NAPLES, FL 34112 NAPLES,FL 34112 RHODES,WILLIAM&WENDY ROBBIE L RAYBURN REV FMY TRUST 24 THE LAWNS 4620 CHIPPENDALE DR SHEFFIELD NAPLES, FL 34112 ENGLAND, 511 9FL ROBERT& EILEEN HOULIHAN TRUST ROCKEY,STEPHEN&SCARLETT 4085 ROYAL WOOD BLVD 6055 EVERETT ST NAPLES, FL 34112 NAPLES, FL 34112 ROYAL WOOD MASTER ASSOC INC RUBINO,STEPHANIE L 4300 ROYAL WOOD BLVD 4016 ROYAL WOOD BLVD NAPLES, FL 34112 NAPLES, FL 34112 SANGER, RICHARD&KATHERINE SAPONE JR, BRUNO 4024 ROYAL WOOD BLVD 28015 GROSSETTO WAY NAPLES, FL 34112 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34135 fi STACEY,GERALDINE TECKLA A BASKIN REV TRUST 2904 PENIEL RD KENNETH D BASKIN REV TRUST COLUMBUS, MT 59019 4138 ROYAL WOOD BLVD NAPLES, FL 34112 THOMAS L JONES TRUST THOMAS P RILEY REV TRUST '. 4129 ROYAL WOOD BLVD 3843 ROYAL WOOD BLVD NAPLES, FL 34112 NAPLES, FL 34112 TRAN,TRANG TRAN,TUAN 11250 RIGGS RD 6051 POLLY AVE NAPLES, FL 34112 NAPLES, FL 34112 TREMBLAY, LISE YOUTH HAVEN FOUNDATION INC WILLIAM J PETRICK JR 5867 WHITAKER RD 3982 ROYAL WOOD BLVD NAPLES, FL 34112 NAPLES, FL 34112S5 ZUNIGA,ADAN &AURORA 3380 36TH AVE SE TRYON, NC 28782 F a r BJaiL Nrwt NaptesNews.com Published Daily Naples,FL 34110 Affidavit of Publication State of Florida Counties of Collier and Lee Before the undersigned they serve as the authority,personally appeared Daniel McDermott who on oath says that he serves as Inside Sales Manager of the Naples Daily News,a daily newspaper published at Naples,in Collier Coun- ty, Florida;distributed in Collier and Lee counties of Florida;that the attached copy of the advertising was published in said newspaper on dates listed. Affiant further says that the said Naples Daily News is a newspaper published at Naples,in said Collier County, Florida,and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Collier County, Florida; distributed in Collier and Lee counties of Florida,each day and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Naples,in said Collier County,Florida,for a period of one year next pre- ceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement;and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person,or corporation any discount,rebate,commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. Customer Ad Number Copyline P.o.# STANTEC 1059481 Stantec Pub Dates April 27,2016 i (Sign ure of affiant) — — it — .. Sworn to and subscribed before me ''•o IVONNE GORI This May 02, 16 4 �`�: Notary Public•State of Florida • 1 ' •= Commission•FF 900870 44 My Comm.Expires Jul le,2019 ASO 444.:0'� Bonded through National Notary Man. (Signatur of affiant) ' 1 1 78A is Wednesday April 27,2016 n.saes rut natty Naws I' Memories painful on Chernobyl's 30th anniversary BY MstyslaycMmov The final death and 0mytre Plastic - " "'"°'" toll from Cher- l6EY,UNaks-n,ukralne . ., nobyl is subject and Helenas on'llwsday marked the 30th ander 4f - �-'- to speculation, ser of the Chernobyl nu J r 1 `�. - il --� due to the long- U dcarrcidemwilhwl mn - # - words and an angry pr 'f- kI vl A r ii iii ` term effects of testcaome utlhe men who -f_,y, s 153 Y radiation,but t we sent t the site m the f• Stet chaotic and frighten + \ _ 1I e`0,° { f ''''..."54'j ranges from l mg days were r painful memories. b' '- ' "" an estimate of painful em Pre id ret nil 9 Pr'' I 9,000 by the i Petro Poroshenke led 0. -!.r, 1 any in Chernobyl a/ '-..i' , / World Health FF where work is underwa• rift ;' �� to complete a$2.25 billion '' i - . of vc [ a t5 Organization to r Q r torsgterm seder over the - � building containing Cher- + - l 1 /fi - sibte 90,000 i4 C co obyl's exploded reactor. - .i d Once the s(ntdure is in f ,r 5 �`'. by the environ- Q a- place,work will beg n t �r 6 `•�" illy.. 'as; to Z Q to move the reactor and its d X 1 7eP , ..,:tit,,, mental group j la o-like radioactive vte r - sig .. ;,y ' The disaster shonva a te_ y I Greenpeace. 3 sporHghtnnteasafnyn - A'_ • 1 _ of r.the vi dal ads aid government se '"i'�"'-`' f"Sq' f >5 ssobyl gin wan held vformer / .a y i the yh,Ukrwhere Iowa of ,I Union.In the explosion n on w , +"'"�.; '^" _ 5 rsoerCh,where many s The explosion on mo sr i f former Chernobyl workers Q) April 26,19136,was not re- `�,�'�a, .; ,v.- C pirind by Spee[athonifie --_ v " v '�"" were rdnnat d. 11 Q for two day.,uodthnady Thin y years luta,many N afierwvindshand then the m ,,,,,'r ''"y' „"✓'-o '_• ,,,- :.''.' e.� could not hold back the ... ..— maraaslheybeatghtHow- fallenaer,wahurope.end "'"".,.w ma and candles to a memo- G Swedish experts hod gone Ukraine's President PetmPooshenko lays ewers Tuesday at a monument lo the vi art of the Chernobyl Imbed',oulsdr the rial for the waiters killed in public with their concerns. nuclear power plant in Ukrata, the explosion.Some of the ' We honor those who former liquidatorsdnnsed Na lostlotheir health and re- dangerous levels of re- radiation dose, by Chernobyl(dlon,mae The Ukrainian goweny in white robes and caps f • I special attention diallon end faced a wide- "'thirty years passed than 1,00 people held a anent.however,has since (or the memorial,lust like j > C .0 Fran the government and scale,permanent everua- and I'm still alive,despite protest march through scaled back benefits foe the ones they had worn on i tv 0 ,0 C society,"lrynshenko said. tion of hundreds of towns doctors giving me five.I'm the ally center.Helms Chernobyl survivors,mak- many years ago. (.7 N "It's with an everlasting and villegesin Ukraine and happy alwut the." routinely cracks down on log many fed betrayed by AndriyVeprcv,who had pain In our hearts That we Helen's. "Mys b\ l "0 CO Q) Qk remember those who lost At a ceremony In their think f seed se days," dissent, march rides al- their went iown n there when nuclear plant afor lll yeses Q < (1) C) their sites to fight nuclear honor in Kiev,some of the Dmitry Mikhsllov, M. "Chernobyl is contuse- everyone was fleeing.We before the explosion and death." former liquidators Whine He was on a crew sent In ingtoday.Ourrelaivesaid were going nide into the helped to clean upthecon- About 600,000 people, Associated Press of their evacuate a village where frrenda are dying of eon. heat,"said Myknla Mud- lamination,midraonosies often referred to as Cher- ordeal and mtrpriar they residents knew nothing of cer,'said 21-year-uW pro- chly,who arrived in the ofthe mayhem inloB6 were nobyl's"liquidators;wenn Hued through it. the accident. tester Andrei Oamvtsov. Chernobyl exclusion anon still vivid in his mind. sent In tofigle the keg the Oleg Medoedev,now 65, They smiledaw.They The final death toll en May 5,lust days after "1'm proud of those guys nuclear plan and clean up was sent to thesone on the didn't understand what was from Chernobyl Is srdyect the explosion."Aid today who were with me and the worst afits contemn.- firer day tithe tarisis toholp happening,"he said.")wish to speculation.due to the everythingislbegotest,Is's who are nes with us now," 1 C Sinn.Thirty workers died evacuate the workers'city I knew where and haw they Inng-term effects of radia- a disgrace." he said. either from the explosion of Pripyat,less than 2 ii art now.I just can't forges lion.but ranges from so He spoke irowoday alta In Russia, President M7 or from acute rwhotian fromthedeseroyed relearn them.' estimate of 9,000 by the arx:nmanylo Kiev,where Vladimir Nein,Inames- N sickness within anveral Four days later"I already In Minsk,the capital of Woeldllcalth Or OrgillIkaillrl top officials were laying sage to the liquidators, months. had to go away front the Helen's,wherethegovent- to one of a possible 90,l00 wteatbs to a Chernobyl calkdthe Chernobyldims- t- Oi The accident exposed ave because Pd received mem is bneotegfarmiugto by the environmental memorialter"a rate kssonlr all of t K millions in the roger to the maximum allowable lase fallow lands affected group Greenpeace. Atli t eaidn.ighton Malloy, rmsnksngd" 1 st O PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE PUHtIC NONCE o Z 0 z .1�Radiology.Regional Center NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING RRC Vascular Specialist The papas s mead to&bend a Neighborhood Information Meeting(MAI ted by Po•y Ave, N LASER 6 VEIN THERAPY LLC on PUDZ-P12014a000000.a request to wornno.72 sores&tars IMF-6.Ro:uanaN kvtu-lamiry tuning sines to RaMevbl learned Unit Development(RP1/0). .0 Also specializing in Data May 12,2011 E RRC Premier Beauty Treatments Tlnw: s:ao PM s Location Name: New Napa Mlnistriea Event Cantor adZ N 4 terse mu reser4,n,Alt 011ie lalw, amu Cr.w l m.m,, Andros.: 7076 Days Blvd,Napa,fled.31101 f E CO 0- vane tasw.stn•uc S1 edit f Ave,ins este t 1 mm norm y of Ratles of 8.728 eras IROW ere noon ala I of Polly verear nen 1 mea man Io,1e Tons 60 Sou Rare at the Inca.Caam = n _ Cos Santa Bambara 0ouwwd,n Becton 16,Towns*6D South,ganga 26 EPst,Coeur i Z '0) O -te• Coady,Florida. Z a) N 0 LOCATION MAP Q s'1) U 10:4,2' Do You Have Varicose Veins? I 1 I I :- k l .0411_Symptoms: m Treatment •Pam � ... Benefits: •Cramping •No thAvn Time -- •Throttling Naa� • `� I, •No Paln •AtddrrR "ae •Immediate ill - •Weakness 4; Symptom Relief tirt Varicose ferns Pahl by Medi •S Aft,f Af,gor hvonances II I-- ) thitis tri O Call today to schedule a — --- E N FREE Vein Screening RPUD Ratan Description:A raquet a reams es.11 sores horn RMS•6,Residential b MJ6•hmiy coring rennet,to Residential Manned Ural Devefopmenl(FIRMt parch Consult! a m.of 46 dweN,q ones which Iiadensity of 5.6 units per acre wkha maximum and/or Beauty Iwl2ta d two nodes NA SPUD Rome epolicattgn u mermen being rawmw%by Mt RannrO and Zoning /te DDC j,I' Department. C Y- 7 .— at; Pr rel^r eau t,,tq to order to preen you an opDMNay a became key aware a ore proposed SPUD L n L .J-.e`_T Rexene and to gen you an greatcoat,t provide Input,wv me holding a Nephbanood f eft ton - abm,mnaan Manna(NIM), 1��s a' ryur experienced practitioners also wE VALUE yowl INPUT ONO las Q4lat .111 provide aesthetic treatments: and end properly owner,raaldente end MNtaa ere welcome Welland lMpreaem.00n and dhmtsn theproponod RPUD with the apple ant and County Olah.U you no male to tt 111 ,y nammonia:. Filers and Relaxers,Laser Treatments, ammonia mantrap but hem eaeeevs of comments,they can he demed by mat phone, Z .i* Facial Peels,and more! ora-motto: meet ykn nsol ng ACP steamy seey Lane, i2Inc. 3260 000ey Lam,9Ua 200 t,i`e, 15 (239)425-4775 Naples,Ronda 34105 Phew lnoi ala-tone Cm.969)646.5116 w+•f N www,MyFloridaLegs.com Email:ten.hancookestantec•corn �� W t.nratinm in Maple:,Hindle thongs,Fl.?Ayers,and Cope coxal No 1o69eSy it -.-...Acre 27.7015 i'6d ID Hancock, Tim From: JohnsonEric <EricJohnson@colliergov.net> Sent: Friday, May 13, 2016 1:25 PM To: Hancock, Tim G' Subject: RE: Neighborhood Information Meeting for Onyx RPUD on May 12th Tim, When you provide the NIM information,I think it would be a good idea to include this email as well. Thanks! Eric Johnson Principal.Planner From: Hancock,Tim [mailto:Tim.Hancock@stantec.com] Sent:Wednesday, May 11, 2016 5:16 PM To:JohnsonEric<EricJohnson@colliergov.net>; lizzarde7@gmail.com; Ebydk@embarqmail.com; barblbgolf@gmail.com; norm<n.evely@embargmail.com>; richkarenann@hotmail.com; Suzanne<orschks@comcast.net>; bharris1702@comcast.net;ccolvinl@comcast.net;frannieb@comcast.net Cc: Philpott,Joshua <Josh.Philpott@stantec.com> Subject: Neighborhood Information Meeting for Onyx RPUD on May 12th Good afternoon. I am hoping you have received notice of our next NIM which Is being held tomorrow night at the New Hope Church (same room as last time)at 5:30 pm. The reason for holding another NIM is that it has been more than one year since the first 'official' NIM so before we can go to the first hearing with the Planning Commission, we are required to hold another NIM. As we discussed at our last meeting, I wanted to update you on the progress we have made and how we have addressed the commitments we discussed at our last meeting. Each commitment is followed by a page number of the attached RPUD document where you can find how the particular commitment has been written into the PUD requirements: 1. Building heights are limited to two stories and 35 feet. (see page 4 of 10) 2. The density has been reduced from 60 units to 48 units, maximum. (see page 1 of 10) 3. The preserve area has been identified along Polly and Sunset and totals over one acre of land (page 6 of 10) 4. This project is a market rate project, not affordable or workforce housing. 5. The emergency exit drive on Polly has been removed (page 6 of 10) 6. Each unit must have an attached garage-no at-grade parking lots(Page 9 of 10) 7. Trash pickup will be curbside to avoid any dumpsters(page 9 of 10) 8. Clubhouse and pool area are shown as an Amenity Center on the Master Concept Plan(page 6 of 10) The above captures most of what we discussed at our last meeting but I look forward to meeting with you tomorrow night if you can make it. If you cannot be there but have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Regards, Tirn Flc=r;:..?.,k:. f.iC P, Senior Associate Stantec 1 3200 Bailey Lane,Suite 200 Naples FL 34105 Phone: (239)649-4040 x 6413 Fax:239-643-5716 Tim,Hancock@stantec.com Z St ntec i e The content of this email is the confidential property of Slanted and should not be copied,modified,retransmitted,or used for any purpose except with Stantec's written authorization,It you are not the intended recipient,please delete all copies and notify us immediately. Please consider the environment before printing this email. Under Florida Law,e-mail addresses are public recordJo not want If you d your e-mail address released in response to a public records request do not send electronic mail to this entity Instead.contact this office by telephone or in writing is r'. 2 1 Stantec Meeting Minutes New Hope Ministries Neighborhood Information Meeting No. 2 y]G Date/Time: May 12, 2016 /5:30--7:00 PM Place: New Hope Ministries, Room 211 (Lecture Hall) Next Meeting: TBD Attendees: See attached list Absentees: N\A Distribution: Eric Johnson, Collier County Planner Bruce Anderson, Polly Avenue, LLC File Safety Moment: Commence Meeting Call to Order 5:35 ( Introductions: Tim Hancock-Stantec Consulting Services- Project Planner representing Polly Avenue, LLC, the property owner In a rezone. Directions to restrooms and water fountains Eric Johnson, Collier County Planner: Eric's roll is the key lead in the review of our application, Tim Hancock: Invite everyone to sign in if they haven't already. Tim Hancock overview of project: This application has gone along to a point to where it is scheduled or at least currently scheduled for hearings and I will give you those dates in just a minute in case you want to jot them down, Many of you may recall this is not the first time we have gotten together. February of last year a different agent that was representing the property owner brought forth the project which didn't go over so well, I was not a part of the project at that time, The property owner then engaged us and we stepped back and took a look at a couple of things we floated a couple of things and they seemed to go fairly well. I have a little history with this project I rezoned this back in 2006. We met with some residents on site and had a meeting at this same location back in October to get a few ideas and input. Because a year had passed from our last scheduled meeting to our scheduled hearing we had to hold another meeting.This is the last meeting before we go to hearing. The hearing dates are Planning Commission June 2, 2016.The Board of County Commissioners on July 1 21h. Design with community In mind cl v:\2156\active\215612869\planning\public_notices\nim\nim_2016_05\nlm_meeting minutes_bullet_points_20160512.docx Stantec May 12,2016 New Hope Ministries Neighborhood Information Meeting Page 2 of 17 RPUD Residential Planned Unit Development document if you didn't pick one up please come and get one or on your way out. All development standards that apply on how this project can be developed. They are not all the rules Any other elements that are not on that document we have to comply with the County Land Development code, for example if it says you need a type A buffer it doesn't tell you what that is but the Land Development code does. If you have any questions we can help expand on that tonight.Setbacks, distances, commitments, that's primarily what is in this document. j. Mr. Johnson brought a copy of the RFM6 standards if you would like a copy please see him after the meeting.Tim asks Mr. Johnson if he would like to add or cover anything else before they start walking through the project. I am going to walk you through some exhibits please feel free to walk around and look at the exhibits as I talk. One of the First things I did was review the minutes NIM that was held back in February of last year and read all the residents letters and emails that were sent in to the planners at that time,to get an idea on what the issues and concerns were at that time. Apparently there is another project in the area that is an affordable housing project; nothing against affordable housing I feel there is a need for one. This is not an affordable housing or work force housing project.This is a market rate project we are not getting any density bonuses for • providing affordable housing. Most affordable housing projects will have what's called a density bonus agreement attached to them we do not have that. WE are a market rate project. We are competing with everybody else in the market place. Please understand the distinction. We are located at the North East Corner, 8.72 acres, of Polly Ave. and Sunset this is Santa Barbara North and South and here is Rattlesnake hammock.9 tenths of an acres sits in the right of way when it was rezoned in 2006 we agreed to give the County that portion for the construction of Santa Barbara. It's still a part of the property it just has a road way easement over it. In 2006 what we came forward with at that time the single family market place was on fire. I'll also point out again giving you orientation this over here at this time was future Santa Barbara it was still in design and had not been constructed yet.This is Polly Ave down here you can see it even had the bend to it before Santa Barbara was there. This over here is Sunset. At the time when we came in recognizing that around us is very low density residential. We looked at single family in here single family was a strong market at the time we thought that was the right play in 2006. One of the issues we had was the only way to access the property then was off of Sunset.So the big concerns we heard from the neighbors were traffic. Not just traffic coming in but also the concern that traffic would travel up Sunset to Whitaker out Whitaker to what would be a median opening onto Santa Barbara and people would use this as a cut through there was a lot of concern about that.So we met with the neighbors and worked out a 27 lot plan that had access off of Sunset. We had the buffer closer to Santa Barbara. The water management for the site at that time was to be enclosed into this area that looks like a T with a bulb on it.That's dry retention this site is not big enough to put a lake on because a lake has to be a minimum half acre preferably one acre in size. We were going to use dry retention to Design with community in mind cl v:\2I 56\active\215612869\planning\publIc_notices\nim nim_2016_05\nimmeeting_minutes_bulletpolnfs_20160512.docx • Stantec May 12,2016 New Hope Ministries Neighborhood Information Meeting Page 3 of 17 !� I accomplish the water management and under the rules at that time for that kind of work. The density at that time was 27 single family dwellings the density was 3.2 units per acre the r l approved building height was 35 feet for 2 stories and project access was all off Sunset Blvd., also want you to notice that the buffer along Sunset was a 10 foot buffer. So if you lived in that area you would have a 10 foot buffer then you would have 71/2 foot set back and then you would have a side of the house.They were all single family but you would see sides of houses as you go up Sunset. Ip Concerns at the time were traffic and drainage. Shortly after the rezone this thing called a recession hit and many projects had to be put on hold, and this was one of them, Unfortunately the owners of this property didn't use a bank when they bought it.So when the recession hit they had nobody to give the keys back to.They owned it outright,so they had to shelf their plans and wait it out and let the market come back, So they have been sitting on this land carrying it for all that time. With not really having any valuable development opportunities. As the market came back they decided maybe now was the time to try to put something back together.WE are in a different market place today;we are not in the same market place we were in 2006. We have to recognize that and the concepts we are looking at. Now that Santa Barbara is complete we might have the opportunity to change our access to a way that is better for the neighborhood, and better for our project.The only negative to that is that access onto Santa Barbara it's going to be very expensive. Chris can tell you just try to build a turn • lane into a project you're looking at 150 thousand more just for the turn lane. We think it is better for the project and better for the neighborhood. Something else that is changed is how the County reviews Stormwater in this part of the County. When we did the rezone in 2006 I remember getting a picture from somebody in the neighborhood or in the newspaper, but what it was a pickup truck with a tow rope pulling a kid on a surf board down Sunset. Looked more like a river then a road.There were a lot of drainage problems back in 2006. I had this written, Donna even if you weren't here. I said the County has done a lot to improve drainage in the area. I have to commend Commissioner Fiala and the other Commissioners particularly for the LASIP program it has done a lot to relieve drainage problems particularly in East Naples, and this area has been one beneficiary of that.So the drainage has improved, however, the County has adopted stricter standards for all new development.Those stricter standards would apply to this project means even what we had that worked in 2006 for drainage won't work today. For those of you that weren't at the last meeting this is the plan that came forward in February of last year. They were using a perimeter buffer, but I think its biggest issue for this was they were proposing buildings that were 50 feet tall they called it 3 stories over parking, but the reality is when you got done it was a 50 foot tall building around a small central water management and I think the look and feel of this is something that probably concerned the neighbors most in the area. Whether you're living back here or driving along Santa Barbara there were a lot of concerns about that plan. What we are proposing to do is to move the development that is being proposed as far away from Sunset and Polly as we reasonably can.To limit the building heights to 2 stories or 35 feet. What we Design with community In mind cl v:\2156\active\215612869\planning\pubile_notices\nim\nlm_2016 05\nim_meeting minutes_bulleLpoints_20160512.docx Stantec May 12,2016 New Hope Ministries Neighborhood Information Meeting Page 4 of 17 have done here is what you see is basically 3 vertical development tracks within the project. Remember I mentioned the water management more significant then it use to be. Instead of that little T that you saw in the 2006 plan, all of this area you see here is required for water management. It's about 3 times the area as the 2006 plan.So we have less land to work with now than we did in 2006 from the development stand point. Now you could do single family in here and get about 35 or 36 small lots. It is our opinion that 2 story town homes are probably the best market for us. I also want to point out that we have a native buffer is being retained to the South and to the East.This one is between 40 and 50 feet in width this one down here is over 30 feet in width. We are going to have to go in and hand clear some of the exotics out of there.We won't be using Meccanized clearing to any great degree because those pines. We start running tracks over the roots of the pines we are going to kill them.There may be some areas we can use some mechanical clearing but there is going to be a lot of hand clearing in there. Anywhere this gets thinned out because we have to remove the exotics. WE will be planting things back in there to fill back in. What we are going to see from the folks that live around the project and have to drive by it every day is you are going to see those native pines are going to be retained on both sides.The most significant thing is we have lowered the number of units I think there was going to be 60 back in February we have lowered that to 38.There's an economic volubility for every project. If you are going to put a turn lane and an entry road in that is not inexpensive. WE can't get there with the old number of units we have to have a few more units where we need to go and this is the plan we are developing. One of the conversations that I had with the residents on site was kind of funny. I showed up there with some examples of what this kind of project might look like and before I could even pull it out and show them one of the neighbors handed me something off google earth and said why can't you build something like this. I looked at his picture and I looked at mine and they were pretty much the same.That was comforting. One of the things we talked about is in a PUD someone's already asked the question of me today. How much are these going to sell for? It's a good question,The problem is it's not a zoning question. As much as Commissioner Fiala would love to set the price on the real estate market she can't do that. So the county can't say you have to sell that between this and this.So the question is what do we do to make sure this is a quality development. Some of the characteristics of a higher quality multifamily development that we can commit to. One of them that occurred to me right away is attached garages. Generally when you see attached garage either built into the building or physically attached to the building it tends to hold a higher value then does at grate parking or even carports so after talking to my client about it they said we are planning to do that anyway.So we have committed it's the only PUD I've ever written where we are requiring ourselves to do attached garages. But it's actually in the PUD. I think that's important. Because when you look at the other plan there was a lot of at grate parking and it starts to take on a little more of an apartment feel that way. Whereas when you have attached garages you get more of that home feel. These really are being designed as family early retires; this is not a millennial project.The second Design with community In mind cl v:\2156\active\215612869\planning\publIc_not4ces\nim\nlm_2016_05\nim_meetingminuses_bullet_poinls_20160512.docx } Sta me c May 12, 2016 New Hope Ministries Neighborhood Information Meeting Page 5 of 17 thing was there were concerns I read about dumpsters in the plan from last year. Well we have contacted waste management and through Collier County growth Management we have been able to determine that this style of development will be able to use individual cans like single family homes, So we are not going to have to have a dumpster you won't have to worry about dumpsters clanging and that kind of stuff. WE are doing what we can to try to address some of those issues from that last plan, Not to mention if I lived here I would much rather roll out my cart then do deal with the dumpsters as well. That is the project as proposed. What that looks like in the master plan not nearly as pretty but pretty much says the same thing is if you look in the PUD document we provided you this is the master plan.This is the preserve area we talked about and this is the water management area and then we have the 3 residential tracks. Now I have a couple of questions for you I'll get to those after we feel your questions as well.The last thing I want to share with you is that when we looked at the picture someone came up and the neighbor said why don't you build something like this and the pictures looked about the same. I am not committing to an architectural style but these are the types of townhouse projects that we are looking at that we think represent a type of architectural style that we are looking at on the project. I want to show these to you because sometimes it's hard to visualize exactly what it is we are talking about.We are in a process of selecting an architect right now so I can't really say to you that any one of these is the real deal. I want to give you visual image of the road and path we're on as to what we are trying to do on this site. With that couple of quick summary things is currently the 27 unit plan has some negatives attached to it. It's a lower number of units but it has access directly off of Sunset it has homes about 17 feet off of the roadway. I think it will have more of an immediate presents on the neighborhood. Where this plan the buildings are minimum 140 feet away from Sunset and a minimum of 70 feet from Polly.Yes we have agreed to a 150 foot set back from Sunset and a 70 foot set back from Polly.So when you compare that to the previous plan that's a move in the right direction.The existing zoning 35 foot tall buildings we're not changing that. We have kept it at 35 feet. Probably the biggest change is all of the access coming off Santa Barbara. As opposed to coming in off Sunset and Polly. Liz and I met a number of years ago in her living room and I'll tell if there was anybody who had the right to be upset about access off of Sunset it would be Liz because she is right across the street, Tim Hancock: And I think your dad is too right? Liz: Yep. And so we were able to work with some buffering and that kind of stuff, but I'll tell you that was an imperfect solution for Liz. I call this the Liz plan. Coming in off Santa Barbara I don't know if anybody else likes it but Liz likes it.That makes me happy. So I think even though there are more units in this plan What you are going to see is the immediate impact to this neighborhood is much less. Design with community in mind . cl v:\2156\active\215612869\planning\public_notIces\nim\nlm_2016_05\nim meeting minutes_builet_poinls_20160512.docx Stantec May 12,2016 New Hope Ministries Neighborhood Information Meeting Page 6 of 17 The impact to neighbors across the street almost nonexistent because you are going to have heavily landscape buffer the rear of the units will face the roadway. 35 feet in height actually the same height that you are permitted across Santa Barbara. So I think we are blending very well.The only difference is there are more units then was previously approved and is multifamily instead of single family. Those are the 2 primary differences. The one question I have for you to think about is. We are trying to figure out a way to make this a gated community. It will help values. I think it is a positive for everybody. Except the sheriff because people in gated communities think they are safer. Not always the case. I think it does give people that one level of additional security. It's important in the market place.The problem is the County requires a minimum road distance of 100 feet from any public right away to the gate. As you can see we can't have that because we would have outside of the gate.So the one thing we're thinking about and I would really appreciate your input tonight. If we took this amenity center down here and maybe moved it up here and slid the buildings down ;. not getting passed that 70 foot line we might be able to have enough space to put a gate in there.This is what we talked about the last time and I don't want to go showing you one thing and doing another.So any input you have on that we would be happy to hear and understand better to see if it's worth going forward and looking at that possibility. That is the end to what I have to provide to you we have one question in the back. What I will do when you ask you question to make sure it is picked up, this meeting is being recorded, those minutes will be typed up and provided as part of the County record. Mr. Johnson will listen to this all over again to make sure that what we give him is accurate. Believe me he will be sick of this voice by about Monday I guess. Question: I have one question now just before you start the Q & A. In your PUD document its maximum zone height and the maximum actual height and maximum zone height would be 35 feet and maximum actual height is 42 feet, Could you elaborate? Tim Hancock: Collier County has 2 definitions of height zoning building height is from the finished floor to the mid line of the hip or gable roof, so if you are building over here and it's 35 feet from your finished floor to the mid line of your roof is how your height is measured. For PUD's because there was a concern that people may take advantage of that they adopted something called actual height. Actual height is from the finished floor to the very tip top of anything stuck to that building. For example if I do a church it may have zone height of 35 feet. And an actual height of 75 feet. Because they want a steeple.So you have to kind of factor that in. So what we do is we allow for about a 7 foot differential between the mid line of the roof and the top of the roof or any cupolas or architectural embellishments. So that is the difference between zoned and actual why you will see 2 heights in there. Tim Hancock: Yes ma'am Question: I just wanted to ask you are thinking about gating it will there be an 8 foot wall Tim Hancock: The only place I would consider an 8 foot wall would be along Santa Barbara as more of a noise buffer. The balance of the community if there is any wall it will be a 6 ft.wall for Design with community In mind d v:\2156\active\215612869\planning\pubtic_notices\nim\nim 2016_05\nim_meeting_minutes_bullet_potnis_20160512.docx Stantec May 12, 2016 New Hope Ministries Neighborhood Information Meeting Page 7 of 17 these 3 sides. No reason to have an 8 foot wall. Just doesn't help or look anything like the way we want it to. Question: When you started out you said that the Santa Barbara made it drainage better, It actually didn't it made it worse. I am 3 houses in from the property where you're at and Santa Barbara goes up hill now it takes 6 times longer for our ditches on Adkins to drain and there's I j. called the County several times a month and they don't come out and clean the ditches out anymore or cut the shrubbery.Some of the neighbors on Adkins can see the over growth on the side of the roads all the way over, I just want to know when you build this place our drainage what are you going to do about the drainage because Santa Barbara made it worse and the road and bridge its going uphill now.There's nothing you can do we are basically in a retention pond because of Santa Barbara, Rattlesnake and Davis so all I see is this is going to be more problems with drainage when you build your place. It's going to be less space for the water to go and I'm just running into brick walls and can't get anything done.The drainage is worse than it's ever been since they built Santa Barbara. ii Tim Hancock: When they did Santa I am sorry I was actually repeating information that I had been told by some other residents that they said it was better.So I apologize that's not my personal experience I want to be clear about that. When Santa Barbara was first built did the drainage work at that time and it's gotten worse? Audience: Before Santa Barbara I use to clean out the culverts on my street because I am 3 houses in from the property and Santa Barbara and I would clean out the culverts from the debris floating through and if would drain the next day it would be 3 feet down, Now I mean some of the neighbors it stays there I have measured it 3 or 4 ft, in the ditches for over a month. And the drainage is worse because of Santa Barbara.So I can only imagine when you build this that the drainage is going to get even worse because there is nowhere for the water to go uphill. Our sheet flow was always from Polly Ave at the end of Adkins there you know west. But now they have put Santa Barbara in then you're putting your property in there's nowhere for water to go in our neighborhood and my house was built in 67 so I am low.The County told me basically you're in a giant retention pond. Tim Hancock: In a sense I can see what they are saying and I think there's 2 people in this room taking notes on what you are saying and both of them... Audience: Well I called road and bridges I just can't get they came out and helped us sometimes but then Adkins you can see you can't even drive your boat down there with your fishing rods out. Trucks have to go around there's really only one lane to go down Adkins. When Adkins runs into Sunset the water just stops. It doesn't even make it to Santa Barbara you can clearly see it goes uphill. My drainage has gotten worse and I am sure your project is going to make it even worse. Therefore I'm going to flood for sure. Tim Hancock: Well 2 things first of all anything that impedes the travel of a fishing rod should be made illegal. There's no excuse for that. This Florida cracker needs to get to my bass. As far as drainage about our project. I mentioned how the standards are different today then they use to be. Let me explain why this project will not negatively impact your drainage, here's why. Design with community in mind ci v:\2156\active\215612869\planning\publlc_noflces\nlm\nim_2016_05\nim_meeting_minutes_bullet_points 20160512.docx f ® Stantec w , t May 12,2016 New Hope Ministries Neighborhood Information Meeting j Page 8 of 17 i Audience: Well I just want to know how you are making water go uphill. I just don't understand, Tim Hancock: What your property that was built in 67 does not have is it doesn't have any positive drainage. Structures were designed and it's no one's fault that's just the way built in 1967. 1 Audience: It worked fine before Santa Barbara believe me you could stand in my yard and watch the sheet float rush go and it was gone overnight when you clean out the culverts. Believe me it drained a lot better back then. Tim Hancock: Well all I can tell you about is how our project is designed, and there's 2 components to our design. Every project that is designed in SW FL has to design for what's called pre and post discharge. So we cannot release more water off the site in other words we cannot contribute more water to the downstream condition then historically the site has provided. Mr. Haggen who is an i engineer I may get some of the words wrong but if I step way out of line please correct me. Chris I has been doing this longer than I think I have. We also have an additional flood plain compensation requirement on this site, So we had to calculate in its current condition how may 1 acres feet of water are currently moving onto over and through the parcel so for each square foot of impervious there's a calculation that's done as to how much treatment and water quality storage we have to provide for every bit of driveway and building you see on the plan in this area s based on the County ordinance you also have to add into that the water that is historically come over onto and through the site.You combine those 2 and that's how your water management system is basically designed.We also will have a perimeter berm that creates in essence for our site a bathtub.The bathtub will actually retain and hold more water on our site then it currently does and allow typically the same or lower rate of discharge then we currently experience. I don't know 1 if all that sounds to good to be true and I understand that in layman's terms there's no way you can add this much stuff and not negatively impact everyone around you, but if you can picture this the existing grade is what it is our buildings are going to be raised higher than yours but by raising the buildings and the roads it creates a deeper bathtub in this area, to actually store water i before it discharges off site. Right now there is no bathtub at all, So by using the perimeter berm and using the finished floor elevation of the buildings we create a bathtub that does not exist today. Its function is to hold water for a period of time until it rises to a certain level and discharges. ;i As far as how can you make it go uphill our downstream system has control elevations. WE know what they are and we have to design to that control elevation. I believe our design is allowing for positive discharge from our site. We will not be discharging back into the neighborhood none of the water from our site is going to go anywhere other than into the existing drainage system. Audience:That's what they said about Santa Barbara. But it's not working either. You are just building another damn there as far as I am concerned. Tim Hancock: I am sorry my explanation doesn't give you any satisfaction. So maybe we will have to take a look and be ready at the planning commission to give detailed testimony from our civil engineers to see how that is going to work. We will be happy to do that. I'm not trying to pull the wool over your eyes but, the truth is calculations are that thick and you and I could sit and look at them all day. WE will make sure one of our site civil engineers is there and is able to address that question more fully. • Design with community in mind cl v'\2I 56\active\215612869\planning\public_notices\nim\nim 2016_05\nim_meeting_minutes_bullet_polnts 20160512.docx Stantec May 12, 2016 New Hope Ministries Neighborhood Information Meeting Page 9 of 17 Audience: I am just going on from me being there for 20 years and see how the water use to flow then Santa Barbara got built it got worse. All's I can see is it's going to be another dam for us also for our neighborhood. t Tim Hancock: Maybe Eric we need to see if Jerry Kurtz or somebody with stormwater can be at the planning commission so that we can understand a little bit more about Santa Barbara is and isn't doing. Maybe there are some problems out there that we can bring to light you know in the course of this project that might.... Audience: I am sure we can get the County or road and bridges to dig our ditches deeper and getting across there it would help a lot also. Tim Hancock: Usually there's a cork in the bob somewhere we just have to figure out where it is. I 11 can't honestly say on this project that that's necessarily our job, but this isn't the first time we have taken a project through and that the neighbors have been having a problem and we use the project as a platform to see if we could get that addressed. Audience: If you could email me Tim Hancock: If you could email Mr. Johnson Eric Johnson: And state whatever you want to say and I will forward it to the appropriate staff member Audience: Yes sir, thank you 1 Tim Hancock: Maybe we can get some answers for you if nothing else. I can tell you that we are prohibited by law from discharging any storm water from our site onto a neighborhood, We can't do it, our design has to show that in a 100 year storm we are not discharging ... Audience: I am not talking about discharging. I am talking about blocking the flow going that way. Tim Hancock: OK let me see if I can you know get someone better qualified then me to give you more detailed answer to that and actually Eric if you would copy me on that email maybe I can at least on .. Address the issues on our project may or may not be contributing to verses you know the ;I issues with Santa Barbara.They are 2 separate issues, but I understand how certainly for you they come together. Any other questions? f' Audience: I am not a neighbor but I am with the East Naples Civil Association. Tim actually presented to us a couple of weeks ago. So we wanted to do a follow up make sure we were following the course of the project as well. Couple of the things we talked about at our last meeting Tim was unit sizes the PUD has 900 sq. feet for a multifamily type product. And 1000 sq. ft. for single family product. In one of your presentations you said you weren't going to be anywhere near those but the PUD is really the rule book. In theory you could build 900 sq. foot units which from 1 what you have told us you are going for a higher quality and so I guess I'd reemphasize the point that we made at our meeting which would be to maybe relook at those unit sizes and make a commitment for a little larger unit so that at least the play book is set for a little greater unit size to Design with community in mind cl v:\2156\active\215612869\planning\public notices\nim\nim 2016_05\nim_meeting_minutes bullet_polnts_201605I2.docx e 1 Stantec May 12,2016 New Hope Ministries Neighborhood Information Meeting Page 10 of 17 further guaranty that they're going to be a quality development built on site, Tim Hancock: OK I can repeat for everybody here what I expressed to the East Naples Civic Association, and that's this we have not designed the units yet. If somewhere along the way a decision is made to make some 1 bedroom units available verses 2 or 3 bedroom units available it's hard for me to commit to something that has not been designed yet.So while we have no intention of building 900 and 1000 sq. foot units I don't know what number to plug in there yet. But I can tell you go online look up any real estate listings in this area and tell me how many 900 sq. foot units you see. It's not plausible or realistic that you could even build one and sell it and be profitable.The problem is I don't have a number to plug in. We can make one up you know but my concern is it has taken us over a year to get to this point. If we put 1400 sq. ft. in there and we want to build a 1395 sq. ft. unit I have to rezone the property. Audience: You could do if through a less costly and shorter time frame then a full PUD amendment. Tim Hancock: Actually that's a regulation in the PUD it would be a PUD amendment. Might be a fi minor amendment, but it will take 6 to 9 months and 30 to 50 thousand dollars. Audience: I don't agree with that Tim Hancock: Well it's what I do for a living Chris and you know that Audience: Well a hearing examiner can hear it sooner than that. Tim Hancock: Well then I will suggest my client hire you to take it through Audience: Well if no units in the area are 900 sq. feet then why not make a commitment for a little larger unit. I just don't get it. Tim Hancock: For the same reason I just expressed Chris. Audience: OK well if you are trying to maintain quality I would think a little larger unit would help. Tim Hancock: I appreciate your opinion Audience: We never heard what type of construction the last time we talked we talked about having concrete construction at least on the bottom floor. I don't see anything in this booklet that says what type of construction.There have been a few frame constructions go on in the town and my concern is what type of construction they are looking at. Tim Hancock: I do remember we had this conversation in October of last year I had hoped to have an architect on board and plans prepared to the point that I could give you an answer on that and that has not happened yet. I am always concerned about putting construction methods in a zoning document.That's a building permit issue. So while I don't believe it's our intent to do stick built construction on this site. I don't have a set of plans I can look at and say. Let me give you an example. If we said first flood is block construction let's say you do an element of the first floor that putts out a little bit and you do that portion in stick you just violated your zoning, Yet I still have Design with community in mind cl v:\2156\active\215612869\planning\public_notices\nim\nim_2016_05\n lm_meeting_minuies bullet_polnts_20160512.docx Stantec May 12,2016 New Hope Ministries Neighborhood Information Meeting Page 1 1 of 17 block construction on the first floor except for that one pop out. I get hesitant about putting • construction standards in a zoning document.So that's my hesitancy I wish I had a set of construction plans in front of me and I could answer Chris's question about sq. footage and I could answer your question about methods of construction. But I would just be saying something to maybe make you happy.That could or could not be true I don't want to do that. I hear you and understand where you are coming from like you there was a project on Vanderbilt and Livingston and the whole thing was done in stick construction ground up. I think it is an assisted living facility. I would have my concerns if I am not worried about wind load on it.They meet that, Just for longevity. Audience: Longevity and if there's ever a fire. Tim Hancock: Yes sir.. I will tell you that multifamily I believe all multifamily has to be sprinkled down. Under the new fire code regulations. Chris do you know if that's the case. Yeah so that's one thing that at least is a little bit of a mitigation is 10-20 years ago multifamily didn't have to be sprinkled now it does. Which is an additional expense, I really believe it's going to be block construction possibly stick on the 2nd floor. I don't have a set of architectural plans and I don't want to miss lead you sir. Audience: I understand I think that's some of our concern, you know the quality. Tim Hancock: Understood and I still actually have that note as in my mind that for you is unresolved. • Audience: Does your owners know that there is a purposed habitat project. Whitaker being. Tim Hancock: They do as of yesterday when I found out about it. Audience: Did they have any comment on that. Tim Hancock: We are not them you know Audience:That could hurt the property values just like we are worried it will hurt our property values and our stuff.Same being if I was a developer coming in there and I just found out there's a habitat almost within eye sight of my project. Tim Hancock: I would sense that they would agree with you. Maybe as we get through our zoning we will see if there's a position to be taken there. I.really don't want to comment on another project not my place here tonight to do it. I am aware of it Audience: I guess the answer is as long as they know so they can Tim Hancock: They do and I will be honest with you I didn't even know that one had come in. I usually have an idea what's going on generally out there. But it wasn't until Eric got some phone calls and people were asking if this was the habitat project and I said what habitat project. Audience: It didn't start off very well you know very small room we didn't have enough information Design with community in mind cl v:\2156\active\215612869\planning\publlc_notices\nim\nlm_2016_05\nim_meeting_minutes_bullei_points_20160512.docx Stantec May 12,2016 New Hope Ministries Neighborhood Information Meeting Page 12 of 17 1' people couldn't even come in. I mean this was a nice set up here and this is how it should have { been. Tim Hancock: They used the East Naples Library right, I made that mistake once. So if they are not from this area and they use that as a meeting room, maybe I would say they just didn't know. Because I had an informal meeting there with folks 10 years ago and 20 people showed up and we couldn't have our meeting. It was so tiny. Hopefully they will get a better run at it and what not. But, yes my clients now know and are aware of that and are asking for more information on that. Audience: What if they decide to back out can they change the zoning on the existing .. What is it going to be zoned for now if they back out and decide not to build. Tim Hancock: You mean on this property? If the zoning is approved? Audience: Yeah Tim Hancock: No if the zoning is approved it would have to be built generally consistent with what you see here the only 2 options we would have would be multifamily or single family. But the development standards would remain the same.The building height would remain the same the setbacks would remain the same.So it could be multi or single family but it would have to be built with all the conditions you see built into that document in front of you. If we were not successful they would revert back to that 27 unit plan and I honestly don't know what they would do then. If that plan made sense we wouldn't have gone through this beautifully fun process called rezoning. Are hope is we are successful. Audience: What's the base finished floor elevation on the lower units on them, I guess the flood zone is like 9 foot 9.5 NAVD or something in the area. Tim Hancock: If you will be kind enough to grab my card and shoot me that question I'll get you an answer. We have that answer but I don't have it with me. I'd be giving you a number that I'm p. trying to recall and that is dangerous for me. Audience:That's the FEMA flood zone in that area I know that area roughly I know that much. Tim Hancock: It what 9 Audience: About 9-9.5-but what about water sewer? !i Tim Hancock: I am pretty confident we are well above that Audience: Well no you are not Tim Hancock: No No I mean the finished floor elevation of the units is going to be well above that. Audience: That's what I figured because that road is probably I don't know around 8 ft. or somewhere around there Tim Hancock: And that's always a challenge for us, because you know as you raise the finished Design with community in mind cl v:\2156\active\215612569\planning\publIc_notIces\ nim_2016_05 nim_rneeting_minutes_bulfet_points_20160512.docx Stantec } May 12, 2016 New Hope Ministries Neighborhood Information Meeting Page 13 of 17 floor elevation you have sloop issues to deal with so the higher you go the longer the sloop has to run down to existing grade.This water management area, back here the bottom of that will be about 1 foot above the wet season water table. So you have to look at how that slips up the finished floor so you want to get up a little bit.The bottom line is they start a control and it builds up to finished floor. Audience: Yeah I understand that Tim Hancock: I can get you the number I just don't have it off the top of my head right now Audience: I guess once you figure out what your finished floor is then you said you going to go from 35 to 42 feet up. Tim Hancock: Oh I see what you are saying so if the finished floor is 15 and you're sitting at 8 or 9 Audience: So 3 feet above the road then you have another 35 or 42 feet up Tim Hancock: I see what you are saying you're looking for that gap in other words is it really going to be 35 or is it going to look more like 45 because you're way above everybody else. Audience: You don't know what the finished floor is at yet Tim Hancock: We have actually done a more detailed water management analysis on this piece then you typically do at zoning because the flood plain compensation. I can tell you what we anticipate the finished floor to be exactly, I have business cards up here just shoot me that question and I will give you that information. Audience: Is there any number right now of what the natural ground level is? An average height? 1 Tim Hancock: There is and it's on the survey and it's actually a little higher then what's around us because we have quite a few pines so this land is a tiny bit higher. Like a lot of you have some cypress on your lots kind of mingled in.There's just not that much cypress on this one. So we are a little bit higher then what's around us but 6 inches is everything in FL. Audience: You got a minimum lot width of 60 feet for multifamily townhomes if you sell a townhome how do you sell a townhome fee simple with a 60 foot lot? Tim Hancock: You have to understand it's ..Let me go to my first of all I don't expect to sell !t townhomes by foot print. Otherwise we would have had a smaller narrower lot width.So we used a 60 foot minimum lot width basically for multifamily we expect this to be a condominium project as a multifamily project as opposed to selling fee simple foot prints. Audience: Ok because I thought the picture you showed was a 2 story townhome concept. it Tim Hancock: It is Audience: OK I've typically seen those as a fee simple product not a condominium product. OK Design with community In mind d v:\2156\acllve\2156 12869\planning\publIc_nollces\non\nlm_2016_05\nim_meeting_mingles_bullet_polnis_20160512.docx Stantec May 12, 2016 New Hope Ministries Neighborhood information Meeting Page 14 of 17 Tim Hancock: It maybe fee simple in that you own the footprint of the unit as a townhome but it is still sold as a condominium within the larger context of the development. So the footprint is not the lot. Audience: It's like common area? Tim Hancock: Correct.There's usually phase lines Audience: Yeah but in order to sell an individual unit. It's a 2 story unit like the Neal community the one on Davis and County Barn. I believe they have 24 to 26 to 30 foot lots were they sub divided and you own that particular one and share a common wall. With this layout it seems like that is not going to be the case. Either be rental or condo type units where you have 60 foot minimum lots for you and the buildings. Tim Hancock: Our intent is condominium. Any other questions? Yes sir Audience: Can you discuss what the developer's intent is upon the completion of the project? I.e. the governess? Is it going to be governed by statue 7.18, 7:20 what might that look like in the event that this project is completed? Tim Hancock: I am not going to be able to quote the FL statue, but there will be a master condominium association for the project and operated under the condominium rules of the state of FL. All common areas will be maintained by the condominium association as well the preserve. Audience: Is it the intent you mentioned,which is very nice about the amenities the aspect of having whatever size of that clubhouse, but there will be a clubhouse a community pool aspect as part of the amenities? Tim Hancock: It is anticipated at this point a small clubhouse what we are finding particularly in smaller communities is you can let your amenities get out of hand and then your monthly fees get to high.That becomes a disincentive to people, So what we are anticipating a fairly small clubhouse, maybe a meeting room,fitness center, couple of bathrooms, then the pool area. Audience: But that's a component that will not be wiped away, that's going to be part of the project as well. Tim Hancock: Yes as a matter of fact on our master plan you see we have committed to an X. amenity center on the plan itself, and so the only potential change we might do is maybe move that amenity center. I have heard one person talking about you know be in support if it were gated and I am not saying that it is a vote issue we still have to figure out if we can make it work. If that amenity center was moved from here to here that probably would be insubstantial change to the master plan and we would have to go through a process to do that. That's the very stream line process is the insubstantial change and that may be something we look at but we are just not sure if that is an option. Yes sir Audience: I just want to clarify something you said your intent is not to be rentals, but to be Design with community in mind cl v:\2156\active\215612869\planning\public_notices\nim\nim_2016_05\nim_meeting_minutes_builet_polnts_20160512.docx Stantec May 12, 2016 New Hope Ministries Neighborhood Information Meeting Page 15 of 17 condo's. Tim Hancock: Yes Audience: But what happens if you decide, does that mean you could decide to do rental or leasing apartments like they are doing down on Livingston. People can't get financing and stuff and you say you know what we would rather just lease them then it becomes a rental apartment complex. Tim Hancock:Technically it could be a rental project. Audience: Ok thank-you Tim Hancock: I would encourage you to look around at how many 48 unit rental projects are actually in the market place. Audience: Rentals are big right now. Everybody is building rental apartments right now, f: Tim Hancock: I actually broached the idea with the client Audience: Collier County and drive down Livingston. I just want a clarification Tim Hancock:Technically it could be a 48 unit rental community,The PUD does not restrict that. Audience: Thank you Audience:Tim,just to clarify the projects zone height is going to be 35 ft. and actual height will be 's 42 ft.correct? Tim Hancock: Correct 35 ft.zone and 42 ft. actual. Yes sir Audience: Any idea from the time that it is approved to the time it is completed? Time wise Tim Hancock: It depends on how many units are getting absorbed on a small project like this I would say no more than 2 phases. 12 to 18 months construction 2 years on the outside. If it takes longer than that.There's probably been a market change that has caused things to stall. Any other questions? Audience: I have one. Tim Hancock: Yes sir Audience:The utilities furnishing the utilities to that is that going to be down Santa Barbara.The water the sewer,the electric, and of course the pump. Tim Hancock: Yes.The utilities are in Santa Barbara some do come across right down here at Polly. If we are taping in anywhere we are taping in here or jack and bore under to get to them under to Design with community in mind cl v:\2156\active\215612869\planning\public_notIces\n1m\nlm_2016_05\nim„meetIng_minutes bullet_polnts_20160512.docx Stantec May 12,2016 New Hope Ministries Neighborhood Information Meeting Page 16 of 17 get to them over here. Audience: The second question that I have. I live on Sunset and that retention water you're going to have there. How deep is that and will it be stagnate water. Tim Hancock: No it's not going to be stagnate. It is the depth I am trying to remember 2 to 2 1/2 it's fairly shallow.The reason I said that the bottom of that was 1 foot above the wet season water table is the idea is that during peak periods you might have water standing but not more than 24 hours. It will percolate down to the wafer table even in the wet season. Audience: What's going to keep the water moving so we don't have an additional Tim Hancock: The water is not going to be standing long enough to in a dry detention situation to really contribute to a mosquito problem, It perks down its called dry retention for a reason it's because it's dry even during the wet season it's dry more than it is wet. Is the ground going to be a little soggy in the wet season, absolutely. It's not something to where we are going to have standing water for extended period of time. Yes sir Audience: You having stated that this can be a rental or a how much will the client pay per square foot for these units, Because that could drive the market either way. I's Tim Hancock: Since we don't have building plans I can't answer the per foot construction cost. But I want to be clear about this.The reason why we can't put in the zoning document that you are prohibited to rent is because we are legally not allowed to do it. I been sitting at the board before when this has come up. We have zero intent for building a rental community Zero! So I can't be clearer on that. However, the county attorney has a pined on a previous case that the Board was prohibited from telling them you couldn't rent the units. I don't know where that comes from our why it comes from. ti Audience: Say you build your thing and I buy one there and I can rent? Tim Hancock:That's correct. It's no different than the unit owner deciding to rent it out. I can't give you comfort on something that even the county attorney and if he changes his mind great. But again I am not trying to be evasive about it I just know the rules we have to operate within.So I can't promise you that we are going to put something to PUD that we have already been told we can't do. On another project probably 7 or 8 years ago I have a feeling this will be discussed at the planning commission so let's have that discussion. By all means. Because I know what my clients intent. I am trying to do it within the rules as they are created. Any other questions? Tim Hancock: With that I thank you, I have my business cards up here if you would like to grab one in case you have any other questions or concerns or issues that you would like for us to address. I Look forward to hearing from you. 6:24 PM-Tim Hancock calls a close to the meeting. Design with community in mind cl v:\2156\active\215612869\planning\public_nolices\nim\nim_2016_05\nim_meeting_minutes_bullet_points_20160512.docx ;i Stantec May 12,2016 New Hope Ministries Neighborhood Information Meeting Page 17 of 17 ) The foregoing is considered to be a true and accurate record of all items discussed. If any discrepancies or inconsistencies are noted, please contact the writer immediately. STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES INC. Tim Hancock, AICP Senior Associate Phone: 239-649-4040 Fax:239-643-5716 Tim.hancock@stantec.com Attachment: Exhibits (7) ti NIM sign in sheet it It 11 S Design with community In mind cl v:\2156\active\215612869\planning\public notices\nim\nim_2016_05\nim_meeting_minutes_bullei_points 20160512.docx { { • tl ",�. �s!_5 ,. r'a:,..;.-...,..-•,,,.: :.,,,,.;,•,.,• , • 'i tttpp .1:r rT.4.;r 4t" { Iy R. 4i.i ; ,+ ' } --otApixtv. • ,• , , ,..... ,.....:. it., € 7. LSSA'^ 'i, _'.. - 1 • " ` 3 ( ,� a $ i.. Ire ,r + - 1°o4 I e �v AdklnsAVE __.. ,..„.., , ,.„„;,,,,, r r 4 S A n ' ' i': .i r a .�; , ym,''' ' ''it*7 LSA 'Sw. . • • .4. ,A ,..4 ..-.:•. 7...-. ,:oe,;„, ,. , 1.,,,,. em..., .,... fi _ss r4H s,,,,.,1.. a 1P w jj .,.,0 B r S, 1 $ l 141jf e .� '''.i.' #111, Y nt T d ,4 '�y� ^d 4...:..:..!:::. f 3'.. , i s.� 4 Mt A'..< -',',..--..e.,‘1..'''‘. ) K•L 41 •g s .3,,, i]i d T i¢a't�" 1 tM, ev,erPu.St `• °' 1 I t a 44 `'` "r 1y \yes it i � ,� r '` ,' i.<aTK ,y -z .. ,� . Fft - <. 'm I d,, f .11.4p.,e) . •a l 4.1"..r" .w,.. '', Oft us,'1v i'�° ' , as.°°. ,,';',:','*4,,N.1..4. 1 A a; Tier '+ s "-,b.,„•/,:.::.''',;."-..•....* '1a rxa J 3- HollowDR ;. _ .,.. $ ,aim, A A14. Aki f a u �i 114; '.4::',''''';'•',.. '''.', ' '' ' OP ..'410.• ' ' .' ,..-:'" i ' .'. .,:: ..ry-.. .. .4%,.:,.1. „2,,,':k,:.; :ig . il;:: „4,;!,,I.:>'!, , rv r4. ''' ".,0"i9+' ::!.*"‘ ''''4.: '.', ' ', .. ))1.4011 ' '' , .,,,* ' '4e4 itt,* ..'IV' '1 ' '''' ' ' '''' '' '' ' ...‘'A 44Y 1 ,' .�- �- at- f taU ,. ,*.'r.--.---...-.,..—:y G{.Blf�t w f �A Mr;al gl f:„ W tL�ui h®R °,,s � ` � '� i � r�"` � 1 I as e 1�a 1 �,t, `! :�4'"Y 3s MI, x � t � ' w,�f =�„ . . .i.„4,-,�` K Tk�t�� ,� 1 001. �V 1 A 1111 1.1 9"'- 4 I' ; ,+ s.:*'t''' ' t -t9.m: 1141 , ' * � ;,y R tll st ai. 0 nmocl<RD - I 6 lip 0440406.58 -: * _ Yya �', 6 �' vi. Q.4,;,, ,, af ;,*•:!•-......--'1.;,... '‘$ ' '4-If'''''!*.4-'itiiii111614."1".144:41; ..,'1.:. .. ..-A„ ,:\„..- I Parcel Boundaries $ f` ir.-••,,,. ,fi�” .I ' ONYX RPUD ^� CURRENT AERIAL EXHIBIT ....«..«.. : 1 '".6" A 1 hli Ail! li v . HI w Q Ii 6 11 , tv 31 P.f/34 gif f. 111* 0144 lg. ! A 0 a,.. wa x° S I 1 6tUI = HUh 11 'o io g ' qr I, � N !IIU i �,FpOC �l- ti 91 t Z XlViVd 31ONIt GMdOliAda , Wp 111 so ._ . t CAW lam; _ .�_., -- +'/ ' 1 yaSg m Jq +Qw^O 1.11 LL 54wi I- 1 ISE g 40woo �1 z as I ' g ww I I 1 Q;. L. 1 H 21 � gi 4-1 I 1tl L I n co IL " IB 1 45 1 '\ ; * . a illie7s. ta /001P el : , ; Ir 4 si t 49 1, "1 44 MOY AlY V1MINO MVO3Nfllfld 1;‘.1f1 s d1OVNL 1 of g Poo V034:1013na0 90OOM1VA0V.ORd 1 ey n a Wild 1131SVW 1Vf11d3ONO3 ,, ,4;.1, z.• F 1 IDrama 1!, : : � ♦ V''�A i ? -n u . Jl-BoAl1od . • � � t 1 * '' t ''tb . 3NOZ3i1 andel XAO . t +i t , i ...! s_I. .�' .',": w z U.w y1 "^^ .._ O QV q C,. m �i .K k �R d4' X! .o • } .,_ �! �.r N o a U ,•I I w c � n ,. "�>�'� a�W1Wy `�> .I g a�a z oq „ N i_ N Al N N N �. F• Q : 7 7y '^'W W W ~° o 1 W V °o ma N I4 i'4' .(ti u ci q C'I m ;;w `k 3 I- 4 ` 83^€'a z ihi N� ° rc '' o w R.s.5. °; T°• L �i u gz .tg•. .' N ya R y H qYZ i W • it ii N.M N N N M ID : ' iv z� w 4+U �- a W xx ¢ q4 * X .. �• .t;. U q..w .7, GNw tIJ rc�>� a _ C1w j,�r�i r, f- rn' sZ z m 5 � _ 4) H 0 m . _ .2 T a qw N cn HI W 5 _ ` $. m g mvaF j. :'tGU le� ; m,• W o6N6 $ 0 .- Qt h w i 08 z • {y+ ¢ LL ZQ. O 0_ 0_' `N F �.+ ... W co - J u1 j.f!1 {ry�G�1W �—" � .� w.IP 5g:ituI 'iK OE fn W : 0. i • ; ; 7' 0' 4. i gb!�0 ; 5Z'¢ u. 0 2 ;z 1 : ar- 0 . r,., F z u.{1 Sap ! w � W 2 i— [LI z 74 2 ZaaZZ.,. ' 2 ' a O_ a' 0 a i mS-'s s W K A 3 Q< m�� O'a� Z O .a FII 1v41,N30133a A111Wd•31'Nii6 3A1)WY) IVSUN4OISAVAlwYd.BI N:IV 9AIl GNV) as r 1Va01V101at1v•V )LNxroz M1n111101arn-11 :ONWOZ 5 4 aar 16t1i11S lvdONrod fa. T GWA3111O 13CFY1S .. 4 . ONONOC rw�-•wr1rr•..r-i'i'.,�'�t-.i+r..r .! ..rr-,.wwnMrr .r .'7!" .r"rwr+•r-w1• rid '.. 4 i tl'...,,..,-...,,,,,,;....%, ri2..s n .-es... h,.,a , S_. 1 i 6. 11 ,4 _., vnar iN3wacwNvn a31v jj w 1 1 1 ll ( 3 ` 1!`;h 1VIlN3aii32i 1-' i1 ! AIINVd-IllfW {,, d ll + 1 : � j to j$( r ,4� 1 Er . ..ur 0 t. ` /'tom .. < ,• y\ •ul• E 1:1! 10. I. r- i li1 _1� I a_ 3 IS • " i • ,i i,( . hj to $ 1 �lf t ,IW 1 =!Ji i •:::,:::',2,i,,, .:. I:. . �.. yg Ij1'I I Vi.,-.-.{ S I )fit Via "11 Oia63)iNMI'.: Li r.... I-. 's.,''$. i aq' a a e g 1 I O+4V,WPONfm W.1 •' ", . 1 s zi:__—> ; f 8'Il, • 1VIlN3a1S31,1 / ,._.�I i 1!. J. AIIWVd`I1lf1N i m ii P � � � :F� 1 r3 1 • 1 1 \; k • t'v k R, "::::::.,1.. .tHBiV V q}o .'1 ySl a ir---.^ -1•��••�-_u. .._.r""-"c1 , ',t .`1i 1 ,�.r.r. • O ......_.. T y"` . ,,-1 133NV1O 1lOa KI4))N) �1k:a ,�,..i 0.-,iy 4 ..r .\ly',`:� .,.. ?..; yp ti : cx0,....,,i,. q1 +� 4r rr M•4 ar li li.i+ f�i ii. r.ir �-r w fir M i r i 'ir wii 1L i i i 1 i ;'2 w,�,,.�. :: AV r1•dU}N`JIe VtlVF)tlW VANVS ':35n ONV) y 9 V. ViN 4GNINOZ z SI rr-r masa •••,,..01‘1,•0..• iL:..i.rl�w:r My mos w, rr,r�r.:ir r�r:awl,�:wr rr w!�r, IMO wwi,AIM r; i+e-"IP r.WE! �,w..�.: VI1N_HI4ti3).i Alb1V4i'ItiRW V 3l9N4C ":ASf10N41 0k1 ril11O na1NfNO V!'PO'.)COM'NUM '.UNINO% W _..,_'t 1 8 e e e n o n e e E \ ,30 \5(N & W H 0 d' t) ej CO N ,� V' 0L .-. M .— s^ Wp 0 CC w 1 W CA N M N M C r Z Z k.1 2 W O .= N O r 0 0 oD I- W D QW W W Z m O ____._. ... __W Q f0 U `? ° Qiw 1Wq Ci a co• aLi" > ui w ¢ Q CO = Zp CO CO � ¢ w w (9 (0n < La 1- - O OV W U_ W ,,62K D a4' - O W V 0 � ¢ �i a can d m O U ~O z O Z 5 Z w U � W 5i W W m O J z 'Z d a �g�g? 41, Z ° N 5 w e re try LL U 903 Z } p 4. r V q� g CD Z o LU Z lwn cc0Z0 W w -' awc a c q% m ¢ co a q O o z tr O W F- ° a ° Q aG O CC O r ON rz t Q a a `� 01- a U 4 U a CO a ¢ EC] _ _ imam o)0A13 1SSNDS r- AHVONfOS 1O3fOHd �.,. , -n - w,.-,-, .......• .f Id!3AN399Hd 1 i 1 1 V x C 0 w� wt- i 1 ic i 1 1 L-41 N. a g i. i '!' I i 5 ! a�ddne s ^__ttprtas Z 1 a 3du of I I I —.in E a 1 i i Z - N7re13S I 3± a 1 .oz w ! _ _. _ U_ __ _ _._ __ I _ _ ......__._......_.. _ to i 6 Pia ! C 1 1 i ? _... w...._ gym......._. _,......,. .. ; I to 1 I 8X3 1 .., 0 H1VM..- °.) - ;�:'. .. . - .w.7...7.:-� 7...7.:._..�., _._.....ti'- -_.._____..._._� ._. _ „{fax-a" ....._ ._.W-1_.... 64 N0I1938 .�...�.�.................... ..�....�..�.�r. r.. ..�..r... ,.i,.�..�....��........w..�.,�..�� 1 ........._,..� LL.NOt1 S ~AHVQNnoe103fOdd ` OdVA31fOHVIVM1Y8Y.INVS i t o , I ?`, , SR a•x t b t � ' Arm +t { /� t - . ...,_f '"'"''' ':a "tea ,irl,rl� a i 'l!6' 't T x�`. ( 4_ °" a is pg®� � It �" �£ itt ail Oji F ! Qom! M !Rib ' l�t� i Alei t ((pp *tole, " , 1 eco n ;.1,........,....,. :-'):7..,..;e' ; '+e�-;y» ',.. .. +e 63�' nt, ,5 m� - +'w.; !,'r' ;a'Rp, '. .ra`", '+.F'�� `�' s„ J 44 I— Z V1 0 LU �ra " Q, W �`�/ C I ..,x_. aft ^rte F. ,,h ;:: a.. `O r J E t i S b 4' 4Ei,til$, E ''' .,,,:!'iiik. '.' i', y .' t � • '- ' =,,ri • Y 4 y ''''';','..,-.‘,,,!,,,:,,,-':'-44050,11 ,,, ,: ., : ,,,,, 4 1 . { s: ' k, k :." !'40:-- �3 s3 -4 v 173 `a 4........, ...lkt YFr' e v. N ' t k% ~ ly 4 !4. \ 70 0 0 z 'Ca.' , WA ..x.., vo4, ...,z 't v Ci `A 9T 1.5- c 01 Z y r �1 77„ d '' co co z u4 0 TA 4 tit V 7 G 2 •6 o ° 0.,...1.3 . oa 0o 0 N 0 k-- . A ,. \, 7. d 12 Z.) *r...1 A Gt tA) .4'-o., u ij Zook ° • ' ` ' .�° 7 Ali t . s .41 ` 0 1 V ?) d S d 1 141‘ ' /*"' ^ ,. t0 d ' a , % 0 --, `C.i VC 'A .., co 0 .?,„ , ;:.). 1L:::. d -...... 0 •-- • 114‘ ,.<:7 0 o c ?' \ ::s %itk! \ O % It 1114 4 It 3'o 1.0 , ', • co T J E, Ix 6-- V , e) ' i,r ,. '' 1:4.:". ,3-‘4. 8,, is 0 u O �n �1 # NJ in 17 ,• iii tr. cov 0E lli . ±y o T c t u \nw = is t W a) ca -a d ,94 ua' V. lCa d ._ ZooOG � i3 � � ,.•- ....t , 0 .i-- 0 L. .SA W _ . NII, . .. , ,..... * .-* .0 o• d ..,o ,0. 0,co „a tr.. 0 ts 11 %it ` , F- V O -0 a) I .3 i .. r 1 i N \ t 4� co Vion c5 y. v ori t. 0 ...1 0 , , ,,, 0 u to A i, .... ,- -4 ‘,1 11 ..-- q ' ,...6., a- c‘i "Ce, s.P. 0 CO .0 CD oN p4- 0Q. - 4Q V nP oG % O 0, a , ti� { a t s O O• Ol c, 0 O Li °,, 'i) t 15 fa % , \ ,.- \ .0 ca N O .O • .4.1, °� 1 '^ a d oa • k J ` t 0 zs k a a'VV Ili o > > � 1 . �� O. ° t ,A., ,,.. c 1 1\A 0.'1 4-:-.4. \it r,,-11 11 ,,,, _ 0.4 . 1 -a ,t i u3* ‘N.. i 1 O C OCO N ti O v C 'OyC a C O O 'Q j A L Q V� n3 t O ea '�+ a T t° V i O C C a O •a WO LI y L �y 6D to CC vy � � *' L w E E) 7 C s H ." 0 W L a mY VI r--i 7.7, a - — a : Q- • � a a � EA 'o .0 > aF- ZWM •u_ a 0 Qa u 4 I O OO ,> :' ' L C V .fl „ O4 Ov- a1 I r 2 V aa 'o " O L . i = S cHN as —I J O Z o Q- •-' a a a_ CV — s 1 L a c .. - 3 .G Z c Ll d s w - O N a a 'a V L r� `. , x a fC Q' a 'O l O p_ ›, Wtn * 1- °' E °' a s L L V1 { � O Q ° 3 '1 �, co L � CO a _// X , 1111.... CO o kj O CO Ct J Ui -fl• OO CO 1 E I COup a 'O t C V • a c tz - 4 o E ln ` 10 "0 I a 0 '" 0. = ,-I I w .° 'p to O rV Z — C N O 3 +a+ N E O• a C o kn C C O a co ka s E co L Q L5 O co ..4..Z a O yj O 4- C a i M .a aJ - i s I- -CS- i a 4%-‘..1 I 1 9 �ps,miT's ' ,.,:°I* '''`11744. ''''-:1:::":'''''': ' ' I 'ri ti. n 'l \'';''\t'''' ® .° PUBLIC HES![{!#i UES i#C A fl R�fl O Ta t • ' 1 1irNIE 11Ii6 iiEQU 'Tl�9 t�i8 dl G E flJENTIAL PLANNEtI UNITDEVELOPMENT(flPlifl) „., UE rnAL PLANNED UPUT OEVEL4 i i4 ENT(oPUO) j • PaTITt1 t 1.PUR2-PL40YA g 06 (1,(.1HV)jAVU� TO pk McRRp tlY THE Got41ER EYYUNTY % <<":qd PE1yY�lpa '� ONV%flPU*•D EtE tIWrT RYT1tl COU.Ikp BOUNTY F'1.1NNWQtOEhAN3M9N��{nN3✓WARD''','.,,,' OF egUUTY OOAIAi13W2W3Rl�OCI I ��$ ,yy j��J1]GPE"IMiGROAHPGi GGUNTY GOMh11llIONER313Ct) j. .4,4_,.,„„,..GY Yr'�liYYtlxT1(tt40-004:,,,, 6,4v. �� `,« 8t et _ of kdYl***'"i&�`"[rvmeit zt.C«Fwa. gwAAr a rr. ti + wwm ��vAaB�sw�� aa WuuO ar�rxn �AP avwrwe. a*a x yrt r�lr a� i �rt+t; ` 3 w v ."" w r I 'd' *.MRR!AY± i' r1P.E�N1 ' p5P&Ykiu TMh ` ,,,,:‘,„.„,,,,,,,,..4 '�• TR lkYdllkMAKh QA q!-EM1 ib m Y ''''''4,441,64PPP f,,,'sora„AA ' hYM4 $ �skA,�N+°,E idTfi \. I iN fli+Rkn k�"it, W,,,,,,I• «er a°A� u!!Ar � ncr ..,�. r r1 �y4 1mt" aJ ue�"nnr;�yn�wxrsa�7rw w , `k a*'"'"'" p(" iMIFWNHri4Nfw Yb re 'Y ,0-=•V''''' i!t Mp µk • I 5fW 140, � firer'..... ,.e3hA1Eu.&,T„ "M �i�14.•, 3 p e �� 4^ . ., .. rm €- . t yr d _ .(t ,r - At s "",ot � xa° , ` '-kk ?ff.�.y "� .X s" t # \` '.. y�q gg�y t�}g y q 3 y �y ( E� q�}py fl # ., S 1.�iTdkAEE!E&9kF'33aACi `t *kN 1W .it�ri •t,�fa 'd 1 RESIDER L P N kIT LOPM€n zt i GG 9>t[n u} §��w orn 31i °® _, va k' . 5 .2319 aosn 3..:1 .. i ,.a c '''''a 1i. .,.h.. t eH c2,i i i. • .. il�w+ 6',"+":6::"' � L., � >b o<- �L ,,°,4: 44'',,,,1,-44tH',...,-;,,,e;,.....1, �s� ,,‘,,,,...„,/ii, � � . 0 � ;P✓F 1 ark &T :• z e .0 r , `q: a : me ..r. k t s ' 'N,i '''''4:71'4, ;,'''' '11';',.''t 4,,,,,'''':,"'f'ir' ,'"447::V`',44,1'4,,4 ,tq ,A,,, ..'• , ' ,« - ' a'o t'. �> cit T � ' ',,* , � k rs z NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ii NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER ORDINANCE(S) 1 u Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the Collier County Planning Commission e at 9:00 A.M., on Thursday, June 2nd, 2016, in the Board of County Commissioners Meeting Room,Third Floor, Collier Government Center,3299 East Tamiami Trail, Naples FL.,to consider: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance No. 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier i. County, Florida by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from the Residential RMF-6 zoning district to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district for a project known as the Onyx RPUD to allow development of up to 48 single family and/or multi-family dwelling units on property located on the east side of Santa Barbara Boulevard approximately one-half mile north of Rattlesnake-Hammock Road in Section 16,Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 8.72± acres; providing for repeal of Ordinance No. 06-53 and by providing an effective date. [PUDZ-PL20140000890] DAVIS BLVD. (S.R.84) 1 NAPLES HERITAGE • FREES A 7 COOK NAPLES GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB • PROPERTY HERITAGE \ I TAORMINA GOLF SEACREST RESERVE AND OANDR FALUNG ] COUNTRY NAPLES NATIONAL WATERS 0 1__.- CLUB GOLF CLUB COPE LOVER i' ` 2 j 99 10 RESERVE , <D \ 1—m ca1 HOMES OF ISLANDIA SHADOW- LASIP CONSERVATION AREA OYUTH HAVEN ESTATES WATERFORD W00 PROJECT a RIVIEIX RA ONY z LOCATION , �F9.1 TES m 17 m ROYAL WOODS 16 rnco z G&C CLUB HUNTINGTON 15 WOODS NAPLES LAKES 0 zi w WIND- V / MANDALAY SHADOW- COUNTRY CLUB p SONG (C.R.864) /r WOOD V RATTLEcNAKE HAMMOCK RD. 1 I \ All interested parties are invited to appear and be heard. Copies of the proposed ORDINANCE will be made available for inspection at the Collier County Clerk's Office, Fourth Floor, Collier County Government Center, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Suite #401, Naples, FL, one week prior to the scheduled hearing. Written comments must be filed with the Zoning Division, Zoning Services Section, prior to Thursday,June 2nd,2016. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Collier County Planning Commission with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he will need a record of that proceeding, and for such purpose he 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. If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Division, located at 3335 Tamiami Trail East, Suite #101, Naples, FL 34112-5356, (239) 252-8380, at least two days prior to the meeting. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board of County Commissioners Office. Collier County Planning Commission Mark Strain,Chairman Petition No PUDZ-PL2014000890,Onyx RPUD AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE FOR PROVIDING INDIVIDUAL MAIL NOTICE TO AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS 1. I hereby certify that pursuant to Subsections 10.03.05.B.8 and 10.03.05.B.10 of the Collier County Land Development Code, I did give notice of the public hearing before the Collier County Planning Commission scheduled for June 2, 2016 by U.S. mail to the affected property owners at the addresses provided to me by the Collier County Property Appraiser's Office on May 3, 2016. A copy of the list of addresses from the Collier County Property Appraiser's Office is attached to this Affidavit. 2. Copies of the letters mailed to the affected property owners are attached to this Affidavit. Dated this )3‘2,,C) day of I 2016. I Signatur (kti; -(Cti Eye Print ame COL d Print ti le 1 of 2 STATE OF FLORIDA ) ) ss COUNTY OF COLLIER) BEFORE ME, a duly authorized notary of the State of Florida, personally appeared ITY- \ `--3 Ti ,who is personally known to me or produced L 1 L as identification, and under oath stated that the above is true and correct and to the best of his/her knowledge. DATED this -02?-,6day of MV q ,2016. n' ' � N JAMME MIA : ;gate of Florid leo ►`, 1 Pubo•SOW of Raids atlii4• Commission i FF$3M > ,-I,� 1 161 ,,P:,. My Comm.ExOffal 140v 3.2019 -°° „' Bobo Notary Printed Name- My commission expires: 2 of 2 May 13,2016 I Dear Property Owner: This is to advise you that because you may have interest in the proceedings or you own property located within 500 feet of the following described property that a public hearing will be held by the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) of Collier County, Florida, at 9:00 A.M., on June 2, 2016, in the Board of County Commissioners meeting room, third floor, Collier Government Center,3299 Tamiami Trail,Naples FL,,to consider: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,Florida amending Ordinance No. 2004-41, as amended,the Collier County Land Development Code, which established 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 the Residential RMF-6 zoning district to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district for a project known as the Onyx RPUD to allow development of up to 48 single family and/or multi-family dwelling units on property located on the east side of Santa Barbara Boulevard approximately one-half mile north of Rattlesnake-Hammock Road in Section 16,Township 50 South,Range 26 East, Collier County,Florida,consisting of 8.72±acres;providing for repeal of Ordinance No.06-53 and by providing an effective date. [PUDZ-PL20140000890] You are invited to appear and be heard at the public hearing.You may also submit your comments in writing, 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 CCPC. 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 ME, 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 Collier County Planning Commission 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. If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding,you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Department, located at 3335 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 101, Naples, FL 34112-5356, (239) 252-8380, at least two days prior to the meeting. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board of County Commissioners Office. This petition and other pertinent information are kept on file and may be reviewed at the Growth Management Department, Zoning Division building located at 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida 34104. Please contact me at (239) 252-2931 or ericjohnson(a;colliergov.net to set up an appointment if you wish to review the file. Sincerely, .4 IAA,(2((,)0 Eric L.Johnson,AICP,CFM,LEED Green Associate Principal Planner R E I , i « jy AS Ii ——_ Z 11O Q `.Q i— p U O ~x di:i 1 <C c ICI ssory z � r R R 0 a y ^ s L.L 00 m Alam z aei. x 'amA3uwe 13snns `r" 2 8 P9 111 MI `5 s 1 Q !1.w O- wi Hum . Z et 0)"." a CmA3lM10e tlma:lve vims oaYA31110a vaYeme YAWS 1„� '.. _... ham.._.. �,� ©A`A E F-n s1 i s t a 0 a a a 0avA3b1011 00011 l'" ���� N w P a P P F a � � e o � o A A Qla IRAN y3� 1i J R n e e n R e .V* LI- NM LL � cJ).// 2 g.5 u r"1 x 00, oo u. kg! U 11 5 ; o -Oz) st CL i 3110S 01 1621 0 D O. 4 .gym Z t 0 0El- �:'� �N; , I A o A iii W �y1 ate- _NI -111 if r gd ro°1d5F 1V NO Z �� 11 pT p11 k 1 {. �{ I IS6ro� �mn3VMB 21311100 IS GGG ] 7 11 11 ,� \ [` 1 _,__ ^ oil n 11 N04.114V, 818 Ili v 11 Ya1BmB vA vs i 81 s o 0 0 ., - mB u a(NMIaarwo1 m "' ' U g 1,1 21 0 lir4 aeriuloYap wage 0060/0J` W �. i qua. W 671117 Q 131 u / °a Si X aYa --� �ai : a ' )4, n n I K Stantec Meeting Minutes New Hope Ministries Neighborhood Information Meeting No. 2 Date/Time: October 26,2015/5:30-7:00 PM Place: New Hope Ministries, Room 211 (Lecture Hall) Next Meeting: TBD Attendees: See attached list Absentees: NSA Distribution: Eric Johnson, Collier County Planner Bruce Anderson, Polly Avenue, LLC File Safety Moment: Evacuation plan in the case of an emergency-Emergency Exit locations Commence Meeting Introductions: Tim Hancock-Stantec Consulting Services-Project Planner representing Polly Avenue, LLC,the property owner and applicant for the Conditional Use. Josh Philpott, Project Planner,Stantec Consulting Services Sabina Hardy, Project Management Assistant,Stantec Consulting Services-registration desk, meeting minutes. Bruce Anderson, P.A., Legal Land Use Attorney Eric Johnson, Collier County Planner Tim Hancock: Invite everyone to sign in if they haven't already. Tim Hancock overview of project: There was a Neighborhood Information Meeting on this project back in February. Something was presented at the time and what we are here to talk about tonight is a follow up meeting,is a variation,a change, to what was presented in 2006. I think you will find,after tonight,what we are proposing is going to be less intensive and hopefully more desirable than what you experienced in February. Taking you back just a little bit, I actually did a rezone on this back in 2006. I was with Davidson Engineering at the time. I got the chance to meet a lot of you. We worked very closely together to come up with a plan that we thought would work based on what was going on at the time. Overview of the orientation of the 2006 plan on the exhibit. Referencing the "future"Santa Design with community In mind ci v7\2156\octive\215612869\planning\public_no1lces\ram\fnai_nim_meeling_20151026\nim_meeting_minutes_bullel_points_102615.docx Stantec October 26,2015 New Hope Ministries Neighborhood Information Meeting Page 2 of 11 Barbara which had not been built yet, Polly Avenue and Sunset. The original plan had 27 lots that at had access directly off of Sunset. This plan is what exists today. It is the current zoning. If you were coming in or out you would have to come in on Polly to Sunset and when you were leaving you went out to Polly and maybe to Whitaker to get out to Santa Barbara. That was approved and there were two major areas of concern. Number one, obviously compatability. We want to make sure it is compatable with the neighborhood. Number two, at that point Sunset was dirt from a certain point (view on exhibit). It is now paved, congratulations to you. None the less,traffic was an issue and that had an effect on how many units made sense or didn't make sense. The third thing was drainage. This was before the LASIP (Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Plan) project was getting into full gear. When Santa Barbara was constructed and widened and the LASIP program was put into play, my understanding is that the drainage in the area has gotten a little better. Maybe even a lot better in some areas. Reference to newspaper article from 2006 where a pickup truck was towing a guy on a surf board down Sunset. About a year and a half ago I joined Stantec (brief overview of Stantec) and the folks I did work for back in 2006 went back to Davidson (they didn't know I had left) and Davidson took it and ran with it. I don't mean to cast any aspersions at anyone at Davidson. I think they were trying to do what was allowable. I could have told them, by the experience I had with you back in 2006,a 50 foot building probably wasn't going to be received very well and I think that has been the case so the client came and met with me and we had some discussions. We backed up and started over. We tried to re-build the project. Overview of the new plan (exhibit) orientation, neighborhood of Royal Wood, etc. The property is 8.7 acres in total size but about 9/10 of an acre is an easement for the Santa Barbara widening that was donated to the County as a condition of the 2006 zoning. When we did this in 2006, the County got about 70 feet of right-of-way for free. So we have around 7.8 acres left that we can do something with on the property. So we have gone over the 2006 plan,this is about 3.2 units an acre,27 units,with a height of 35 feet and two stories. We talked about the access. I was not at the Neighborhood Information Meeting in February so I'm not going to speak as to what was or wasn't said and/or done there but I believe this was the plan that was shared. There were four buildings sort of creating a square complex. Overview (with exhibit)water management area in the middle, clubhouse.The one good thing about tis plan is that it looks like they were able to get County Transportation to allow for an access onto Santa Barbara Blvd. We were shooting for that back in 2006 when Santa Barbara had not even been designed yet so the County was not going to do that. Looks like the County is willing to give a right in,right out access to this project off of Santa Barbara. That is good news. The buildings were however were planned at 3 stories over parking and a height of about 50 feet. Total number of units of 55, I believe,is what was being proposed.Just to let you know, I have read everyone of your letters. If sent a letter of objection to us, not only did my client keep everyone of those letters, I've read every one of them. I also read every email that were part of the record and the file and sent to the County. Because if I was going to help my client continue going forward, I needed to know what was going on and what that clearly showed me is there were some issues in several areas. There were some little things to work on but the big thing to me was a 50 foot building does not fit here. During the meetings we had we had to figure out how to make this work at a lesser height. There is another change that happened in 2012. The County has a stormwater management ordinance. A floodplain ordinance. In 2012 the rules really kicked in and the original plan which was going to accommodate stormwater management in a dry detention area (reference map locations x2). Design with community In mind cl v:\2 156\active\215612869\planning\public notIces\nim\final_nim-meeting 20151026\nim_meeting_minutes_buliel_poinis_1026 15.docx Stantec October 26,2015 New Hope Ministries Neighborhood Information Meeting Page 3 of 11 That no longer works. The County's floodplain management requirements are a little bit stronger now than they used to be.So as a result,we have to accommodate all the water that is historically flowed onto this site.We have to continue to accommodate that water, account for it on our site, and then discharge it off site. What that means is that this area (reference exhibit) is insufficient for water management. It's going to take a lot more space for what we want to do under that revised ordinance. For a couple reasons this plan (the 2006 plan) doesn't work anymore. What we came up with is what you see to your right (reference exhibit). Present elements of new plan: What we are proposing is building heights of no more than 30 feet and two stories. That is the exact same building heights as the 2006 plan. He maximum number of units would be 48. I know it does not sound like a lot less than 55 but the truth is, this access off of Santa Barbara Blvd.is expensive. To design and construct that is around 1/4 million dollars. For us to expend that money you have to make the numbers work on our end. That is not your problem, I understand that,that is our problem but that number of 48 allows us to run the numbers and we can see that to make it work with some of these additional expenses,which this access, I think, is good for everybody. We are going to retain our native vegetation (view on exhibit). Things we are willing to commit to in our PUD,that's another thing that is nice is,this was straight zoning called RMF-6 and it had a density cap on it, this is going to be zoned Residential PUD (Planned Unit Development). The nice thing about a PUD is you can write some standards in with a little more detail and it makes it enforceable instead of straight zoning. We have not made any changes to the PUD yet because we wanted to meet with the neighborhood first,get your input,and then we are going to go back and make some changes and then send it to the County and Eric gets to review it. Some of the things we are weighting in are;what we are going to do for clearing? Because the Pines are so sensitive when you get machinery in there and start clearing out exotics, any exotics that need to be cleared out are going to be hand cleared. That is a commitment that we feel is important to keep the Pines healthy. Those areas where the hand clearing leave big gaps,we will look at that and come up with a planting plan to bring natives back into those areas so that they will re- populate (it won't be over night) and it will fill back in a little bit. What you will see just on the other side of the native vegetation (view on exhibit) is going to be a 6 foot privacy wall. So,you are going to have the native vegetation and behind it will have the privacy wall. If you are driving up and down Sunset you are not going to just see a wall sticking out there all by itself. You are going to see the Pines that are out here (reference exhibit), additional plantings, and then behind that is a wall. Reference water management area on the exhibit. There are two ways of handling water management areas in Collier County. The typical one is that you dig a lake. To dig a lake and have it count for water management,it has to be at least a half-acre in size. Half acre lakes start to look like little dip ponds. Really,a one acre lake is the size that gets kind of healthy and does well. Two problems. We don't really have the area to put in a one acre lake and have enough land left to develop.What we are proposing here (reference exhibit) is dry detention. You come in and scrape it down and sod it. In dry season it is dry all the time. In the wet season it will get a little head of water on it but percolates down typically over the next 24 hours. You don't have standing water all the time. The bottom of that retention area is about one foot above the wet season water table. Where you have water sitting in the ditches in the wet season, the bottom of that will be about one foot above that. During a heavy storm it will have some water in it, it will percolate down to where the water table is,and it will repeat it again about 24 hours later. During the wet Design with community In mind cl v:\2156\active\215612669\planning\public_nolices\nim\final_nlm_meeting_20151026\nim_meeting_minutes bullei_polnts_102615.docx Stantec October 26,2015 New Hope Ministries Neighborhood Information Meeting Page 4 of 11 season that is how that will work. In this area we are considering doing some wet foot\dry foot planting like Bald Cypress. The nice thing about the way these buildings are oriented is,the water management area is the back yard,we want to make the area as visually pleasing as you would want it if you were looking at it from the other way. By putting other clusters and plantings in there, it will help thicken things up on their side but it also helps us out with the way the units look. To give you an idea of what the product looks like,and I want to stress, these are architectural concepts, they have been pulled from other projects. (view exhibit of architectural concepts) What we are talking about is a two story building with attached garages. The garages are not going to be separated from the building. They will be a part of the building. You will see a couple different elevations but they will all have similar characteristics. They will all have two stories in height, no more than 35 feet tall,and they all have attached garages. Comment:What kind of construction? Are they going to be block construction? Tim Hancock response: We haven't designed each unit yet so I can't answer that question. You have basically two choices on this type of unit. Almost always going to have block on the first floor. The second floor will either be wood frame or block. It kind of floats with, to be honest with you, I think it comes down to what's available in the market place. I remember after Andrew,you couldn't get your hands on a 2x4 so everybody was doing block and back to wood on the second floor. I really don't have an answer for you yet. Tim Hancock resume overview of project: So,these are the architectural concepts. We wanted to give you an idea,something to picture. I also want to mention that we don't want to rule out that if the market changes, these could be single family homes. Instead of two story condominiums you could have one or two story single family homes. If you go that way,there is going to be fewer units. Single family home lots are a little larger. Instead of 48 units, you would have a lower number of units. What we want to make sure we can do is two story units or single family homes because they are both comparable. Someone asked the question before we started,what are they going to sell for? There is no zoning in the world that puts a price in there that says that you can only sell them for so much. I can tell you that these products, two story town homes, that are in the market place today, are selling for upwards of$300,000. This is not affordable housing, this is not section 8 housing, this is market rate real estate. Build it, sell it for what the market will bear. Comment: If it were going to be homes,do you have a number? 20 homes, half that,25 homes? Tim Hancock Response: I don't. We haven't even done a site plan because I don't think it is going to bare out. I think the number is pretty low. It is less than the 27. That is why we are looking at the multi-family component. I think it is going to go multi-family but I want to be honest. If they built two rows of multi-family and some single family, I wouldn't want you to say"he lied to us". Tim resume overview of project: Another thing I wanted to mention is about lights. I think in the PUD we have the ability to talk about lighting. I think the County allows light poles to be about 25 feet. We have seen a desire to lower them a bit. You want to keep them below the rooftop levels so if you are on the other side Design with community in mind cl v:\2156\active\2156)2869\planning\publIc_notices nim final_nlm_meeting_2015 1026\nim_meeting_rninutes_bultet_points_102615.docx Stantec October 26,2015 New Hope Ministries Neighborhood Information Meeting Page 5 of 11 you are not looking at the light fixture itself. Either 25 or 20 feet,we can look at both of those. The other thing is the type of lights is important. A lot of times you get lights that throw light everywhere or you can do flat panel fixtures and they aim the light downward,you don't get light spilled upward and outward. Most of the folks out here,when you moved out here,you could see the stars at night. Every year you are seeing fewer and fewer. The new LED lighting allows us to direct light a lot better than they used to be able to. In the PUD,one thing we are considering is putting lighting standards in there that limits the height and type of lighting so that it is not a problem or an issue for you. Just to give you a little bit of a comparison, the before and after is (referencing exhibits) this was only 27 units,the roads accessed onto Sunset Blvd.,and all traffic would use Sunset and either Polly or Whitaker. There was a 10 foot buffer along Sunset and you would have seen the sides of four homes. It is not a bad thing but it is how the plan was done. The new design we are talking about an area of approximately 50 foot of vegetation all along Sunset. A little less here, in the 25-30 foot range but with a wall on the back side. The nearest unit from the edge of the pavement is over 150 feet away. The access will be off of Santa Barbara. If they give us a hard time over the access off of Santa Barbara,we are going to ask you to come fight for us because it is good for us and it is good for you. Even though it is going to cost us more money, I don't think anybody in this room wants us coming off of Sunset. Comment:The buildings that are backing up to Santa Barbara, it doesn't look like you have a lot of room there. What is going to be the buffer between the units and the road? Tim Hancock response: What is required is a 20 foot Type D buffer. It's a 12-14 foot tree; I think its 25 foot centers and a double row staggered hedge.There will be a privacy wall there as well. I think for noise you have to. The reality is that we were trying to get the buildings as far away from Sunset as we could. What you do back here (by Santa Barbara) is enhance the landscaping. The code requires one thing but if you are going to sell those units,it almost needs to be garden like back there. Comment: The setback is what,35 feet along Santa Barbara?The building setbacks on the sides? Tim Hancock response: On the rear,we have it at 20 feet which is the buffer width. It will probably be a little more than that. Comment: Are you saying there is going to be a solid wall on Santa Barbara? Tim Hancock response: Yes. It is our plan right now is to basically have a privacy wall around the site. If we heard in this meeting that this was troublesome or bothersome to people,we would re- consider. Our plan right now is that,even though we are not going to have gates, a wall gives people a sense of security,weather it is real or not. And the other side a wall says we are trying to buffer and separate us (you) from it. Comment: On Sunset, are you going to do the 6 foot wall or 8 foot prison wall? Tim Hancock response: We are more than happy with the 6 foot. An 8 foot costs a lot more and looks worse. If 8 foot doesn't work for you,it doesn't work for us. We would be happy to limit that Design with community in mind d v:\2156\acllve\215612869\planning\publid_nofices nimMincl_nim_meeting_20151026\nim_mealing_minutes bullet_poinfs_102615.docx Stantec October 26,2015 New Hope Ministries Neighborhood Information Meeting Page 6 of 1 1 to a 6 foot wall. The nice thing about Sunset is while the buildings are a little closer;it is the end of the building as opposed to the back of it. What's nice is our project signage will be up here (reference Santa Barbara side of plan). Comment: How about on Santa Barbara, how high is the wall going to be there? Tim Hancock response: I don't think we are allowed, unless we get a deviation, to have a wall in excess of 8 feet.So, maybe along Santa Barbara we will look at an 8 foot wall there just to buffer some of the noise. The good news about any wall, in Collier County,if you put a wall up as part of a private development,at least 50%of the landscaping has to be on the outside of the wall. You can't put up a wall and put all the landscaping on your side and tell everyone else "tough nuts". Comment: That is what they did at Quail Hollow. Tim Hancock response: That was put up by the transportation department as a noise barrier and that is different that a private sector developer putting a wall up. Comment: Right.There is no landscaping on the Santa Barbara side of the Quail Hollow wall. Him Hancock response: If you were to put a wall up on a private development,you would have to put landscaping up on both sides of the wall. But noise banters do have a different classification for height and for landscaping because their functioning is more for noise. Our goal here is to do the lowest wall necessary to achieve noise compliance there but as far as along Polly and Sunset we are happy to commit to a 6 foot wall. Comment: Is the 6 foot from the ground or on a buffer or berm and then a wall? The natural ground is about 3 foot lower than the sidewalk. Tim Hancock response: There is two different ways to measure it and in the PUD we can specify that. I believe we are allowed to have a wall that is 6 feet measured from the finish floor elevation of the homes. Let me check that because in some cases it is measured from the crown of the roadway,some cases It's from finish floor elevation and to be honest with you, I didn't look at it on this one. Comment: What is proposed finish floor elevation? Tim Hancock response: Don't have it yet.Collier County is requiring that the finish floor elevation be anywhere form 1-3 foot above FEMA flood requirements. We don't control that. We like it as low as we can get it otherwise it increases our fill costs. Our floor is going to be a little bit higher than what yours is, I guarantee you that but I don't have an answer for you what it is. Comment: None of this is in writing yet,it is just what you propose right? Tim Hancock response: Here is what we will do. We are going to take the input from this meeting and we are going to make changes to the application that has been filed by Davidson Engineering. Design with community In mind cl v:\2156\active\215612869\plormIng publIc_notIces nim final_nim_meeting_20151026\nim_meeting_minutes_bullet_points_1026 15.docx L Stantec October 26,2015 New Hope Ministries Neighborhood Information Meeting Page 7 of 11 Comment:So the application has already bee file,but not this one? Tim Hancock response: The application is active and rather than making these changes and • submitting it before talking to you,we would address the things that come up with your first. We are willing to take all the commitments that you have heard here tonight and write them into the zoning documents. So when I fell you that the wall height will be a maximum of 6 feet between Sunset and Polly as measured by code,we will write that into the PUD. If I tell you we are going to hand clear in the native preserve areas,we are going to write it into the PUD. Comment: But it has not been done yet, right? Tim Hancock response: No, but what I will do is,once it is written into the PUD,If you signed in and • gave us an email address, I will send you a copy of the PUD. I have to prepare you for this. When this goes into a PUD,this is how beautiful it looks (reference site plan with developable area similar to what will be in the PUD). The buildings come off of it but it is the exact same thing as far as development area, amenity center,and water management and preserve. It's not very attractive but it is the same. Eric Johnson: If anyone wants to, they can contact me at any time. I would be happy to share whatever the applicant gives me,if you feel uncomfortable communicating with the applicant directly. Tim Hancock response:These people have no problem communicating. (Everyone laughs) Eric Johnson: The Planners role is to be neutral,to evaluate the project based on the codes we have in place so my role here is not to be for or against this,it's really just to make sure it complies with the codes we have, Anytime that you would email me,that becomes public record so if you want to call in lieu of (1 also take notes of calls and phone numbers and such). I suspect that this will be going before the Collier County Planning Commission,which is an advisory board. They advise the Board of County Commissioners to approve, approve with recommendations, conditions of approval or denial, and then ultimately this would go before the Board of County Commissioners. They are the final authority in this matter. From what I am understanding,the intent is that you will be submitting documents to me, sooner rather than later, it would go through staff review provided that it meets legal sufficiency, then we will figure out a hearing date. Tim Hancock: Once the hearing date is determined, I'm happy to do this.We now have a mailing list that includes everybody that was within 1,000 foot radius, plus any one who attended the last Neighborhood Information meeting, plus any one who wrote a letter of objection. To make sure that nobody gets left out,that has been involved in the process, once we have hearing dates,we will send out a letter letting everyone know when the Planning Commission hearing date is so you can show up and tell them how much you love this project. I just want to make sure you are informed. In particular, areas like this,where lots are much bigger,that 1,000 foot radius doesn't go very far. Comment:Was this being recorded? Tim Hancock Response: Yes, this is being recorded and the minutes, even though this is not a Design with community in mind cl v:\2156\active\215612869\planning\public_notices\nlm\flnd_nlm_meeting_20151026\nim_meeting_minules_buliet_pdnts_I02615.docx Stantec October 26,2015 New Hope Ministries Neighborhood Information Meeting Page 8 of 11 formal Neighborhood Information Meeting, this is a follow up with you to share some of the changes we are proposing,reduced the intensity,reduced the height, I think overall your more comfortable with this proposal than with the previous one. The minutes will be provided to the staff, both the recording itself and we will transcribe it into minutes. Comment: How about the emergency exit or anything like that? That is another concern of ours. Tim Hancock response: I'm going to talk to the Fire District about that because there are lots of projects,when you can come in and make the rotation and come out, they haven't required emergency exits, I'm hoping we don't have to do that. If we are going to have to do that,we would have to do a right out here only (reference south side of site\ Polly Avenue) through a break through gate. It doesn't make sense to me, if you enter from Santa Barbara, all the radiuses would meet the turn radius requirements for a ladder truck. They designed it that way. If we are forced to have it, an exit only onto Polly. Another thing you can do. You can landscape across the emergency exit so if they have to drive through it,they just drive over the bushes. So,there are different things you can do to make it look"not like a driveway"and we would certainly do that. Comment: Are you trying to change the zoning so you can put more units per acre? It's going to be for upscale housing, not low income housing so if they decide to sell it down the road, they can flip it for that? Tim Hancock response: Yes,we are asking for more than what was permitted in 2006. This is not income restricted. We cannot put in the PUD what the sale price is going to be but there are things you can do that will improve the quality of the product,to help keep prices up. For example the wall,that is an item that is desirable, therefore doing those types of things, helps the project value stay up. The other thing I suggested and I've already talked to my client about it, and they have agreed,that is each unit will have an attached garage vs.say a carport or"at grade" parking. If you look at 2 bath 2 bedroom condominiums with a carport and one with an attached garage, all other things equal, the attached garage increases value.That pushes it in the right direction for you as neighbors, the right direction as far as value, and a cost standpoint for us. That is why we are comfortable showing you the sample elevations because it is our intent to build a two-story product with an attached garages, if not,single family. Again, I have to keep throwing that out there but I really think this is going in the multi-family direction. Again,in the PUD,we can make that condition; each unit has to have an attached garage, as a way of keeping the value of the project up, Comment: Is this going to be like if the person owns it going to own the bottom and the top or is it going to be a unit on the bottom and a separate unit on the top? Tim Hancock response: It could go either way. I've seen both and they take about the same footprint. We are looking at townhouses which mean it's a two story unit. That is what we are heading toward. i've actually seen others that have better floor plans that have the over\under units but each have their own garage. The target market for this community is young families and early retirees. Comment: Young families? I don't see a playground area there. Design with community in mind cl v:\2156\active\215612869\planning\public_notices\nfn\tinal_nlm_meeting_20151026\nim_meeling-mhutes_bulet_polnts_102615,docX Stantec October 26,2015 New Hope Ministries Neighborhood Information Meeting Page 9 of 11 Tim Hancock response: No mam. Playgrounds become a huge insurance liability. Most community associations start taking them out after about 5-6 years when the insurance rates go up. We have a great park system though. Comment: Does it have a swimming pool? Tim Hancock response:Yes,there is a small clubhouse and there is a pool area (reference exhibit). What I've seen across the board the amenity centers for communities like this,really get small because what happens is,when the people move in and the monthly association fees are so high to keep up the beautiful amenity center they got sold, they are unhappy. So,these are being kept on the smaller side and that is what we have planned for here as well. Any other questions? On behalf of Polly Avenue, LLC and Stantec, I thank you for coming out tonight and it is by my experience in 2006 and still my experience today,you folks have always been honest and upfront about what you were looking for, I will do the same for you. If we can't do something, I will tell you. Leaving here tonight,feel free to email me or call me, my cell number is on the letters you received. Feel free to copy Eric as well so that there is a record of it, in the public record. Comment:So there are going to be seven buildings? Tim Hancock response: It may be more,it may be less but they will all be in the tract you see. It depends on the product and which one the market place is going after. We are going to be engaging a market analyst to tell us that. We don't know if the townhouse product it's the way to go or weather the over\under units are the way to go. We have to figure that out. Comment: How does that work? When do think we would know? You get approval and then you can make the decision? Tim Hancock response: Yes. Comment: Right now what is approved is like the single family plan from 2006. The way to ensure that it is true is to show up at the County meeting and make sure what "this guy" is telling us is true. Right now, none of that is happening. Tim Hancock response: You will have a copy of the PUD, a copy of these minutes, but please, hold our feet to the fire. Comment: What is the developer's norm? Does he build high end stuff, all low end,everything? Tim Hancock response: This is their first project in Collier County. They do a lot of work in Dade County of high end hotels, So they do high rise development in Dade County. I think that is where some of the ideas came from on the last proposal (in February). They are so used to high rise, they didn't think it was a big deal. I've been here 25 years.I didn't think a 50 foot building was going to work here. In 2006 they actually had floor plans for single family homes for this. They were in the process of getting them done when the recession hit. As we started to come out of the recession Design with community in mind d v:\2156\active\215612869\planning\public_notices\nim\finol_nlm_meating_20151026\nim_meeting_minutes_bulet_polnts_102615.docx Stantec October 26,2015 New Hope Ministries Neighborhood Information Meeting Page 10 of 11 and they went to dust off this plan, the market changed. Comment: I don't see how single family homes would make it, unless they were "jammed" in there. Tim Hancock response: That's part of the problem. The only way single family makes sense here is if the market ticks upward strongly in this area for those in the next 12 months and then it might make sense to do some single family but, I don't see this as being a single family development. But then again in 2006,we didn't see it being multi-family. Comment: Right now it is single family development? Tim Hancock response: It is. We are going to multi-family but leaving the door open for single family but I can honestly tell you that if a portion of this were to go to single family,single family would sell for a higher price than the multi-family would. Comment: Right now it is approved for how many single families? Tim Hancock response: 27. Going to 48, a higher unit count, we are in a smaller development footprint,about 2/3 of the 2006 plan,shoved out to the west as best we can. We tried to say, If I lived in your neighborhood and I'm not going to be upset about 48 units, what would make me "not upset"about it? Keeping the height down two stories, keeping the buffers significant, access on Santa Barbara. Those are the tradeoffs, on behalf of my client,we are asking you to accept. Comment: For the record,do you know what the approved density is comported with the proposed density? Tim Hancock response:The existing approved density is 3.2 units per acre and what is being proposed is 5.5 units per acre, It goes from 27 to 48 units. There are some other costs that we will have to incur to get to that number of 48 units. It has something to do with the TDR program and it means they have to spend more money in order to go above 40 units. We will see what the market brings. The conditions are,we are asking you to look at what we are proposing is the box we have to live in and the conditions we are willing to impose upon ourselves inside that box. Hopefully that is enough for you to be comfortable. That what we are proposing is as good,if not better than the existing conditions. Comment: Proposed. Right now we are stuck with the 2006 plan. I want everyone to note that because there were only 4 people at the last County Commissioners meeting and I went. So everybody has to go to the County Commissioners meetings. Comment: Will we be informed when the meeting is? Is it going to be like at 2 o'clock when we work? Tim Hancock response: Unfortunately,The Planning Commission meets on Thursdays at 9:00 am, and the worst part is,you have no idea when you are going to come up on the agenda. Sometimes things that look like they might take 20 minutes, take 3 hours and vice versa. If you are within the 1,000 feet, you will get a notice directly from Collier County. If you're not, I'm making the commitment, that if your name is on that list,as soon as we have that day confirmed, I will mail Design with community In mind cl v:\2156\active\215612869\planning\public_noltces\nim\find nlm_meatlhg_20151026\nim_meeling_minutes_bullet_points_102615.docx Stantec October 26,2015 New Hope Ministries Neighborhood Information Meeting Page 11 of 11 everyone on this list and the master list of when the Planning Commission hearing date is. If you have concerns,talk to us before hand,we will work with you. The Planning Commission is not the best place to resolve things.Somebody said it best to me earlier,this property is going to get developed. Right now this is what it is going to look at (reference 2006 plan),this is where we are trying to go (reference the proposed plan). Those are the two options on the table. Comment: I'm one of those vocal complainers. The plan looks ok to me. The only thing that I'm concerned about would be the construction type. If it's "stick" construction, and we can't really dictate how they do it, but I would like to see block construction at least for the first floor. Tim Hancock response: Let me talk to my client and see if that's something they are willing to commit to. I honestly don't know the answer to that yet, I understand the value of that. I will ask the question. 5:50 PM-Tim Hancock calls a close to the meeting. The foregoing is considered to be a true and accurate record of all items discussed. If any discrepancies or inconsistencies are noted, please contact the writer immediately. STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES INC. Tim Hancock, AICP Senior Associate Phone:239-649-4040 Fax:239-643-5716 Tim.hancock@stantec.com Attachment: Exhibits (7) NIM sign in sheet Design with community in mind cl v:\2156\active\215612869\planning\publlc_polices\nim\tlnal_nWmeeting_20151026\nim_meeting_minutes_buHel_points_I02615.docx - 1 kn'; syr 113 ' �, • ` c',•' lR .,w m� a 3' fid. � ,' r'#ay , #a . t m 9�, 44, e '- ,. . `' k',;., iii,i '?,„r,, s N rr *4 .du.4 <r h N M :',,,,f': „.4=410vj K iy4 d�` > {i '� 0.4 it II; y i "x R ' 3. 't t.&M ?4 Adkins AVEN i p r, sI50' l''''* :$' ss � ` a4 ,;W, „I3 y "ate a � � g.� Qs +. ,,'x,, ", yd' " ' . ` ,. I. t � .'4Jy . 1 � 'ph m � - ,M r ; „1#4.1 0,•-< ' 4 4,4 ,,,,,,:, 1116. 0, 4, ,t.,-, ,. , ,:.1 .1, ":RDk. ,` f`' n R;* axpxhf a1E:Is., , ,,;,,,, - 1, 4'1 ";'. - ill' i it , t a�a S gal, 10 ` S ' ( 1 1� C •L,, ,�,, ,a hat , a¢ `• ,. / _ . 1 y ,._ •., -k s. • �' kl `, ,may ::',''I.,--:',' ::::,.:-, '''''''''''71 wood* : -,'2:Li t'4(' -''' ''11'',11r, ' ' , ' ',,,,,,,, : -...,..-Inc .-It h0,,, 's c t ' i I; t :.I.' kk y3`,, Itj �i , +g ems' 4. n'. ):2;iiiirt4E,1, .-.41k , v•,' ,/ It*t.•, s t. ,, "ph 1/.43,,,,,i.-• ..• „.„,.„,1% -11,..t , L L G F N D a Parcel Boundaries t {¢ p , ° , ,=g` ' ' ' ' Olfebfman 3bnbt u.vfxwf ror"fppn,I&lIy fol tlala floNec cc cU pSarv'ev xm. .11 fvpPaadin alaclr°Na IPITON.me recipKnl accepts 77W 2410Y to 00 200 1[wf Cii, 1°N ufpaa�WYlot v".Y3anp the accumay antl ONYX RPUD NaoMt�ft NNpa N Stant__ aampblrandlhatlnla-1ha NaNgan,,t.zzr CURRENT AERIAL EXHIBIT al raiNs.aaap //_�j�� Nanlec,ih°lice.,employee.rr Mlanaona 091119e)205 Fax 239 403216 '�• "� 'wx+ir loin oprn "::',„ v n.°I,cW:niw nein°n ay \Y V a •t v w luknut n h n the ca Mani°v �pru°�°I n ASI°. 7.:::•:.-.....:,-,....:.:1,;;.:::-.7:-=-=,--=. ne4,40.4 eWa W.xYA rwW°nx .; ' q a o .t v .,,:P.,::v:i.:: '4, •-•••;.:-e'..:„tii .4.---,,,*,,,, t r i .. ? i.k ` 3" x,,,,ti d ,„ � ,4' .'A P,'fi •aro X' .r r {i ia }f s 40. t ::::.......:.:11171 I 54'•?”.41'07004;.4 • : 14:; '.,1,. —"FPI 1 jail ‘.x24-.,,,..,,,,,:.-.:10'..-1-4-i,,,,,,,,ity-.0.tvitfl is ry ,' -F ' R',,, ..,s .kx:eLN , a1abitbesono } iS�- ,,,, %,..' it.,!,..! ,,,,,T-.1,,,, .,,:,:•,20- ....., ....,:,,,.. t 91::::;ga . .,,...:, .., ,i.: 4.4.,:' 4,,,t,..::..,..,--.4 4. - >.••t - ,,,.....4 . ,,,,, i;..,,1 1 .€ r ,'1';';',,,,a1,7,," „',, „ a t „, : ' atm ,eT ,`' , � 3 J {CCS sa,t ..„:.:.;viri.r.v.,',„;#,I;f'01).ittj I's • ''.',.:7i,: v!!;!...•:.,:f. i'... , 'f;1 0,Y, i , l':ct'''•:.:„..::::•,,,:,,„,4°':', J ',d • Jd { � . �� 'fid , .. °@”' yM f d F "t� € v .Y.... A pt' k " �• S` d „,,,i.,,s4.44;, ..:;,4,:x,:, �r ',p «: Er.',.1...:.,,,,*,,,,,,;, ;<: s ; ,'")**•°:,T.:41, _„ ”; 'sd ,!—At 0, ,.",i„-„ '1 i',. I i 1,,!,!::,,,,.,;?;.:;...'i,..,...,):....i...,,':,i.,,:,::::,,,:,,,:.4:1,:::::.i.lef r,i17.)::'.'. :,.. , .,.,,:i,.,,„. , „,, 7.,,,:' °sa r sa x < 4 s )4:';'• i yp , >1,,° i_wk's ,{ ;.1,,,,,,tt;:,.:.,, ,,,,,....,:;01.,,, ,., iiitt i,,,,,.9:,,,iil...:.,7,,,-..,,..,-7.4,,.. .7......:,...4..:.,,,,:,,:te....: 4., 4,—,,,,,,, 1.1:4,,,,.14,4„,„ ,..,:i.„,_ ; .,,,,,,,,..,,,,7.,,,..:,:-.)....t:,.,,,!..,-0,,,-.,, , z,,,,,..f; .4.-0,...., .:., ,le, , 1.• .,..0;vir,...- -.:1,,,,t),,,, �ow DR x *� $ as .,.1;,,,,,,,,•,,!,,,,,,,,:,,,,, b . 1: 4.,,,, a}oma D'01 ii ll211h pt dl 11-� Ill pu pb D/ 1it A C C Z N W of O6 C'lLL ,, K QQQQQ Wed&C 01kQ-oisb - 1 eg • p rlIV =TW i ji 11 2 1- (J ozv z,1g Cly'° p0 � w P 1 ? 0!IglOg s W O .d 3yzOh as a _ �I ./ . 05 Zo 5 el Z JS P AIIIM M NIV8 03dO aMa J ,Mi.(r -----r Z>", ----- -ter-� ----^- �------------- ;1 W �- �- r ZW& as 111WI R g 1 LI SM 1 1 _ 1 I E>1 . fir GO .1.1 p 1 I 'e 1► ��i I , . 1 Oa- 1 2 z + I 1 2 I I 1#6 7/.. 1 \ / 14 H1 —1 rs co01' I qi! I b Pril 4 `€ t1 aTIJ- ani 1 E p %\ • f ` 1 1 ,, �J a: • 11 g. y ��/ qh.is .1. og� a-._ --_ ...�...._..�....._.. 1, [i2 MO OA1U VUVVBN WNW Mi lifli 1;X. R SD OOM'1VAOb Ng f kit, BOOOMWWAOU•Ofld t 1 Ait i M ,t., .. '--'-, MG. B= o»�nVaM Nb ld 2J31S dW 1df11d3ONOO aMMN Mt'° • MO .._.,,... MU Y'OIVMI WMYYM AW nu saa ale ....t_.•,. + l9I 44MM,In nom ura,t111 . - • it L� ,I, . IV Oil`H/1V A110d .,, mm m was r„y;1 loi UW&1s ill (yam ....1.0102 3NOZ321 Ond21 XANO ypQl ..... SflOISI/.3tl .41.11, 'tlSOVd A 6q zZ= H Z i_2 og Ce J L. Z"N it °I M H W F F- Q 60 02 U62ta. C mCRRpl NpH a 2 U m uaJ a d d6 cai a J Fa ¢ g � Ylp n L1.1+ z ix 2 N! Z �5Fv N a c c n3 O c Y m OM m• 6 Z >Z H N al it N N N 11 ii a ` Vi u aSp zW �zz a �m u p4 O M cou) zo �rus LL ,. n`w > Q ° ¢ Ne Of Zvuj ,02 z 8� ��z h9! aa�V -4v1,Fz f l m $ g N o no 0. �i .W o <d�m6 . , z Ofn J a zzz z a0�� �' $ ° m ti Zv SW g °-° to 2 . uai o ' 9) (j p d d z nm i 0 .r g o 3 a a m a 2 ' O 2 p a a v 7�i Q_1 y m 1VLLN30193a AIIWVd9lE 110 9611 ONVI 1VLLN3OI8 1M11WVd-31ON18 38f1 ONVI Q.I 1VaE111fYJ1210V-V :1041114021Vaf111f131210V-V '+ONINOZ \ NOV91393Aa393Nd -} -..__.... .....�.._..�....... 3LALOf121161VdIONINd.9 O2hh311-1OO136Nft9�- \\\ ga 1 v321rIH3w3ovNVvia311vM W p El !i —E4 ,,, - . . V`,, 1duN3ars3a 1, I: I K-ouvvd-iilnw I 4' n4 < 1 1 g i/,n 0T • f3 as g 1 .F a ' 1 Rr gi1g 1 D 1.1.1 :i 'i i MOil W : • • 8 8 1 La , �K lir 31UN3WV i -,, l�l i f10H9n10 .. r.. g s. 1alb, IVIlN3oIS3a AllIANd-lllnvu t 1 1 _ $1 1 M .1ag J • NOV9138aHrA.1N021:1 AB -� 1 '4O �rw. ._._�.u_ ..—u TM . ,. __ _„,___ 1 4 ;y -.. l (93NV1 ONNO9 N1210N) li Ons VaV9aV9 V1NV6 �. - $— ... I I' r�r.r.rr�rr I I r I d AVM•d0O.H01a VNV92N9 V1NVB 3811 ONV'1 e $ VIN 'ONINOZ ,r�.rrr�,rr.rr,rr,rrrrrrr a�arrr rrrl®rrrlr r�rr,rr�rr.r rlrr�rrlr rl�rrlrr 1VUNVOI83a A11WV3111fW Y E'JNIB 38l1 ONVI Of1d 81113 Aa1N1KJ3 V 4100 ODOM-1VAOO :0411807 .m<-..e-4 ia„•..,wsal ew'me-.-r no tI rwt�u+-.m�omalr e>-�<-rcrcal,.w.o�I+ar,...n..�x ' aT � �r; :; s' '.:4:44.:0„..:.,,,,. { € • ` s s ' ffi '44 +,F ,',L � ; , , , _ ii 1 ,., .,,,... ..„.4.$,,,,,.:161,111110.,.:.:i„:,::,,.4.,.:74..404,„.n,,„:0,1,,r.:.,,,,4,, ,.. „,,,;::.:.:„:„..,i,.I1,:2„.,,:„,40,str ,„„„„,,„11,,.,....:,,,...,,.tii„,„0..„,..:.„::..s,;:::::.„...... ,, ...:4,,.:„.:::..::...:.,,,,,., .„:0i...,.r.,,,,:,,,r4..r,..,..,,,l,„,:.,.,.,:i.,1,,:,,.:,,,,,„:„,e1..: „:::,.::.,.,;„,,,,..,..„...,:.....„,_..,.„.„,,,,„„„,„:,..„,.‘„....:„.,:::,,,,,,,t40, „:„.,.,. . ,,, „.....,:,::„,,,,...:...:.....::‘,„:„,.::„....,.:4..,,,„:,,:„„„,,„„,„,„:344.,w,...000::„.......,„5,.,,ti,:,,: .;,..:.::...,....,..:.,,,6„:„„:„„..,,,,„0,40„...,.....,.0.„.„:,;,0.,:,,,..:„„,..,,otg„,::,,. „.,„ .,.:„......„ ,, ,..,„4„.:.:31...„.4k,wirame:„..„1„...,„.i„;„,....1:40.,:....',..„, ,„, . ... ,:..:.....:„,, ,cm,„,;:,..,„:;,iii„,;„„.:4,3„,11,11,15h,:,..:!,::61,„,,14,18,10,1z..:.:::..„..;;;,,„0„,,rw,„.:,::„„......,..,1e!j;,1%1P,O,:..,,,e..A.1.1.1. ..'101i4M11,1:'1-1'.1- '' ' .,-..1.40,,Oltt , y 11 ms 4,,..•,,„1-i7,::,:•„1..''. a ori ,(%•;,, 4, 'il '''',i;<'1,,,-,,, u” 1 '•'„,•,,4,..,i,,iggot,',.40,4,,'„;,•:-:i.,,',1111111:',11k,;.:160.,:km45:1;'.fil'::',Itc ati,,,,.._••t,ri.:50,,,,,,ng,...,.,1,.-•4..„,. •J -,',- ,,,::!:4, ',)-'iiii*:',••.,—,N.,,_ :i'L,Tor.,4,1,•:,14F1't!:.,;,‘,,' ,.:z1:-... ,., . ' .,,. LL , „1,,-;:,,-,:.:;:,,:-.:,,-,,,,.; 700....14.40% `} ' ' e,,,, ., . ...:•- ,„ ,, . ,. `* ,is '_,so � • k _ , . . 4p . WV:'' Ai; • • •'..—",‘,1”• ' ' ' 'Vt. ' , . " s,....•,:— • iit*, . • k ... • .,.::„:;,:i:,.4,;•,!:,:,,, .:.•• , ., ,;:;,.•,;,•,. '•rfr',•.•' '. ,,:,:,,,-.,,,'•. - . •,Iiir,4,01.4; , ... ,1,11,4„,*.. .. at. ' ' ,4ii....4.1,,"44.1'4 ' ' i ke 4,4:0a 'a. '. k t4 '04:2 4 4044'4'4.0. eR°S ka .0414ry4sktd ; ;'f' „ pRgE+ t ' ' , g"° a r i •'s 0 'dxd i�4a '',;414.:%;''..."1::'. .€�;i£di rsos$ iA.E ECt4d. '�3d s i , + '. . kZi d v;iE4€dlliI Itili;::>w€ {wtCA4d 4"; r ro ibl94y:49'1:.'H+ 1P "i `Y"YI67Ey; et t558Oil,Ra ^ .' • s ; ,4^4;. � { i'.0'41:.U , <^ "0:41:1 ^00;,; 1c),C'il 't ` / A r' 00 ii446 tc"@4id" a� Ft $ � d * � # e3 R ;+0' t ,Cha” t '#`R, m ' 4' '40 k4�€�qiS .i4a4 ld � za 1li \'4 +F t° 9' 'txiae t„ a.t. � i e4 # .:y&4 d'i, id;i Late .. et,� a: str'u\ ., f4 r ( ,f.:!..:,0,10.„—, 10.„7 �” i fl 1 e : okitirt4/� r ' I' le , ,A �6 - IE . w. ia'l � t,T b ,,e l ,ff { \ $$ a a 4r. it f • • F#Y qjil ;d�y pp. ° . 9g .,gtl$9¢I�kfiligtE€bidE69i�ibR€{iltifp)i $ f 9 It i!�'�ii'PdlRt �€ {iEtY (�� 'Ing�,�',d»® ,,} 'S '''''''''',4' ;; _+'4 dm i qp; i[M -wp&4{ t$ i}I 4 i. #Ittd R .A @@ YS t: ®., .##rxkR i .„,..,,N,41,104!.,,44 4,:erq 4€S.k\ i ii, • s .,,t•4 ie : i'kp rr • ateit C �,p4 s'� gg 0.�3 ,.�t±�4Af* 4ii t\ i4 k l'�4 ;€�ei t .4iY�ki4t4R� � ReyRY R �,iC�h.€1 Ai! ue� 4y �pk .9 � 3 ` 7:.',?!:::.1.,!.•,k,' ,;,_01,t e� " ibt,,,,s4wi 4 i!'7 i E>m1i iJ ,4ta k bt£uR 1,,y iiIi" fP;roti t'\ik,i?i,! i4.ri 's1,,,t_ka .,fq- p `•C t� Ir ,, w d � � #3 5`fie' !� t9ii i k EYefi#Sit .t h.f.e„ s e,.,,., �9 at S3 #![S�� �«t !i r � � , It4 • litr 4 ,,,i,,,A„,i,r,444:itiollii:700m!!!i:,iiiidi a D k � °rw!. ,. 1,t�;' c ',,, •'`i/ •��wow•`z : �' c i ,i`o gE,,„... a, 'l d 1..„..„,...._kms,, ,.. ..moi._ • _ _, _ ., . °�. - '. t.fit � � ,..„.,..„. g $ 9 q®+ � S46fvr,1:tO'' ",-�*"5 d' sE , t '' a$s � € t :, ,' 7's p : $d�,, a'',da, t•.E R �' ;"'.�k «s�i�d a:ea 1; 4'i � idabs 4.`4'..‘424041''.e., :;\ `a.. pap ;..4a . dd •; it %'� iEi 1a ieRr� e t � � tl! " d Eee ,i !± . i-,1,41.4 a; `x I*ia t• a �� ' an; •� �.am�9sa ` i + i.eRa1s�taffi. ea- ' Yr ` kYt�k!'•!0 z,aaf . i,nv w .<etgR fE,k iF€€dwfF3 ,r[•;E69xt• s �i: 'xRiidrft.t d qri€aelark f T#*9it �ij dt:✓,�'4Ye} 9f{eii, " R iaAke (40,1161,,,* . itzlc Px� �m."�iSiiiA i,e`',I+#atzkei!%ibAa1#1_t� ip%§%Aisifgh jtiim, �i;.; bAair yezwfi�C.yt i� ! . E ' , , d T,:;.�...r , " g4l E,i '.,.c° f �e$:A F � y , ,„:,44r ” .., 4a°7 x,11, s �T tt � P # ekrej #, ,g 4 ' Ifi! il ki.• ,.....„..;:,,.,•.„,,,,,,=i € t • .1 , > �s �� ENO y, NM a F L I WW a g S Lt , ce N aa � Io 'I a W Z I I 11 11 W a f^ U II D m w iz Qa ° z Z 2 w _ w o wy w W O 1 3 m H a o H iti "UKIU Issxns =�1 = 1. a a a a a a 3 a a 3 a a a 1t 9 9 a a a a a a a a /ntig8�ad All#N a a 3 a a a a a a a a 3 a 3 a a a a 9 3 a a a a a i z v a 3 LU ¢ a Lu W N a < Q `. a I Ia a a i a € a a aw was w ? a a WIIJ cieCL a a a a a - a a a a a a a a a a a a - , —.,► ,. .► a. .�. a -T''' '1'. -=. des— �"' .. �_ X+10e +prlti0�lffll���i1��1 - tT 1..; ' �, 1 i I .,, '43A18 VIIVH21VH YINVS 9 _ . d 5 t, I. _ A • ' � ,ra! - � ,� k '1 '. " Pte, � M a 1A1 , ��. a f T s a" d a 411'_ ' ' ' vs..V- . 3 / ` ,ti5' }q R ,5•,,,,,,,,,, , t,,,,* ,-,,'„ , s ri • 4 1...,,,,,,, ..,,,„......,.., . . .... , . ,, :1 , , , I:., ..! ,, ,,,,, , . , .. ,, 2 ,, ii ,:...4 ,,,.. ,, 4- 4,,d,..4,,,, ,. 4, a ,,,, 51‘A - .,=.440r-`00P , ' ';'li 5 r .! st` � } .. .1' e .,K. , s . c) -t . 4 isr, to I �1 y C ((�� S2 1.5 3 :11 8 ' ' i- i t i - , C O C Q o o o m 'ci '� 1 C1 ., (� L w a E L ' aA o o W N G M •C v� •ai ` 1 IA , . •� CD n ii3y ra I 8- \Ct 11— E ~ �° ,r, W 4J ,� (11 O E L N f In �' ^I M n V Q �� 13 - © tea � _ � M N -0 N L I-- I U . E o co `� C J C. O r1/43 t > a .'Q3 3 '� N Z w -o c-o „ ("'d- .si ) 0 .1 I ` '� - D CD CL. E w a cp 4 , ,� `' 41 a E 2' E h i -57`-'4v1 N � � L 03ba ° a toxo 14 E .-- ° Q 7 0J OL" (49 0 Ma OJ L. vi 0 1.- .1 V c _ " GsI = s Ia > C � i </1r1.3. u to C � / u In O .„,,,, .,, - --,-;.g 1, 4. qt, _ f tn 3 V N N c -0 a � to E :i c u} d 1 t cE i 3 q� 0,-.N: s 3 �i c L I) G• 47 to V1 GU) a ro u E E v b E w c Q c t o O • o 0 ✓• 0 a G 7 C ^ m aca, c ZO t Y • 0.1 +o t' C .,........_ U-I n il fl_. E lc Zco LL J O 7. .. O O Li. • >...;:, 0 3moan c C.) f- WcC ...,....1,- .5t`� ,1, o 2 1cio) .„sE 0 r y%cu . G ro 94, v) v G c o g2 (.0 / '� m E 0 09 (" to ..aorto O0- q) to aro7a Q «+ �/ 0 O I..L Ow Q ++ T• a Et a U L r-� OW vWwa M ii_, E g i 1 u t H ` 3 ro Ti u O °O r 7 O 0 0u ro G X ▪+ U > ai 0 W ' Z a � u 0ui s v 6 i ro G Y � c 07 0 *' 7 u d .-t 0 o a� E ., O y u r v O m '1' cc Z (5• E It N O ZCc N M 4- G (Q H dC� '�rol d {S 1 DE DAVIDSON ENGINEERING 4365 Radio Road,Suite 201 • Naples,FL 34104 • P:(239)434.6060 F:(239)434.6084 www.davdsonengumering.com MEMORANDUM February 25,2015 TO: Mike Sawyer FROM: Tocia Hamlin,Senior Project Coordinator REVIEWED BY: Frederick Hood,AICP,Senior Planner RE: Onyx RPUD-2-17-15 MM Meeting Notes A Neighborhood Information Meeting was held on Tuesday, February 17, 2015, at the South Regional Library. The meeting was properly advertised in the Naples Daily News and started at 5:30 p.m. A total of 20 interested parties attended, please see the attached sign in sheet. In addition, the following individuals associated with the review and presentation of the project were present: • Mike Sawyer,Collier County • Frederick Hood, Davidson Engineering, Inc. • Fernando Zabala,Zabala Erickson, LLC • R. Bruce Anderson,Cheffy Passidomo Wilson&Johnson, LLP Fred Hood started the meeting by introducing himself, Michael Sawyer,Bruce Anderson and Fernando Zabala. He stated he was representing the developer Polly Avenue, LLC the applicant for the Onyx RPUD, Residential Planned Unit Development project and he then began to explain the following in regards to the project: • Size and Location: o The subject Property is±8.72 acres and currently undeveloped. o It is located, approximately, one-half(36) mile north of the intersection of Santa Barbara Boulevard and Rattlesnake-Hammock Road, on the eastern side of Santa Barbara Boulevard. o Neighboring land uses and zoning in the surrounding area consist of single-family residential with A-Agricultural zoning to the east (across Sunset Boulevard) and south (across Polly Avenue). Pagel of 16 DE pgvios N FN..INHf=a1F4U o To the north, a drainage/water management pond with A-Agricultural and PUD zoning (Waterford Lakes) is situated across the unimproved ROW for Adkins Avenue, o To the west, across Santa Barbara Boulevard, is the Royal Wood Golf & Country Club. Royal Wood has PUD zoning and consists of single and multi-family residential homes with golf-course and clubhouse facilities. • Purpose of the RPUD: o The property was rezoned in 2006 to allow 27 multi-family units, o The current application seeks to increase the density for the project from 3.2 units per acre to 7 units per acre;creating the potential for a total of 55 multi-family units. o The final plan of development has not been completed yet, but the maximum height proposed will be 3-stories or 50 feet in the form of multifamily condominium buildings, townhomes or single-family homes. The original rezone allowed 27 units of single family homes and multifamily development. The application seeks an increase in density and height. The original building height was 35 feet. The proposed building height of 50 feet includes 2-story units on top of garages for a condominium development and or townhouses. o A clubhouse/and amenities area will be provided to residents of the community located near the entrance to the north and west of the project.This clubhouse amenity area,and all common areas within the project will be for the sole use of owners and their guests. Emergency Access will be provided off of Polly Avenue and will not be open to the residents. • Buffering and Setbacks: o Where the project is adjacent to residential uses,we are proposing to provide our native vegetation preserve area.The previous proposed PUD Master Plan showed access off of Sunset Boulevard with a loop road coming in and lots placed on either side of the loop road, We are proposing and have requested to connect to Santa Barbara Boulevard during the pre-application meeting with Collier County and through several application reviews. o Access was not available off of Santa Barbara Boulevard in 2006 because the improvements had not been completed to the level it is currently at therefore the County requested for access to be off of Sunset Boulevard. o What this means for our neighbors on Sunset Boulevard and Polly Avenue is a natural and existing buffer being retained anywhere between 45 — 60 feet along our property boundary to the south and east. Page 2of15 DE ry ir•,MV, 3'r o In addition to our provided preserve areas adjacent to our residential neighbors,all other code required buffering will be provided along the northern property boundary as well as Santa Barbara to the west. o Shown on the renderings,you will see that no more than the roof tops are visible and this will also provide you with an idea of the proposed maximum building height. • Access(Traffic): o The original access point planned for the project in the last rezone were from Sunset Boulevard.The plan as proposed today,will provide access from Santa Barbara Boulevard. Access to the Property will be in the form of a dedicated limited to ingress and egress driveway improvement within the currently unimproved Adkins Avenue right-of-way that will provide access to Santa Barbara Boulevard. Turning movements will be limited to right in/right out to and from Santa Barbara Boulevard. o Per the traffic impact statement that we were required to prepare,approximately 40 pm peak hour trips are being proposed. That number of trips projected is consistent with a residential condominium development. o There is a proposed limited emergency access point along Polly Avenue that will be gated and only accessible by emergency vehicles and their personnel. • Wrap Up: in summary o Sufficient water management has been provided that rings the site between the preserve and proposed area of development. There is also a water management area in the center of the project which is not large enough for a lake and will likely be a dry detention area, o Specific architectural look of the buildings or the actual types are not known at this time. We are currently at a zoning level to discuss the types of development allowed. Where you see future residential development areas,these are areas where buildings could be placed,the exact locations are currently not known. o We are seeking the same uses that were proposed in the last zoning request; only a change in the access point,an increase in building height and an increase in density. o We are looking at a ring road with trash and recycling areas to pick up on the northeast section behind the buffer and onto Atkins Avenue boundary. Page 3 of 16 DE PAVi PPN o We are utilizing our required Preserve area in dual purpose.One for required vegetation preservation and secondarily as an increased buffer for our residential neighbors to the east and south. o The proposed access is now from Santa Barbara Boulevard, relieving any traffic concerns from Polly Avenue or Sunset Boulevard. I will do my best to answer and questions you may have.Thank you. Fred then asked if there were any questions. 1. What is the square footage of these apartments? Response: We do not know the exact square footage at this time, but think it will be approximately 1,200— 1,800 s.f. The architecturals hove not been drawn up but the minimum required square footage for townhouse or multifamily units is 750 s.f We are not seeking any one bedroom units and the s.f. would be large enough for at least 2 bedrooms. Again, this has only been discussed and not set in stone. 2. Will there be rental restrictions within the community? Response: We have not gotten to this point yet but condominium units have an association. The property owner of the unit would have to abide by the associations regulations for renting out the unit. 3. There is currently a water flow way down the Atkins Extension as well as a drain that is pretty sensible for flood water for the area. Looks like you are planning over that. Response: We are not at the level of construction drawings for our site development plan. That would be our next application if the rezone is approved. There is currently a drainage swale that is located in the Atkins Avenue ROW, the drainage would not be affected because the engineering design would have to allow for the area and volume to remain and flow out to the Santa Barbara Boulevard ROW. A possibility would be a piping system under our drive out to Santa Barbara. 4. Is there a turn lane off of Santa Barbara? Response: That would be a part of the construction drawings, but a turn lane would be provided northbound providing safe access Into the development. The developer is required to put one in as part of the Collier County Transportation requirements. 5. What would be the base price? Do you have any idea yet? Response: We have not gotten to that level and do not know at this time. Page 4 of 16 DE pAVIDSQN Ctd C.alrvA Rin'c'.?a A statement was made from someone in the audience: This is kind of interesting,you would have to do a u turn in order to enter this development. If you think of 100 people (2 per unit) that's going to be wild. It's going to be crazy. 6. You're saying the height of this is 50 feet? Response: Yes sir, the maximum is 50 feet. This would be the actual top of your roofilne. 7. What type of vegetation as far as trees,Palm Trees? Can you leave all of the existing? Response: Mostly slash pines and there are some palmettos. Anything that is considered exotic, we ore required to remove. Replanting will be provided so the natural preserve area will take back over. 8. When construction starts will they keep everything in the front of the pond or will you have equipment coming down Polly and Sunset? Response: At this time, we do not know what type of construction there will be. We are currently considering to bring in all of the construction and equipment off of the Santa Barbara side. We will not be disturbing anything on the Polly or Sunset side. Santa Barbara is the easiest access and we do not want to disturb the preserve area. 9. Why do they want to put so many units on 8 acres? It used to be 3 units per acre, is that correct? About 10 years ago we talked about how many units—1 don't see where it would hold any more than that? There is nothing around that is 3 stories in our neighborhood—it doesn't fit our neighborhood. There is nothing in between Rattlesnake and Davis that is like that. Falling Waters is 2 story. That's my case. We don't need any more people,it's hard enough to get onto that road right now. Response: In 2006, it was 3.2 units per acre with 27 unit's total. The original plan was only going 2 stories, in this plan we are asking to go an additional 3rd story which would be 3 stories and 50 feet, that is where you would get your additional units. One of the reasons we brought this plan forward today is because everything to the east and south of this project are single family 5 acre lots or lots that have been split. We are proposing to add an extensive preserve buffer so it doesn't visually impact development to the east and south. This fs going to be facing Santa Barbara and a water management lake here. You are correct in saying that this project will not mesh or exactly match what is to the east or south. The developer is requesting an increase in height and the developer is looking at how many units they can get it. Page 5 of 16 DE DAVIDSON Nt'.Ra F.t.xtry c3; 10. Most of us have homes back there because of the privacy,then you are going to put 3 story in there where there is foliage. What guarantee is there that you will not take stuff out? There is a lot of pepper hedge in there,a lot of stuff coming out. Response: We are taking things out but we are also replacing that vegetation being pulled out with native vegetation,that is not pepper hedge, not Melaleuca, not anything that is invasive, we actually have to do that. 11. One thing that you have not mentioned to the public - what is the minimum opacity that your preserve has to have? Response: There is a level of opacity that our buffers and preserves have to have. In this case, we are looking at using our preserve as our buffer. We are holding ourselves to a certain standard for opacity because not only do we want you to retain your privacy the people that buy in here want to retain their privacy as well. What we have looked at in this case, is when we take out all of the exotics and replace with the required native vegetation in the preserve to a level of opacity that will be beneficial to both communities. 12. If these building have balconies, is everything going to be facing inward toward Santa Barbara? Response: We have not gotten to that point yet,but the amenity areas are facing toward the center of the development, it would be likely that the balconies would be facing that way, we don't know, but that is where everything is going to be happening. This is going to be a green area with some trees and water management, so for someone to look out of their unit onto green space is more attractive than looking out onto a road. We still don't know yet but it is a possibility. 13. We still don't understand the leap from 3.2 units to the 7? I understand the numbers—what allows you? Response: The original zoning allowed us to go to 3.2 units per acre and that was 27 units. That was without us looking at any additional infill provisions within the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP). The infill provision within the GMP allows us to look at additional 3 units per acre for projects that are within the Urban Residential subdivision. The urban residential subdivision has a base density of 4 units per acre, it is not guaranteed that we get the 4 units per acre, but we are requesting it. The infill provision allows us to increase our density by 3 units per acre. One of those units has to be a transfer of owner rights, that TDR is basically a unit that is stripped from another piece of land that goes into a conservation easement that allows for additional units to be put onto this property. Two of those three units in the infill provision are up to the planning commission,review staff, Board of County Commissioners, to allow us to go up to those 3. it is ultimately their decision how we get to that point. What we are doing right now, is requesting that and showing how we are getting there,that's where we get the 7 units an acre which brings us to the 55. Page 6 of 16 DE PMRPON �x,y 41J'(CRI F!(H 14. So this transfer of development rights,in other words,that is like a mitigation. In other words,you're going to put it on us,you're going to add it there but it's going to be lighter somewhere else. Response: Well it's not lighter, wherever the land is that we are taking the TDR off of, that land goes into a perpetual conservation easement but a level of that can't be developed on. If we were to move forward with the site development plan process of this project the TDR would need to be in place prior to going vertical. 15. Have you determined if every unit had two children in it, what impact it would have on the local schools. Response: We have to comply with the school concurrency standards. At this present moment, when in review, we haven't had any thoughts of impact from the school board and they are telling us there is capacity right now. 16. If this gets to the height of 50 feet and the next project comes up, let's say they don't need parking underneath,there will be 4 stories allowed once this gets started? Response: That is more of a question to the reviewers of what they would allow to be put there, we did not want to go above the 3 stories and the only reason we asked for the 3 stories is because we wanted to have the garages underneath. For instance, if this project got sold, before it was developed with the original developer's intention, and they wanted to do 3 stories of actual units, they would still be locked into their density. So they couldn't have 4 buildings with 3 stories of units because they can only have 55, so maybe they do 2 buildings that have 55 units. Will that happen—probably not, there will be water management and spacing issues with a building that would have 25-26 units. 17. I guess the better question would be,once you allow a 50 foot building will it be allowed all the way down to Davis? We thought this was all settled back in 2006 and here we sit today. Where will we be sitting two years from now—or Section H Housing? Response: Hypothetically it could but that's not for me to say. We are not looking for any affordable housing density in this project and it will all be at market rate. In our application we are not asking for any affordable housing,so if this goes through zoning, there will be no affordable housing because it's locked into the zoning. 18. You have to have"X" amount of parking spaces per unit,and as far as the parking design it's around the exterior of the building. Response: Yes,parking is around the exterior of the building and there will be guest parking around areas near the clubhouse. Page 7 of 16 D C PAVItaSQN 19, Do you have a price point yet on these units? Response: We do not have a price point yet. Those will be determined when we figure out if they will be townhouses. 20. Will the single family units be around 1,000 s.f. How much are you expecting to put in? Response: That would be the minimum square footage, if we did single family we would probably go the original site plan because that was the most efficient site plan with 27 lots, in this case we are looking at what the maximum would be. If we were looking at the maximum we couldn't put 55 lots on this property. That wouldn't be something that someone would want to buy that wasn't a 10,000 s.f footprint requirement. 21. With your proposal to get 55 units, how many of those would be single family? Response: None of them. The 55 units are multifamily. That's the upper threshold, 55 units of multifamily/condominium units. 22. So, here we are tonight;what is the next step? Response: The next step after the N1M, is we are currently in the 2nd review with the County. The staff will come back and let us know if there is anything else they would like to see in the application. Once we receive staff approval the project can move forward with posting signs and getting the hearing date for the CCPC. 1 will brief the Planning Commission just like l did at this NIM and if they agree with us at that hearing we move forward to the Board of County Commissioners hearing and if further explanation is needed that will be provided and then ultimately we would get approval far 55 units. That's the timeline, A statement was made from someone in the audience: It's more of the traffic. Those people are going to be hurting getting out of there. I have a real good question to ask. Does anyone want more than 3 acres per unit, raise their hand. Ok,that simply answers it right there. I think what everyone fears is this is the tip of the ice berg and it's going to be the domino effect. We all live in that area,even though some of us still live on dirt roads,and we are so close to the County facilities but that's beside the point, we still like our little paradise there. I know I don't want to drive out every day by a bunch of condos, I enjoy my 10 acres, horses and stuff like that on my property,that's what we all bought in there for. I think once this starts, north of the retention pond could be bought up, north of Whitaker could be bought up,just a domino effect all the way up to Davis Boulevard. Condos with 50 stories. Response:1 understand. Page 8 of 16 DE 23. I thought I heard someone say they are plans to continue extending Waterford north, but you're not a part of that? This is the precedence.Once this is established this is going to be the footprint. Response: No, Ido not know any of that. 24. I will give you an example—before Santa Barbara was put through, and I live on a dirt road,there was probably 30 people that drove up and down my road a day, now I have over 100 people that drive up and down my road a day and it's a dirt road. That's the kind of impact we are feeling and we like living where we live. Mr. Mike said,were there for a reason. Response: I understand. The architect of the project, Fernando Zabala,asked to speak: If I can say one thing, my name is Fernando Zabala,and I'm with the architectural firm that is starting to work on this. The team that is working on this project is very much aware of everything you are saying, and we are looking at this as professionals. We are trying to address the duality of these things. There is a growth that you can't stop and there is a lifestyle that you have bought into and have. As you can see, the way we have laid out the preliminary sketches the approach to the land actually respects both, As you can see we have maximized a very thick preserve area between you and whatever is coming. Before Santa Barbara was 3 lane or there was nothing there,your noise has increased. This project would actually block the noise of the road to your site. A response was provided by an attendee: I understand your argument. Your developer can make as much money putting fewer buildings in than cramming all of these people in there. We want you to note,that we are as professional's approaching this from a serious point of view,we are giving you a buffer that we believe will suffice and showing you these drawings are not misleading. What you see there is exactly what we can do. We are actually perfecting this equation you have by your development giving you an exclusive access to Santa Barbara without causing any conflicts to your local property. Everything is out of view and completely encapsulated. You only see a forest of trees. I just wanted to point out those two things because we have been working very hard to provide the best to you and whatever is coming. Parkers Hammock,about 15 years ago,made a lot of promises. It wasn't two or three months after they built that mess in there that someone got murdered in there.This is what we don't want. We are a quiet neighborhood and we all mind our own business. Once you dump all these people there,they are going to be walking down my road, complaining about all of my animals,complaining about my dogs,this and that, I'm not looking forward to this at all. About 10 years ago we agreed on 3.5 units per acre,we as a group,that's what we agreed on and we thought it was done. I don't think anyone here feels differently, if they do, speak up. I think money can be made with fewer units and be a nice thing. I would be much happier if it was nice. Page 9 of 16 DAVIDSON DE F MC.I FIFF N I have 40 in laws and outlaws that come during Thanksgiving and there are about 20 cars parked on my 5 acres and that's a lot of cars. I don't want to see all that if it's something we can avoid. I understand that it is all contained but you got to remember, 55 acres, that's a lot of people. We were all "A" zoned in there at one time,in the Waterford PUD,that's been passed around from person to person over the years. We know that something is going to go in there,we would just like for it to not be a big impact. Response: We are not proposing any outside parking that would cordage to a parking lot. We are trying to mitigate that impact to you. if you were to look at the original plan as Fernando mentioned earlier, we were dumping traffic onto Sunset Boulevard and that traffic was going up and down Sunset and out onto Polly. We didn't have Santa Barbara to the left of us,so now,you have Santa Barbara that frankly is bring development to your area. Where Waterford is not developed,it could be developed within the next couple of years. Now that there is access and there are trips available on Santa Barbara they can actually do it now. What we have tried to do is shield everybody to our east and south of our development. We understand that you have a lifestyle and you have acres out there and you have a certain density that you enjoy and it's the developer's intent, not just for money, but they have a certain product that they want to put out. 25. We have over 80 active PUD's in the County. That's a lot of activity. The government has over SON control over this County and there is nothing left. I understand that something's going to go there but I believe this group of people should have a say so about what is going on. I don't mind as long as it's something nice. We have some nice new houses that are in our neighborhood that are very nice and I'm just happy to see them. We got people talking about doing more nice homes in our neighborhood and I'm just tickled pink but they are confirming to our neighborhood. I would like to see something out there with a lower density and we have a good neighbor. There are plenty of places that have bad neighbors and I don't want that to happen in our neighborhood. In our neighborhood we have a lot of diversity and we all look out for one another. That's where my concern is and that's where everybody's concerns is. Response: Ok, we understand. 26. On the Santa Barbara side,what if these 100 people get into these 55 units and start complaining about the noise coming from Santa Barbara. Then here goes that big privacy wall. Response: They bought into it. We are not looking into doing a privacy wall but we are not taking it off the table. It would be the developer's prerogative if they wanted to build one but it is not something that is specifically required. The ones on Royal Wood, they built that there because they wanted it there and prior to Santa Barbara being there it was all"AG"land and they had to provide some type of buffer from their multifamily development. 27. Back in 2006 when it was just 28 units, I recall that the County said they couldn't even get there CO until Santa Barbara was done. Now that Santa Barbara is done and there is more access they want 55 units and to increase the density. Response: Yes, that is correct and they didn't do anything. Page 10 of 16 DE DAVIDSON NFi4INw 28, I hear a lot of don't knows and were not taking that off the table with this project. Response: We are in the zoning phase, we are not in the construction plan phase. All I can say to you at this point is that these are the things we are asking for, if you would like to see us take a look at something we are going to take that under advisement, but at this point for us to have an exact plan of what the buildings are going to look like or have wall locations put in where they are not required. We are going in with this application showing what is required per the LDC and what things are supposed to look like on this plan with the addition of using our preserve as a buffer area. Everything on this plan,for a lack of better words, it is a bubble plan. It shows you what can go on the project, it doesn't show you exactly what is going to go there because we are not at that level yet, 29. Today you have presented your proposal,your idea, and I think unfortunately we have gone down this road a couple of times where the developer comes in and says we are going to do A, B&C and then things kinda of get changed and I just wanted to know when in this process will things be locked in? I guess when you guys go to the planning commission,then you will have to have a formal plan and is that when it's written in stone? Response:The PUD document is what we use and it gives you all of the development standards that if you are going to build here then you have to follow these development standards. This is at the County and is public record if you would like a copy, This is what is in review right now. When I tell you the PUD setbacks for the property—you got a 30 foot setback from Polly Avenue and Sunset. That's in the middle of the buffer, so no building would be able to be any closer to those property lines. You have a minimum setback from Santa Barbara at another 30 feet,so you can't go within 30 feet of that property line. 30. I thought you mentioned earlier that the buffer was going to be 65 feet? Response: This buffer right here is between 45&50 feet. It is the width of the preserve area. What I'm saying to you is that the maximum setback the minimum setback that you could have if this wasn't here,if this was gone,you would have to have 30 feet from here and 30 feet from here. We are doing better than that, we are giving you 45 here and 65 here. 31. Is that what you will have to hold to? You could change your mind tomorrow and let's do 30 feet. Response: This is the thing, you have to hold a vote because this document holds the plan that has to be 75% the way it's going to be when we go for our site development plan. To get the preserve location, we have to go through a whole other application. The water management area can change but the location we have things, this is our path and what we can develop on. 32. That building that you see out the window here,that's like 3 stories,so it would look like that? Response: Yes,except for the 151 floor would be the parking garages. Page 11 of 16 DE MVPARN 33. You would also have people move into here that are not use to animal noises. We have chickens and donkies and these people will complain. Then they will come knocking on our door complaining about that noise. Response: I completely understand and my recommendation to the people that would come to buy here can check out the area and see if it is somewhere they would like to live. I can't guarantee you that the people that want to move here will not have an issue with your chickens or your dog or your lifestyle, I can't guarantee that. 1 can't guarantee that to someone that might buy the house next door to you. 34, With that being an agricultural area out there they have to understand that. Response:That's correct. When they buy their property and they do the due diligence on that property they have to understand where they are buying. It's not your job to tell them that you have chickens or dogs. A statement was made from someone in the audience: I work at the Sheriffs office and live on Polly Avenue. I get that business is business and I get that aspect of it but they are moving into an Agriculture area where we all moved into to have some land. Let me tell you something when the complaints start, Commissioner Fiala, who I respect severely as she knows, her phone is going to be ringing off the hook and my phone is going to be ringing off the hook because I'm the chief of operations so I receive everybody that runs a random light. So I'm going to be dealing with that problem, so it sounds good but as those complaints keep coming in and they are going to come in,I assure you,cause I hear the goats,I was raised on a farm, I don't have any but I hear them and I'm used to it. Most of those people moving into a community like that are not going to be,they are going to be miserable,just like the Airport.These people come from up north and buy there and the City has to deal with it, I deal with it and the commissioners deal with it. Complaints almost daily about that,so I'm telling you it's going to occur and it's going to be a change for everybody. 35, I know you are going through the County to approve the increased density, if they turn it down to you can you go with the original. Response: If this gets turned down the original zoning is still on the table. We would hope that it doesn't get turned down or some variation of what we are proposing here would be approved. We don't know what is going to happen yet but if it did get turned down it would defer back to the original zoning from 2006. 36. I think your statement of the buffer provision is way over stated. For one thing,you are definitely going to see the building way over the trees. Response: Yes, the roof line is going to be seen. Page 12 of 16 DAVIDS9N DE N 651Id G6R NC. 37. This building footprint is what is usually to follow,in addition to that if you look at these projects that have occurred through the County where the preserve presumably occurred,you end up with sparse pine trees and coco plum that you can very easily see through. Response: We are trying to avoid that. This is not exactly what is there. I can't go through and draw every tree exactly the way it is now. /can show you the pictures and tell you what is there right now and tell you how wide that is going to be and what is already here, Right now, as you can see, on Sunset and on Polly it's a very thick preserve area buffer. There Is a bunch of Brazilian pepper in there. What we propose, again, is everything we pull out of there we are trying to keep it as opaque as possible. Every Melaleuca, every Brazilian Pepper bush, and every other exotic that is not supposed to be there we are going to try and re plant those areas with native vegetation that will grow to be as thick as hopefully, what's there. If a hurricane came through, we would have to plant a buffer, a preserve,from what was there 10 years ago by looking at a previous aerial. i can't sit here and tell you for certainty what we are going to plant will grow up to be in the next 6 months to 5 years. All we know is, we are working with a landscape designer and environmentalist on staff to tell us what to plan here to make this buffer more opaque so that you don't see as much of this development as possible. 38. Who is the developer? Response: It's a company that is the owner and developer of the property,Polly Avenue,LLC. itis the same developer that owned the property from before. 39. Have they developed anything in Naples? Response: i don't know. 40. Are they from Naples? Response: They are not from Naples. 41. Out of State? Response:No. They are from Miami. 42. I thought that was a wall;there is no wall,that's the building. There is no wall? Response: That's just the roof line. 43, Can we take a vote and go back to the original? The original plan with the exit onto Santa Barbara. Can we take a vote on that? Where is the developer?Get him in here. Response: Acknowledged. Page 13 of 16 DE 44. What is the time line to go before the planning commission? Response: We are in the second review right now,so once that review is complete, we will get the signage underway and put on the property to say we are going before the planning commission. We don't have dates right now,but if all goes well with this next review,potentially May—maybe,i can't tell you for sure. 45. Will we be sent letters? How many people were sent letters because some of the people in here I don't even think were sent letters. Response: Yes,you will. There is a.500'radius that we have to take from the property line. 46. Can you make it a lot larger than that, please? Response: That is a land development code requirement that we had to adhere to and Mike,you can back me up on that. You can go to the commissioners and request an amendment to the LDC to change that requirement. 47. Are these people going to have City Water/Sewage? Response: This project will have access to public utilities from the Santa Barbara side. We would tap into that access and not disturb the Polly/Sunset area. 48. Is the entrance off of Santa Barbara?And there is no back entrance? Response: Yes, that's correct. No, there is no back entrance,but there is an entrance here that is only for emergency vehicles. This will be gated, nobody in here can come up this way. 49. Are they estimating any price range of these units? Response: We are not to that level yet. We do not have a price point yet. 50. These are for sale and not apartments? Three bedroom 2 bath? Response: These are for sale and not an apartment complex. We have discussed 2 bedrooms as our minimum but again it's not set in stone. 51. What is your minimum square foot? Response: The minimum square footage for our zoning is 750 square feet. We are not anticipating that level that is what RMF-6 zoning states right now. We are looking to increase the density,height, and access locations, everything else is mirrored from what is allowed in the RMF-6 zoning. Page 14 of 16 DE pAVIDPnQIV 52. You could do a minimum of 750 square feet if you wanted to? Response: Yes,you could. 53. You guys are dealing with the developer and you have to know if he is talking about a cheap apartment or a high end thing? Response: It's not affordable housing. 54. But 750 square feet is not high end either. That would be something that would help us a lot to know if there are crappy apartments coming in or something else. Response: That is the absolute minimum that we wrote in,now we could take a look at increasing that for the development type but we are just not at that level yet. That's our bare minimum and that is something we can discuss with you all about adding into the PUD document and we will go back and discuss this with the developer. 55. Can you say if there is a price per unit,for the 55 that you are proposing?They use to say that a unit is worth this much. Is that number available? Response: i don't have it, with the way things have developed in the recent years, I'm sure it is higher than what it used to be but I don't know exactly what that number would be. 56. Is this a 55 or older living community? Response: This not an assisted living facility and not deed restricted to age either. It is a full market rate development that we are looking at right now. 57. So you don't have anything of where the buildings are going to be?Do you know where the dumpsters are going to be? Response: Originally,we tried to do a layout but we don't know exactly where we want to put buildings yet because we are looking at zoning right now, but looking at 55 units we are looking at about four buildings. We are planning to have the dumpster located on the north side of the development,right now we are required to have a 12x24 foot enclosure with two dumpsters in it. It does not preclude us from putting in a trash compacter or something similar or additional dumpster areas, but right now we have put the minimum on the plan. We are just not to that level of construction drawings yet. 58. Why can't we have the dumpsters on the Santa Barbara side? Response: We can look into putting them there. We are at a conceptual level and the dumpster location can be moved around. Page 15 of 16 D�VrDSON DE rar Krvic> 59. Will there be a gatehouse? Response: There probably will be. It's not shown on the plan because we are still in the conceptual phase. It is in the PUD document as an accessory use. The PUD document is a guideline book to show you what could be developed. 60. Are you getting out of this meeting,that a lot of us are not happy about this? Response: Yes, Definitely, we will be talking to our client. Fred asked if there were any further questions and thanked everyone for coming. Meeting adjourned at approximately 6:30 p.m. End of Memo Page 16 of 16 , .() w zo , ,„ —\ ' .c) c-t, ,•,3 r .4, 4...) 01' , 0 — \..,, 1' TA ,l , ct- r„) 135,-„ , , ... .,. c i , ro 6,,,, :a N,. .r- r, -- f) s\. ---. K---.. ti) 6; )•4--- -,.. 1 . . Q. N '4, t•--) ' :: c-‘1,:, 1...6 (Th . r.--. ri .?"-- Q..... ,..i '`... ,--,--; -- -' . '.. ..... , ,... .. . \z-.) --- Q. -.... c-I -----.. ..,) nr1 - ,) c,....K,.. zy V\ (fl) N 1 - tY. \‘') .,.:3,,'•- k.,....D. ---1 '--9 `:,.1-- (...) a - in ...... N. CNA , 40: n o 0 Aki t c• , .z >t C ,-- N (O. V- LO: CO' r-- CO CY) 0 <- N CO •cl- CO 0 t•-• 03, ic-i Ln 4J j `/ 011 lir ,,, ', 11-) '-% _,-, �� - 1,,, \ , 'fie s``"� Oo C4. a e� tc) M, .\ s V _As ' / y \ J < L T . C « (� �• N,.. VI ,A .4 C.1 v� ) 17- 0 ....:.... 4 ct C4 t r2 o eco .�, �`� l CO \ i ,..1 ‘' \ \--. 1 14°‘11.•1 I II gi trt ,: C 74 I ® 0011110W is II! ATTACHMENT #5 Letters/Emails from Public �pp { !y. JohnsonEric From: GEORGE DANZ <ghdanz@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, May 06, 2016 5:05 PM To: Lenore Meurer; Leo Gallardy; kkenney@royalwoodcc.com; geocyck@aol.com; Helen Phlbin; peter@derogatis.net; Shelly Kelly; donnamjones7@yahoo.com; edcheco@aol.com; Larry True; Richard Rogan; matkatamiba100; fawnatnaples@hotmail.com; moe07@aol.com; dgolya@aol.com; naplespatward@gmail.com; Russell@jamiegreusel.net; JohnsonEric Subject: Reply from George - Re: Fwd: Project at Polly ave. & Santa Barbara Lenore: Polly Ave. LLC at Santa Barbara. The developer gave a presentation at the East Naples Civic Association's Board of Directors meeting on May 4th. They indicated the project was going to be 35'2 stories with attached garages. 48 units on 8.7 acres. Egress to the development would be off Santa Barbara. It is located to the immediate North of Polly Ave. To the rear would be 170' set back from the road. I believe the setback from Polly Ave. was 70'. They indicated they have had some discussions with residents immediately surrounding the property. The Civic Association did not take any action pending further feedback from residents. Hope this helps a little. George Danz, President Riviera Golf Estates (239) 774-2618 From: Lenore Meurer<lenorem122@gmail.com> To: Leo Gallardy<Igallardy@comcast.net>; kkenney@royalwoodcc.com;geocyck@aol.com;ghdanz@yahoo.com; Helen Phlbin<hphiibin@gmail.com>; peter@derogatis.net; Shelly Kelly<shel42@gmail.com>; donnamjones7@yahoo.com; edcheco@aol.com; Larry True<larryctrue@gmail.com>; Richard Rogan <rmrogan40@gmail.com>; matkatamiba100 <Manganredx@aol.com>;fawnatnaples@hotmail.com;moe07@aol.com;dgolya@aol.com;naplespatward@gmail.com; Russell@jamiegreusel.net; EricJohnson@colliergov.net Sent: Friday, May 6, 2016 10:24 AM Subject: Fwd: Project at Polly ave. &Santa Barbara Here is Eric's response to The Project, known as Onyx and he shared the agent's information so we can contact him. I'll try to get more published data on it and having the name will make it easier. Eric, can you share the narrative with us? Should be available online now or at least the link? Thanks! Forwarded message From: JohnsonEric <EricJohnson( coliiergov.net> Date: Fri, May 6, 2016 at 9:46 AM Subject: RE: Project at Polly ave. & Santa Barbara To: Lenore Meurer <IIenorem122@gmail.com> Cc: "Hancock, Tim" <Tim.Hancock@stantec.com> The project is known as Onyx, and it proposes up to 48 single-family and/or multi-family dwelling units. I believe each unit would sell for market rate, but you ought to contact the agent for more information regarding anticipated sales prices. The agent is Tim Hancock and he can be reached at 239-649-4040. Thanks! Eric Johnson Principal Planner From: Lenore Meurer[mailto:lenorem1220omail.com] Sent:Thursday, May 05, 2016 5:10 PM To: doolyaC)aol.corn, Helen Phlbin <hphilbin@gmail_com>; naplespatwardPamail.corn, ghdanz( )vahoo.com; aeocyck(c aol.com; matkatamiba100 <ManganredxCc aol.com>;donnamjones7Cc vahoo.com; edcheco@aol.com; kkinney(@royalwoodgcc.corn, peterCaderogatis.net, JohnsonEric <EricJohnson(@colliergov.net>; Larry True <IarryctrueCc gmail.corn>; Richard Rogan <rmrogan40C gmail.corn>; Russell( jamiegreusel.net; Shelly Kelly <shel42@gmail.com>; fawnatnaplesc. hotmail.com Subject: Fwd: Project at Polly ave. & Santa Barbara Leo, I Have no idea about this project and have cc'd Eric at Collier to maybe shed some light on it. From what I undertand, Polly Avenue no longer exists so not sure where this project is even located. This project wasn't on the April 26th Board of County Commissioners Agenda so I cant even refer to that to get some info on it. I will look further back on past month's agendas if it shows up there. I hope you and others who got the notice will attend? Forwarded message From: <lgallardy@comcast.net> Date: Thu, May 5, 2016 at 4:22 PM Subject: Project at Polly ave. & Santa Barbara To: Lenore Meurer<lenorem122 aC7. gmail.com> There is another info meeting scheduled for 5/12/16 at 5:30 p.m. At New Hope Ministries at 7675 Davis Blvd for a development at the above address.Stantec Consulting wants to rezone from RMF6 to 5.5 units to an acre at 2 stories on 8.72 acres. I have no idea if this is low income or not ,however it would be best to learn what is planned. Leo Gallardy Lenore Meurer Under Florida Law,e-mail addresses are public records,Ifyou do not wantyour email address released in response �r ordstts to a public records request,do not send electronic mail to this entity.Instead,contact this office by telephone or in writing. Lenore Meurer 2 JohnsonEric From: Lenore Meurer<Ienorem122@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2016 5:10 PM To: dgolya@aol.com; Helen Phlbin; naplespatward@gmail.com; ghdanz@yahoo.com; geocyck@aol.com; matkatamiba100; donnamjones7@yahoo.com; edcheco@aol.com; kkinney@royalwoodgcc.com; peter@derogatis.net; JohnsonEric; Larry True; Richard Rogan; Russell@jamiegreusel.net; Shelly Kelly; fawnatnaples@hotmail.com Subject: Fwd: Project at Polly ave. & Santa Barbara Leo, I Have no idea about this project and have cc'd Eric at Collier to maybe shed some light on it. From what I undertand, Polly Avenue no longer exists so not sure where this project is even located. This project wasn't on the April 26th Board of County Commissioners Agenda so I cant even refer to that to get some info on it. I will look further back on past month's agendas if it shows up there. I hope you and others who got the notice will attend? Forwarded message From: <lgallardy@comcast.net> Date: Thu,May 5, 2016 at 4:22 PM Subject: Project at Polly ave. & Santa Barbara To: Lenore Meurer<lenoreml22@gmail.com> There is another info meeting scheduled for 5/12/16 at 5:30 p.m. At New Hope Ministries at 7675 Davis Blvd for a development at the above address.Stantec Consulting wants to rezone from RMF6 to 5.5 units to an acre at 2 stories on 8.72 acres. I have no idea if this is low income or not,however it would be best to learn what is planned. Leo Gallardy Lenore Meurer JohnsonEric From: Lenore Meurer <Ienorem122@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, May 06, 2016 10:25 AM To: Leo Gallardy; kkenney@royalwoodcc.com; geocyck@aol.com; ghdanz@yahoo.com; Helen Phlbin; peter@derogatis.net; Shelly Kelly; donnamjones7@yahoo.com; edcheco@aol.com; Larry True; Richard Rogan; matkatamiba100; fawnatnaples@hotmail.com; moe07@aol.com; dgolya@aol.com; naplespatward@gmail.com; Russell@jamiegreusel.net; JohnsonEric Subject: Fwd: Project at Polly ave. & Santa Barbara Here is Eric's response to The Project, known as Onyx and he shared the agent's information so we can contact him. I'll try to get more published data on it and having the name will make it easier. Eric, can you share the narrative with us? Should be available online now or at least the link? Thanks! Forwarded message From: JohnsonEric<Ern:Johnson @>colliergov.net> Date: Fri,May 6, 2016 at 9:46 AM Subject: RE: Project at Polly ave. &Santa Barbara To: Lenore Meurer<lenorem1.22©gmail.com> Cc: "Hancock,Tim" <Tim.Hancock@stantec.com> The project is known as Onyx, and it proposes up to 48 single-family and/or multi-family dwelling units. I believe each unit would sell for market rate, but you ought to contact the agent for more information regarding anticipated sales prices. The agent is Tim Hancock and he can be reached at 239-649-4040. Thanks! Eric Johnson Principal Planner From:Lenore Meurer[mailto:lenorem122Pgmail.com] Sent:Thursday, May 05,2016 5:10 PM To:dgolya@aol.com; Helen Phlbin<hphilb.in@gmaii.com>;nar lespatward@gmail.com;ghdanz@vahoo.com; geocyck@aol.com; matkatamiba100<Manganredx@aol.com>; donnamiones7c vahoo.com; edcheco@aol.com; kkinnev@rovalwoodgcc.com;peter, derogatis.net;JohnsonEric<EricJohnson@colliergov.net>; Larry True <larryctrue( gmail.com>; Richard Rogan<rmrogan40C gmail.com>; Russell@iamiegreusel.net; Shelly Kelly <she142@gmail.com>;fawnatnaples(+ hotmail,com Subject: Fwd: Project at Polly ave.&Santa Barbara 1 Leo,I Have no idea about this project and have cc'd Eric at Collier to maybe shed some light on it. From what I undertand, Polly Avenue no longer exists so not sure where this project is even located. This project wasn't on the April 26th Board of County Commissioners Agenda so I cant even refer to that to get some info on it. I will look further back on past month's agendas if it shows up there. I hope you and others who got the notice will attend? Forwarded message From: <lgallardy@comcast.net> Date: Thu, May 5, 2016 at 4:22 PM Subject: Project at Polly ave. & Santa Barbara To: Lenore Meurer<lenorem122C>gmail.com> There is another info meeting scheduled for 5/12/16 at 5:30 p.m. At New Hope Ministries at 7675 Davis Blvd for a development at the above address.Stantec Consulting wants to rezone from RMF6 to 5.5 units to an acre at 2 stories on 8.72 acres. I have no idea if this is low income or not ,however it would be best to learn what is planned. Leo Gallardy Lenore Meurer Under Florida Law,e-mail addresses are public records.If you do not want your a-mall address released in response to a public records request,do not send electronic mail to this entity.Instead,contact this office by telephone or In writing. Lenore Meurer 2 • x l c 6 / 9 • t I • 1 • Y' t I i t i , t 1 pµt I' t: i • Real Estate Consulting Services 1, Miehele F.Kelly 1 Senior Consultant,Broker s t 239.398.6689 '.li r' www.pnrchasenaples.com ,,:/,....4.o, i,tcc•s michele@purehasenaples•com 5686 Whitaker Rd.,szoi,Naples,Fl Wizfl {I[ P S i • U f 6 '/1/1/A 4 yaw . . . .. .1 1 i , t 1 1 1 JohnsonEric From: clerk reid <clark.reid@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, May 20, 2016 5:33 AM To: JohnsonEric Subject: Onyx rpud Eric— Y{ I own property in Sunset Estates near this proposed development. Is there a site plan? Where is the access to the property, Santa Barbara Blvd, Polly Ave,Sunset Blvd? 1 Clark Reid i P ISI z i 3 il+ 1 JohnsonEric From: Clark Reid <clark.reid@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, May 20, 2016 11 :15 AM To: JohnsonEric Subject: Re: Onyx rpud Thank you for your prompt reply. I like the new entry road using the undeveloped portion of Adkins, and strongly suggest that no future proposal to connect with the existing Adkins Rd be considered. Or any entry off of Polly or Sunset be considered. The way the plan is helps preserve the rural environment of the area. Clark Reid On Friday, May 20, 2016,JohnsonEric<EricJohnson@colliergov.net>wrote: Please see pp. 8-9 of the attached. Access to the site would be from Adkins Avenue, which is currently unimproved. Respectfully, Eric L.Johnson, AICP, CFM Principal Planner Growth Management Department-Planning&Regulation Zoning Division -Zoning Services Section 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 phone: 239-252-2931 fax: 239-252-6503 GREENLEED CT County ASSOCIA11E 1 i. From: clark reid [mailto:clark.reid@gmail.coml Sent:Friday, May 20, 2016 5:33 AM To: JohnsonEric<EricJohnson @ colliergov,net> Subject: Onyx rpud Eric— I own property in Sunset Estates near this proposed development. Is there a site plan? Where is the access to the property, Santa Barbara Blvd, Polly Ave, Sunset Blvd? Clark Reid Under Florida Law,e-mail addresses are re public records,If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request,do not send electronic mail to this entity.Instead,contact this office by telephone or in writing. 3'. { 2 gt