Loading...
CCPC Agenda 11/03/2016 COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA NOVEMBER 3, 2016 REVISED AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 9:00 A.M., NOVEMBER 3, 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. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: October 4,2016 and October 6,2016 6. BCC REPORT-RECAPS 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. PUDZ-PL20120001515: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance Number 92-08, the Courthouse Shadows Planned Unit Development, by increasing the maximum square footage of the shopping center and outparcels by 18,000 square feet for a total of 165,000 gross square feet of floor area; by amending Ordinance Number 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 .35+/- acres of land zoned Commercial Intermediate District in the Mixed Use Subdistrict of the Gateway Triangle Mixed Use District Overlay (C-3-GTMUD-MXD) to the Courthouse Shadows PUD; by revising the development standards; by amending the master plan; and adding deviations. The property is located on the south side of US 41 and opposite Airport Pulling Road in Sections 11, 12 and 13, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida consisting of 20.35+/- acres; and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator: Daniel J. Smith,AICP, Principal Planner] B. PUDR-PL20150002519: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance Number 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which 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 Community Facility Planned Unit Development known as New Hope Ministries CFPUD zoning district to a Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) zoning district for the project to be known as the New Hope MPUD, to allow an 800 seat church, a multi-purpose facility, and construction of a maximum of 319 residential dwelling units on 39.89 +/- acres, by providing for repeal of Ordinance Number 08-07, the New Hope Ministries CFPUD; and by providing an effective date. The subject property is located on the north side of Davis Boulevard east of Santa Barbara Boulevard in Section 4, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Daniel J. Smith,AICP,Principal Planner] NOTE: This item has been continued to the December 1,2016 CCPC meeting: C. PUDZ-PL20150002737: 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 an Agricultural (A) zoning district to an Industrial Planned Unit Development (IPUD) zoning district to allow solid waste and resource recovery facilities and public vehicle and equipment storage and repair facilities for a project to be known as Collier County Resource Recovery Business Park IPUD on property located 1.5 miles east of Collier Boulevard and one mile north of White Lake Boulevard in Section 25, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida consisting of 344±acres; providing for repeal of Resolution No. 09-275; and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator: Eric Johnson,AICP, CFM,Principal Planner] 10. NEW BUSINESS 11. OLD BUSINESS 12. PUBLIC COMMENT 13. ADJORN CCPC Agenda/Ray Bellows/jmp October 4, 2016 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples,Florida,October 4,2016 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 8:30 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building"F"of the Government Complex,East Naples,Florida,with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Stan Chrzanowski Diane Ebert Karen Homiak Joe Schmitt ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V.Bellows,Zoning Manager Mike Bosi,Planning and Zoning Manager Heidi Ashton-Cicko,Managing Assistant County Attorney Jeffrey Klatzkow,County Attorney Tom Eastman, School District Representative Page 1 of 88 October 4, 2016 PROCEEDINGS CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everybody.May I have your attention,please. We'd like to get started with the meeting. We are starting a bit earlier,earlier than normal. So everybody please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And before roll call,we have an interesting announcement to make.We have a new member of the Planning Commission, someone who's very familiar with us and Collier County,Mr.Joe Schmitt. Welcome aboard,Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Thank you very much. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that,we'll do the roll call by the secretary. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. Good morning. Mr.Eastman? MR.EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr.Chrzanowski? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ms.Ebert is here. Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mrs.Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And Mr. Schmitt? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Next item is addenda to the agenda. We still--this is a special meeting for one item,which is known as the Creekside Commerce Park,also as Arthrex. That's the only item remaining on today's agenda. Our intention is to continue hearing this today until we hear everybody's comments. So we could be here for a long time. One item I'd like to mention under this to the Planning Commission,you received packets for this meeting,which were about 700 pages,and you also received packets for a meeting in two days,which was somewhat comparable, several hundred pages. Included in that second packet was the Annual Update and Inventory Report,the AUIR. I'd asked staff as recently as Monday or so to please consider letting--continuing that until the next meeting. We'll officially do that Thursday morning. I wanted to tell you-all now so if you tried to prepare for that meeting,the AUIR is one item that you don't have to digest in your preparations. And with that,we'll move right into our first and only advertised public hearing for today. This item has been continued since the--from the September 15th Planning Commission meeting. It's the Creekside Commerce Park,commercial planned unit development,CPUD. It's on the--near the intersection of Immokalee Road and U.S.41. It's also known as the Arthrex project. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item,please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. If you intend to speak today,please rise. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. We'll start with disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission.Mr.Eastman? MR.EASTMAN: None other than the emails of public record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: More emails in the same vein and a few conversations with people from the business community. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I spoke with Mr.Arnold,Mr.Pritt,Nicole Ryan,and I have hundreds of emails. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I have talked to the applicant,their representative since the last Page 2 of 88 October 4, 2016 meeting,and prior to last meeting I've talked to Mr.Pritt and some people from the community prior to the last meeting. By last meeting I think I received about 150 emails. Since then to now,I think there's been about 20 more,but I have not received any emails regarding the issue of height since the project's changes have occurred that were announced,I guess,Friday night to the neighborhood and Sunday in the newspaper. So with that,I think there's about 170 total,though,prior to that point. And I have talked to some of the County Commission members,three of them. Okay. Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I have all the emails,I previously spoke to Mr.Yovanovich,and I spoke to Commissioner Fiala. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And,Mr. Schmitt,I know it's your first meeting,and I'm going to ask for your disclosures. But first off I'd like to verify that you have reviewed the video from the last meeting involving the public testimony that we had for this particular case. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes,I did. I reviewed the entire segment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. If you--do you have any disclosures? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Just one. I had emailed with David Weeks related to the adjacent PUD,the Naples Daily News,in regards to when a portion of that PUD or property from Creekside was transferred to the Naples Daily News,and I just wanted some clarification. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. And the way we have the meetings is at about 10:30, 10:15,we'll break for 15 minutes for the court reporter as well as ourselves,we break at lunchtime as close to noon as we get a reasonable point of stopping, and then we'll resume at,usually,an hour later. Now,this meeting originally was scheduled for this room,then after it got scheduled we found there was a conflict in the afternoon with the Board of County Commissioners. I wish to extend the Planning Commission's thanks to the Board of County Commissioners for agreeing to let us continue in this room if we need to,and they're actually going to hold their legislative delegation hearing upstairs on the fifth floor. So with that in mind,the protocol for today will be the applicant will make a presentation and their experts,the Planning Commission members can ask questions as we move through it,usually at the end of their presentation. Then staff will make a presentation. We'll,again,ask questions. After the staff's presentations,we turn to public speakers. Then after the public speakers and through the questions and answers,the Planning Commission may have--will end up asking the applicant if they would like to do a rebuttal to anything they've heard,and then at that point we will close the public hearing and have discussion and entertain a motion from the Planning Commission for a recommendation. Today's actions are purely a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. The Board of County Commissioners makes final decisions on matters such as this. So with that in mind,if the applicant's available for presentation. MR.YOVANOVICH: Thank you,and good morning.Rich Yovanovich on behalf of the applicants for this matter. With me today are David Bumpous and Dan--who? Who? Dan Hall,I knew that. I'm sorry. I thought you said Paul--Dan Hall from Arthrex;Wayne Arnold from Q.Grady Minor;David Gensen from Barron Collier Companies;Norm Trebilcock,who's our transportation engineer;and Tim Hall, our environmental consultant. On the visualizer is an outline of the Creekside PUD that we're here to discuss,multiple changes to the PUD all relating to the expansion plans relating to Arthrex. There have been some changes to our request since we last met,which we'll go over. But,generally,the PUD is requesting an increase from the allowable IC square footage today of 550,000 square feet to 716,000 square feet. We've been able to true up the acreage related to the IC district,which results in an increase from 41.6 acres to 49.9 acres. We're also increasing the allowable square footage within the B district of the PUD from 260,000 square feet to 292,000 square feet,and we're reducing the retail from 60,000 square feet to 50,000 square feet. We're also increasing the overall project floor area ratio from a.35 to a.45 and excluding parking garages,which have always been excluded from FAR calculation. All of the additional square footage we're talking about,which is a hundred and,I think, 98,000 Page 3 of 88 October 4, 2016 additional square feet--yeah,I think that's right--is going to be medical-related uses. So we're consistent with the Comprehensive Plan since those increases are being limited to medical-related uses. Section 3.4 of the PUD,which applies to the IC parcels,is allowing parcels on the west side of Goodlette-Frank Road to increase from 35 feet to 50 feet,and on Tract 5,which is the parcel that has been what we've been discussing predominantly is the Arthrex world headquarters parcel. Originally,the request was for an actual height building of 205 feet. In response to community comments and community concerns,we have gone back to the architect and made adjustments to the building to make it lower in height and reduced it to an actual height of 122 feet with a zoned height of 104 feet. We're also asking you to revise Section 4.4 of the PUD,which is Tract 9,and Wayne will go through in great detail all of these,but I'm just highlighting. Tract 9,we're increasing the height for all other uses besides the group housing portion of the PUD to 75 feet actual height and 85 --I'm sorry--75 feet zoned height and 85 feet actual height. We're also asking for a vacation of a portion of Creekside Boulevard to reroute traffic around what's ultimately going to be the Arthrex campus onto a roadway network that will still allow people to go from U.S.41 to Goodlette-Frank Road,but a portion of the roadway will be vacated,and there will be improvements associated with the vacation of a portion of that roadway. The ultimate goal here is to allow for Arthrex to expand its current operations within the Creekside PUD,which is consistent with the county's Economic Element which requires the county to provide support to new businesses and existing businesses that want to expand in Collier County. So we're consistent with that portion of the element. Arthrex will be bringing--it will be spending a lot of money on a new building and bringing 560 new jobs to Collier County. We're also asking for a deviation on the east side relating to a portion of the existing preserve. That is also consistent with your Comprehensive Plan,which allows for deviations to the required preserve requirements to further economic development in Collier County. And the 1.35 acres of offsite preserve that we're requesting is consistent with other approvals. I'll briefly touch on why what we're asking for on the east side of Goodlette-Frank Road is,in fact, related to Arthrex,and Dave Bumpous will spend a little bit more time in that. But I'm not sure that people appreciate the amount of visitors Arthrex brings to Collier County each year,and they bring 12,000 hotel nights per year to Collier County related to their operations at their current location and expanded location. Hotel nights are difficult to come by,and one of the uses on the east side of Collier Boulevard is a hotel,so that hotel is related to the operations and expansion goals of Arthrex. The request before you is important to Collier County because I think it's Collier County's first true commitment to economic diversification and economic development in Collier County,and Arthrex has already proven to be an important company in Collier County and throughout the world. So we have an opportunity to keep one of our own and grow one of our own companies,which is consistent with your Comprehensive Plan and the economic development set forth therein. The staff report, staff is recommending approval of what we're requesting. They recommended approval of the 205-foot building. I'm assuming they'll recommend approval of the 122-foot-high building, and we've shared that information with staff. Staff has two recommendations that we cannot agree to in their staff report. One has to do with an IQ irrigation quality water line that they want an easement through our project. They want us to agree to agree in the future on a location of an easement. Our position has been,let's talk about where the easement's going to go before the Board of County Commission meeting,and if we can agree to the location,we'll continue to move forward with that. If not,we're not going to agree to a condition to provide an easement regarding the IQ water line. And the second recommendation we don't agree to is the staff recommendation to deny our request to go offsite for 1.35 acres of our preserve. With that,that concludes my opening comments,and I'll turn it over to Mr.Bumpous to take you through the Arthrex request. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Page 4 of 88 October 4, 2016 MR.BUMPOUS: Good morning,Chairman Strain,members of the board. My name is David Bumpous,and it's a pleasure to be here this morning,especially representing Arthrex. I want to take a few minutes first thing and talk a little bit about Arthrex and some of the very exciting things that have been happening at our campus on Creekside as well as some of our other campuses in Fort Myers and Ave Maria. Everyone knows of us here locally as the company on Creekside Boulevard,occasionally hearing of us in the news,but most people don't truly understand the global footprint that we currently have. As a leader in sports medicine and orthopedics,we have locations around the world and service patients on a global basis. Some numbers we're incredibly proud of: 95 percent of all of our products are manufactured right here in the United States of America,and 70 percent of that is here in Southwest Florida. Another item as you can imagine we're very proud of is the fact that for two consecutive years we've been rated as one of the best 100 companies in the United States to work for. We consistently rate high with all demographics and all genders. I also wanted to share some recent improvements we've made on the Creekside Boulevard.We took an old warehouse that was originally our warehouse when we moved to Creekside back in 2003 and have converted that space over the last 12 to 14 months. Very exciting project for us,as you can imagine. It's allowed us to continue to grow within the envelope that we currently had. And to speak to Mr.Yovanovich's comments about those 12,000 hotel nights,it also allowed us to double our current medical education capacity. So I can't stand here today and tell you that those 12,000 nights will double,but they will significantly grow over the coming years as more surgeons visit Arthrex here in Naples to learn the latest and greatest techniques in orthopedics. The facility on Creekside Boulevard where we're proposing our new office tower and research and development area is currently a manufacturing operation. It consists of about 116,000 square feet. It's an older building that we acquired many years ago from Hellermann Tyton Corporation. The picture I have on the screen right now depicts the original building that was built out at Ave Maria several years back at about 200,000 square feet,and the section you see to the right,which has the wider and newer roof on it,is an addition of 163,000 square feet that we'll be opening in December of this year. It's our intent,should these plans continue successfully,to relocate the manufacturing we have on Creekside Boulevard to this facility out at Ave Maria. The building you see in the back is also a facility we've built over the last couple of years.We refer to this as our finishing facility. And,again,it's more resources we've brought in-house to continue our growth and development. You also can see a parcel there to the north and east. That's about nine acres that we have for future development there in the Ave Maria campus. I mentioned the warehouse on Creekside Boulevard. It seems like just yesterday,when we moved in there in 2003,but that's all been relocated now to Fort Myers where we have a warehouse of 258,000 square feet. This facility ships approximately 700,000 packages a year to over 100 countries. It's a beautiful facility, and,hopefully we'll--we won't run out of space there too soon. Some important numbers for everyone to know.I know some of this has been reported recently in the newspaper,but last year Arthrex brought to the local economy an impact of$837 million. That number continues to grow and build. And as you can see,it's estimated that by 2020 that impact will be$1.67 billion annually. I know these numbers,again,were in the paper recently. They left out one key factor,the word "annually." The project that we're here to talk about today will have a one-time impact of approximately$73.4 million is the estimate and,of course,generating additional taxes of 1.78 million. So it is a significant project in its own right. The one thing we're probably most important--or most proud of Arthrex is our giving back. We're recognized both here in the local community as well as across the United States and many other countries for our charitable giving. It's millions of dollars each year that Arthrex provides to these charities. But more importantly,or equally importantly,I should say, is the thousands of man-hours that our employees dedicate Page 5 of 88 October 4, 2016 to supporting and helping to grow these charities,and much of that time is actually provided and paid for by Arthrex to our employees. To the subject at hand,this is our current Creekside master plan. You can see--I don't have a pointer here,but you can see where Creekside Boulevard has the addition of two roundabouts;one on the west side directly in front of the Arthrex campus entrance,and then one to the east side. Just move that. That will work. Thank you,Rich. One roundabout here with significant improvements and widening of Arthrex Boulevard. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Can't see it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whoever's shouting out from the audience,please refrain from doing that. MR.BUMPOUS: And then over to the east side,the same thing,a roundabout that would allow for traffic flow through the community. The building here,I'll be showing a rendering next. But as Mr.Yovanovich also added,a significantly different building from what our original intentions were. We challenged our architectural firm to come up with a new plan that would be more palatable to the community and at the same time meet our square footage needs and growth needs in the many coming years. We feel like we've done that. It was challenging,but at the same time our objective has been and still is to create a campus-like environment for our employees,our growing population of employees,as well as those tens of thousands of visitors that we've talked about that visit our beautiful campus every year. This is our current rendering. As Chairman Strain pointed out,it's been in the paper recently. Many people have seen this. This is a seven-story building,a portion of it does extend over a three-level parking structure. This would be a view from the northern portion or from Immokalee Road. Obviously,landscaping has been removed so that you could see the building more clearly in this rendering. This is a cross-section of the building,giving you an idea of the different atrium and levels as well as the parking structure. It also,of course,spells out those heights that were previously mentioned as well. These are some visualizations or sightlines.The top three were courtesy of our neighbors at Bay Colony depicting what they believe would be our future building. The three along the middle are actually what the 204-foot-tall facility would have looked like based on renderings from our architectural team,and then finally the two on the bottom are those same two snapshots from the driving range as well as I believe it's the No. 11 fairway or green. And,of course,very little is visible above the trees. In fact,you can also see very little of NCH as well. So,again,a significant change in the part of the height. Before I turn it over,one thing I'd like to clear up,perhaps,as well is I've been inundated with questions since the article in the paper on Sunday specific to our willingness to stay in Collier County or moving from Collier County. And I think the paper alluded to the fact that Arthrex has no intention of moving from Collier County, and that's very true. I just showed you some significant investments and improvements that we've made to our Creekside campus;however,it is important to differentiate that our future growth,this growth that we're talking about today and future growth,is important to us,and doing it right,doing it right by the community,but also doing it right by,again,the thousands of people that will be using this space for their safety and for the future development of products and growth. So while it is our intention to stay here and to grow this project here,we certainly hope we don't at some point have to look elsewhere. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR.YOVANOVICH: Mr. Strain,our next speaker will be Wayne Arnold,who you're all very familiar with as a professional planner,in particular an expert in planning in Collier County. We have gotten into we're now qualifying experts,so I want to make sure-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,we're not qualifying experts. We're taking all testimony,and we'll differentiate how we weigh that testimony in our discussion. MR.YOVANOVICH: I would like Mr.Arnold--to qualify Mr.Arnold as an expert in planning in Collier County. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not qualifying Mr.Arnold today at this hearing. We will listen to Mr. Page 6 of 88 October 4, 2016 Arnold. We're familiar with Mr.Arnold as well as other people,and we will weigh it accordingly. MR.YOVANOVICH: Okay. MR.ARNOLD: Good morning,Mr.Chairman and Planning Commission members. I'm Wayne Arnold,professional planner with Grady Minor&Associates in Collier County. I've been practicing planning in the state of Florida since 1987,and I hold the AICP certification,which is the certification process for professional planners. I'm going to work from the visualizer for the few slides that I have. It's just easier for me to put things back and forth. But one of the things that I'll put up to start is an aerial photograph. I know we had one in our presentation. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And,Wayne,I know that the Planning Commission tries to let you-all get through your presentation before we ask questions,but we are starting--I know I'm collecting some questions to ask. What's your preference,as you go along or till you-all finish? And is any of your other experts or individuals going to testify after you? MR.YOVANOVICH: After Mr.Arnold will be Norm Trebilcock,who will be testifying to the transportation-related impacts of the project,and after Mr.Trebilcock will be Tim Hall to address environmental impacts of the project. So there will be two further experts to testify. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I would like to,then,after Mr.Arnold finishes,for this panel to ask any questions they may have accumulated through the last couple presentations involving the planning aspects of the project,and then we'll hit the other specialties separately as they come up. MR.YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR.ARNOLD: Thank you. I thought I would start by just reaffirming that we all understand the location of the project. It is--well,we're discussing an amendment to the Creekside Commerce Park. It's an existing business industrial park and about 106 acres,and it has industrial components,it has commercial components,but more importantly what it's adjacent to and what's surrounding it. To the south,obviously,it's our Pelican Marsh community,and that is the Bay Colony Golf Club and Bay Colony Estates residences that you can see. Immediately to our west,though,is the Naples Daily News property. That was another business park PUD. And immediately west of that is Granada Shoppes PUD, which is large-scale activity center commercial shopping center. Just north of Granada Shoppes,of course,is Riverchase Shopping Center,which is part of the Tract 22 DRI which also includes the Collier's Reserve residential community. Located east of us is a medical office complex to the east side of Goodlette-Frank Road,and the county's wastewater treatment facility is located to our south as well. Immediately North,I think we're all familiar with the North Collier Hospital complex. And, obviously,Creekside Boulevard is to the south,which has been discussed;point that out so we're all familiar with the orientation of that. And then Goodlette-Frank Road again. So with that,I'll talk a little bit about location and why this makes sense for expansion here. And you heard Arthrex's expansion plans and why it's critical for their growth needs,but also from a land planning standpoint,it makes sense.This is well within your urban area. It's in an area that already has a support infrastructure that's necessary for the expansion not only for Arthrex but other supporting facilities that you have heard Mr.Yovanovich mention. The master plan is being modified to accommodate that. This is the existing and approved master concept plan,and Rich talked to you a little bit about some of the changes we're making,most notably the tract that we've been discussing is not shown,but we've added tract designations here so we can better identify in the PUD document where some of these specific commitments are being made.One of the areas you're going to hear about is the preserve area expansion deviation. So this is our proposed master plan. It's in your packet. And it shows,for instance,Tract 5 on the master plan is here. That is the existing Arthrex building that would be demolished,and the new 104-foot zoned height office building and research and development center would be constructed. You can see it's central to the site,which makes sense for the taller building,and you can see on the east side of Creekside Tract 9,as it's called,has been expanded. And that's where our impact to the existing preserve is proposed, Page 7 of 88 October 4, 2016 and Mr.Hall will discuss that deviation in a little bit more detail. One of the things that has been discussed is building height,and I'll get into that in a minute. But I just wanted to touch base briefly about your Comprehensive Plan. In the future land use element urban designation,there are special provisions for medical-related expansion of uses near hospitals,of course, proximity to the North Collier Hospital. And the specific provision says that any site that's within a quarter mile of the hospital is allowed to have medical-related uses,and the Comprehensive Plan-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pull that mike up a little closer. MR.ARNOLD: The Comprehensive Plan is a little bit more generic. It doesn't list SIC codes,but I think we can all agree that Arthrex and their operations are medical related. So all the square footage that we're asking for in addition to what's been there previously will be for medical-related uses,as Rich said and that's important because that is consistent with your Comprehensive Plan. It's also consistent with your economic development element because your economic development element also makes provision for that to be a targeted industry,medical related,and that's something that you're identifying as going after and providing incentives for them to grow and expand in Collier County,and we obviously are consistent with that policy. I wanted to talk a little bit more about height,because height seems to have been the lightening rod issue here when we were proposing the 205-foot-tall building. Hopefully some of that has been tempered by the reduction to the 104-foot zoned height building because,you know,we have a lot of examples around the community of areas that have building heights exceeding 100 feet. But if you look around the community that's near us,what we're asking for is not inconsistent with what is surrounding us. Collier's Reserve commercial tracts,for instance,allow 80 feet zoned height for buildings. Their own multifamily component allows for 70-foot-tall buildings. The Granada Shoppes allows 60-feet-tall buildings;Naples Daily News,75 feet. The Collier Health center allows 100-feet zoned height. It's for offices. And then the North Collier Hospital building allows for 80-foot zoned height buildings. And in Pelican Marsh to our south,the commercial component of Pelican Marsh allows buildings to be 100 feet. Pelican Marsh,I think--or Pelican Bay,we're all familiar with the Ritz-Carlton and the Naples Grande hotels both located within that PUD.Those buildings are allowed to be 200-feet plus. So I think when you look at what's around us and the land use pattern,the 104-foot zoned height is very comparable to what has been approved in the other communities that surround us. I know that there was a comment made that,you know,no other building east of U.S. 41 exceeded 100 feet,but I would remind you that your own redevelopment area,the Bayshore redevelopment triangle area allows,by code, 112-foot zoned height buildings. So that is something that can occur by right,and that's certainly east of U.S.41. Recently,too,I saw that the Board approved moving forward on an 160-foot-tall building also within that same area of the triangle. So I think that to say that a 104-foot-tall building is somehow inconsistent or incompatible with surrounding land uses wouldn't meet my planning test. I think the 104-foot-tall building is absolutely consistent with the surrounding community. One of the other things that you're going to hear from Mr.Trebilcock is talking about the transportation aspects of this project,but the Transportation Element does include provisions for what we're proposing. We are within a traffic congestion management area that's been designated in your Comprehensive Plan,and that's an area to acknowledge that's where we're going to have issues with regard to traffic because that is also where we've acknowledged that we're going to have expanded growth in our communities. Probably one of the things I want to acknowledge is that the staff did,I think,a very thorough job analyzing the project and addressing all the findings,but the issue seems to have been addressing tall buildings and traffic. And with regard to your rezone findings,they're in your staff report,and staff has concluded that we've met the fmdings for rezoning the property,and we've also identified the staff recommendation of approval for the project. And Mr.Yovanovich mentioned the two staff recommendations that we don't concur with. But just to go through your findings very briefly,the first one is Comprehensive Plan consistency. Page 8 of 88 October 4, 2016 Your staff has acknowledged that this project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.In my professional planning opinion,we are consistent with your Comprehensive Plan. I think the established land use pattern is one that supports what we're proposing to do and the expanded square footage and building that we're asking for. We're not creating an isolated district.We're amending an existing PUD that was established to be a business park,and that's exactly what we're proposing to continue. Now,there are changing conditions that warrant this. You heard Mr.Bumpous talk about Arthrex's expansion plans. You've also heard that they receive state and local grant monies to further their expansion here and retain them in Collier County. It is infill development. We're retaining a targeted industry. Those are all things that are consistent with your Comprehensive Plan and the Board's actions. Is this going to adversely affect living conditions? Staff spent some time talking about this. The height was the issue at the 205 feet.It's been reduced to the 104-foot zone height building,and we're going to, obviously,be addressing traffic,but it's my opinion that we don't adversely affect living conditions because if it's simply about height,we have PUDs like Pelican Bay where there are residential and commercial and other multifamily residential that are over 200 feet tall in much,much closer proximity to golf courses and residences than we're proposing to do here. The excessive traffic is one of the comments that's in your criteria. Mr.Trebilcock will be addressing that,but we've obviously had no level-of-service issues related to the traffic aspects of the project. Drainage;there are no drainage issues. We're in for environmental resource permitting through the Water Management District,and we're confident that those issues will be addressed and we'll receive that permit. Reduction of light and air; I don't think so.I think we're about a quarter mile away from our nearest residence in Bay Colony and over 700 feet from the nearest residences that are part of Collier's Reserve. And,again,the parcel that we're talking about expanding is located on the interior of the PUD. Is this going to be a deterrent to development of adjacent property? In my opinion,no. It probably will be probably an incentive for others to upgrade their facilities,because when Arthrex builds their world headquarters facility here,it will be something that other people want to probably emulate with regard to improving their properties. There is no special privilege granted to this property owner. We think that everything we're proposing is very consistent with--we know it's consistent with your comprehensive plan. We think it's compatible development,and we believe it makes sense from a land use perspective. Obviously,we can't use the existing zoning as-is because Arthrex needs a certain amount of square footage to house the 560 employees that they've pledged to grow here in Collier County.The only way they can do that is to grow vertically. You can't grow that horizontally because we have streets that are incumbering us to the south and to the east,so the only way to do this is to go up,and that's what we're proposing to do. Public facility impacts; we have adequate water, sewer,drainage. Roadway will be addressed by Mr. Trebilcock,but we don't have level-of-service issues. There are other factors that you and the Board of County Commissioners can consider when you make your findings,and that,here,I think,is critically important in that you can retain an existing industry, you can help an existing industry grow,we can grow jobs that we all know we need,and we have positive economic impacts that will accrue from the project. So we agree with staffs recommendations.Again,we disagree with the deviation denial and also the IQ line recommendations but otherwise agree with staff that we're consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and a compatible project. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that,we'll entertain questions from the Planning Commission. Anybody here have any questions at this point? We have had three presentations,mostly the characteristics of Arthrex and the planning for the site-planning related issues before we get into transportation. Does anybody? Joe? Page 9 of 88 October 4, 2016 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Wayne,your list of permitted heights,what's the height of the building you're currently in in the adjacent courthouse; do you know? I mean,do you have that information? MR.ARNOLD: I don't know the exact height of that building,Mr. Schmitt. I can certainly try to find out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Wayne--or, Stan,go right ahead. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Just curious,the North Collier Hospital,that building's taller than 80 feet,isn't it? MR.ARNOLD: Mr.Chrzanowski,the information we pulled off the county's website shows that the tallest point of that building is about 103 feet. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. Because I was--on Goggle Earth,and you can touch a point and it will tell you how high that point is,and that was a lot higher than that,but okay. Thank you. MR.ARNOLD: Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Wayne,I have a series of questions. Can we go back to the presentation made by Mr.Bumpous,the--just out of--I have a curiosity question,then a site planning related question. MR.ARNOLD: Which slide would you like to see? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The one that showed the dots worldwide of where your locations were. By the way,you're going to leave that presentation as record with staff,please. I thought it was interesting you've got all these locations,and you don't have a world headquarters in any of those and yet where you're proposing to do it and the manufacturing you're doing in Fort Myers,Ave Maria,and Collier County isn't a dot on this map. Is there a reason for that? MR.ARNOLD: Well,I'll let Mr.Bumpous-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean-- MR.ARNOLD: --address that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --if we're the potential main location,it's odd that we don't even have a bright star there,but-- MR.BUMPOUS: Yes,sir. This map simply depicts those that are international locations. We have multiple locations in the U.S.,but this is clearly just a presence in international locations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you have other locations in the U.S.beside those in Florida? MR.BUMPOUS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As example? MR.BUMPOUS: Santa Barbara,California; City of Industry,California. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. It would have been good to know that. I didn't know you had expanded to that point. Okay. Thank you. Wayne,this will be the best location for me to talk about the site plan that shows the building. It's kind of a light greenish color. It was towards the end. MR.ARNOLD: That's why I don't prefer PowerPoint. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There you go. The building that you showed the architectural features on, plus this plan,which one of the elements of the main area there where the reddish building is your parking garage? MR.ARNOLD: The red area that's highlighted on that exhibit represents the office building component,and the parking deck is the white and gray area that's shown protruding from the east side of the building. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How many--how much square footage are you going to be putting in that building total,not including the parking,just occupiable--I'm concerned about the amount of parking you're looking at versus the amount of square footage you're providing,and have you looked at that and-- MR.ARNOLD: I know that the Leo Daly architectural firm that's working with Arthrex has looked at this issue,and I'll let Mr.Bumpous tell you a little bit more detail about that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR.BUMPOUS: Yes,sir. This building's design is approximately 300,000 square feet,and they're designing the parking to accommodate that,per regulation. Page 10 of 88 October 4, 2016 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you don't need any specialized increase in parking? You--basically,whatever the 300,000 square feet equates to under our code is all you really would need to function,and that's in those buildings? MR.BUMPOUS: That is planned in this design,yes,sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the parking lots to the south,I'm assuming,are for the buildings to the south. MR.BUMPOUS: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then why do you need to take out Creekside Boulevard? MR.BUMPOUS: That's for the transportation and traveling of people back and forth. We have that issue now. We have hundreds of people traveling back and forth across that site. We've had people hit in the past. We've had people nearly hit as recently as last week. And with our objective of continuing to grow this campus long term,having those people circulate between these buildings and creating that campus environment,we feel like it's most prudent to do it in this manner. We've looked at other concepts; flyovers;we've even had recommendations for things such as tunnels and so forth,and we feel like this is the best for our future growth,the best for our employees and the environment,and most prudent from a cost standpoint as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The buildings to the south,what's their primary function? Because they're outside of the quarter-mile area required for medical,so what do they do? MR.BUMPOUS: That is our world headquarters.It will continue to serve as our world headquarters. There's medical education there,there's product design,development,research and development,all of those things that currently drive the economic engine that is Arthrex;this future building is to expand those processes to expand those operations to continue to grow. We're bursting at the seams,to put it a better way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So your R&D type operations,I understand,are going to be in that new building? MR.BUMPOUS: We would have some of both,yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now,during the months like we have now,I can't imagine many employees wanting to walk from that building to the south. Isn't there any other substitute for your transportation of them that wouldn't interact so badly with the road system that's there? MR.BUMPOUS: You would be very surprised. If you spent some time on Creekside today,you'll see hundreds of people walking,bicycling,you'll see golf carts,you'll see a number of different things,and these are all Arthrex employees traveling in and around the campus that we have today. So,again,our intention is to create a larger environment and a larger campus but at the same time focus heavily on that environment and the safety of our employees. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir,you'll have to sit down. MR.HAGEN: I object. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Sir,please sit down,or you'll be taken out of the room. So please sit down. MR.HAGEN: A lot of the employees that you deem as employees walking around Arthrex are people like me,homeless people. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir,I'm asking you again to please sit down. MR.HAGEN: Sit down here? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. You sit down in a seat in the audience. MR.HAGEN: All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Please sit down,sir. MR.HAGEN: Do you have a pen I can borrow?I'm trying to fill out a form to speak to the meeting Arthrex-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go sit down on a seat or go out in the hallway and use your pen there. MR.HAGEN: I don't have a pen. Now I have a pen--Mr. Schmieding,is that his name--gave me one. Because a lot of these guys that are walking around are homeless. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir,I'm going to ask you again. You're out of line. Please,stop it. Page 11 of 88 October 4, 2016 MR.HAGEN: I'm sitting down. Now I'll stop it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr.Bumpous,I'm sorry for the interruption. Back to the site plan you have here. The area that Creekside Boulevard is in right now on this plan isn't utilized. It looks like you've left it blank. Is it anticipating putting it in if the need arises? MR.BUMPOUS: Anticipating what? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,right now you're asking to have Creekside Boulevard removed,but where Creekside Boulevard is on this plan shows that you're not occupying that area of anything but grass,so what's--what is your biggest concern?Just that you can't get employees to cross the road without your concern about their endangerment,which means a flyover or a tunnel like there is on Goodlette Road North just south of your project that goes over Pelican Marsh? One of those wouldn't work for you? MR.BUMPOUS: Well,I would remind you this is a conceptual plan,and part of our discussion has been to create gathering spaces in that area for communication and collaboration among buildings and between buildings. Part of that area will have to stay open and grass because of the utility easements that are currently residing there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll have to get into that more with your transportation fellow,too, because I understand you've done some transportation counts,and we'll need to talk about those. That is one of the--I mean,there's a couple--several issues with this project,but that is one of the more concerning issues I've seen in the emails that were sent by the many residents in the area, so I definitely want to understand it better. And since you mentioned utilities--and,Wayne,maybe you can respond to this. This utility line that you're objecting to in regards to the staff recommendation,can you explain where it is,what it is,and what the problem is with it? I've read it,but it doesn't locate it for me; it doesn't show me where the problem lies. MR.ARNOLD: This issue has been discussed with Collier County and Arthrex going back several months,and the county wants to get irrigation-quality water from Goodlette-Frank Road to Immokalee Road, and they would like to go through Creekside to do that. And they want the most direct route they can get,it's my understanding,which would take it across a portion of what is known as Tract 5 in the PUD. We believe that there are alternative locations where that could be accommodated without potentially impacting the location of facilities that Arthrex needs to construct on their won property,and I can let Mr.Bumpous again tell you a little bit more detail about his conversations with staff. But as Mr.Yovanovich mentioned in our initial presentation,we believe that between now and the Board we can have an opportunity to better understand their needs and see if we can't fmd alternatives such as the FP&L easement to locate that line. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And didn't you say the objective was to get this treatment--this water line from Goodlette to Immokalee Road? MR.ARNOLD: That's my understanding. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't they just go up Goodlette straight up to Immokalee? THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me. I can't hear.There's a conversation,so I can't hear anything. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Again,I have to ask members of the audience to please refrain from talking. This isn't an open meeting where you can talk as you feel. I'll call upon the public speakers after we get done with the other speakers and not beforehand. And if anybody wants to insist on that,there's a deputy in the back of the room who can escort you out of the room. MR.HAGEN: What's his name? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir,would you ask this gentleman--help this gentleman out? MR.HAGEN: That is not a deputy. MR.HARRINGTON: I'm former law enforcement,sir. Now,please-- MR.HAGEN: Former law enforcement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir,please leave the room. MR.HAGEN: I don't have to listen to former law enforcement. MR.HARRINGTON: Sir,please. MR.HAGEN: Where's the deputy? Page 12 of 88 October 4, 2016 MR.HARRINGTON: Sir,please. MR.HAGEN: What is your name? MR.HARRINGTON: My name is Joseph Harrington. MR.HAGEN: What is your middle name? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll take a 10-minute break while we resolve this. (A brief recess was had.) MR.BOSI: Chair,you have a live mike. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody. If you'll please take your seats,we'll resume the meeting. I apologize for the disruption,but hopefully we can move forward with a more congenial atmosphere. And we left off discussions with Mr.Arnold.I know we were talking about Creekside. And your traffic planner,when he comes up,we'll probably have a few more questions for him. Also I asked--David Wilkison asked me if it would be helpful if we had Public Utilities come and help discuss this issue with the water line.They are--I think they're going to be coming over. David's acknowledging yes. MR.ARNOLD: Mr. Strain,just for your information,Mr.Bumpous informed me on the break that he has a meeting with your utilities department tomorrow morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,that won't help us here today. COMMISSIONER EBERT: That won't help us here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm glad he does. I think that's good,but we need to get--at least find what this Planning Commission needs to know about it today. On your PUD,a couple of--I just have a couple quick questions. You have a Page 3-5 that has restricted principal uses in the IC district.And since the SIC codes that you operate by are not listed there, and since they need to be to qualify for that quarter-mile radius,wouldn't you want to list them there as well? MR.ARNOLD: No, sir,that's not necessary to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How do you figure? MR.ARNOLD: Because I believe it's well established that a medical device manufacturing,which is what Arthrex files its IRS returns under,is a medical-related use. It's obvious. The medical-related uses that are listed and the restricted uses go more toward some medical research but primary medical office-related type uses. So your Comprehensive Plan,which is the policy question you have to address,doesn't list SIC codes. It simply references the term"medical related." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I mean,I understand that part of it. I'm just wondering,then,why you went to the effort in this PUD originally to have these quarter-mile radius properties even listed to begin with if what you just said is the applicable operational language. MR.ARNOLD: Well,I think--and I can't speak--I wasn't the applicant. I worked for Collier County staff at the time this was originally approved,but I think the idea was if you look in the list of permitted IC uses today,those SIC codes that Arthrex operates under are permitted by right in the IC district. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right,they are. I just wanted to make sure that--I couldn't understand what this quarter-mile radius was so important for--if what you just said is valid,then why did we have it in the first place? MR.ARNOLD: Well,it's important because we want you to find this consistent with the policy that says that we are a medical-related use because we are within a quarter mile on Tract 5,which is the place where we're putting the new square footage for Arthrex facilities. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 3-9,under development deviations,3.5,you're asking for a deviation from the architectural standards,and you reference 5.05.08 G. G is no longer existing in the code, so if you'd just drop that letter,it will probably make it a little bit more relevant to our code today. MR.ARNOLD: Makes sense. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just checking real quick to see if there's something I have that needs to be discussed now,or we'll wait till we get to staff report and/or your traffic engineer. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. Page 13 of 88 October 4, 2016 COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Could I say something? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Absolutely, sir. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: It used to be standard practice in utilities if they were--if a developer were installing a pipe and utilities wanted the pipe upsized,utilities would pay the additional costs. If a developer were putting in a line somewhere and utilities wanted it somewhere else,they would just pay the additional cost,or if utilities wanted to put a pipe in and the developer wanted it re-routed,they would pay the additional cost. It seems like that's the logical solution. I got a feeling that's probably what they'll come up with. I don't think this is anything to worry about. MR.ARNOLD: Well,this is going back to the IQ line. And it really happens to the location. It's not the fact that they need an easement. It's the fact that the easement that they would like is a diagonal that cuts across an undeveloped portion of the Creekside PUD that's owned by Arthrex,and we believe that there's a better location that wouldn't restrict Arthrex's future expansion operation. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And their objection is that it's going to cost more money to take that alternate route. MR.ARNOLD: I haven't had conversations. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: So it seems like if you guys are willing to pay the additional money to take the alternate route. I know that's where they're going to head. MR.YOVANOVICH: I understand that. For the record,Rich Yovanovich. The problem is this: This IQ line is in no way related to the project.We're not building-we're not building our IQ line. The IQ line is a master plan line to provide service to other parts of Collier County. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Right. MR.YOVANOVICH: They're now trying to impose a condition upon this project for a non-project-related utility line. And we're willing to work with them if it can go in a location that's appropriate and doesn't take property rights from our client. They've initially tried to put it on a piece of property that is not conducive to the overall project development. If this were an IQ line to serve the project, we might talk about how we can expand and make it bigger,whatever. But we've said to them from the get-go, let's talk about a location that works for everybody,but we're not going to have a condition that says we're going to agree to agree some day in the future,and it may hold up our ultimate plans when we can't agree as to where they may want to have it. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: That's exactly where I was heading,though. From the comment I heard before,utilities'problem was that your revised location might cost them a little extra money to put it in. MR.YOVANOVICH: No-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Right. MR.YOVANOVICH: Well,correct,but it's-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And their problem is spending the little bit extra money. MR.YOVANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. MR.YOVANOVICH: And it's not our obligation to spend the extra money is our point. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: No,I know it's not yours,but usually utilities will agree that it's theirs,but I don't know all the-- MR.YOVANOVICH: We're trying. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you show us on this map where that line--where they're asking to put the line so we can understand the hardship that you're saying. MR.BUMPOUS: So I had a meeting back in the spring with the utilities department. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know if that mike's working for you. There you go. A little bit closer. Thank you. MR.BUMPOUS: I had a meeting back in the spring here on the campus with the utilities department to talk about this project as well as another line that's a force main that actually ties in at the very entrance to the Arthrex campus. We all agreed in that meeting that that force main was acceptable,and that project,I believe,is underway. Page 14 of 88 October 4, 2016 This IQ line,the county's goal is to tie it in from north of Immokalee Road here into where it resides currently on the east side of Goodlette-Frank. Their plan was to come across and then take 25 feet of this property,bring it over,and take it just along the edge of the waterway up to the north. During our discussion back in the spring,the discussion was,could we not run it south of the road or just slightly north closer to the road,closer to the treeline,and then once it crossed over,to keep it further over,again,by the treeline rather than right along the waterway,mainly because our goal in the future was to do something with that waterway,and we would hate for two,three,four,five years down the road to come back and say,well,that IQ line is now in the way. Subsequent to that meeting back in the spring,we simply asked--we being Arthrex asked that they look at revising this and coming back to us,and tomorrow will be the second meeting or the next meeting since that meeting in the spring. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,that certainly helps understand it better. Thank you. Wayne--and maybe Mr.Bumpous is the best person to answer this. In your presentation you talked--you showed a picture of an old building that was being converted. What,again,was the use of that older building being converted for? I think it was a former warehouse building that moved out to Ave Maria, and you were making it into something else. And where's the location of that on this map? MR.BUMPOUS: So the building that I referenced in discussion is actually where we're planning to build our new project. This is the manufacturing--this is the manufacturing building that currently exists on Creekside Boulevard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR.BUMPOUS: This is the building that, should we get approval for this project,we would relocate that equipment and those people out to Ave Maria. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So in your presentation,you weren't talking about renovating one of the buildings to the south or anywhere else;you were just--you were talking about what's already been done in the building that's in the center? MR.BUMPOUS: In my presentation I referenced this warehouse right here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR.BUMPOUS: That was recently renovated and just completed within the last two months. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I was trying to get at. How many jobs were created in that location because of that renovation since it went from warehouse to,presumably,office or administration? MR.BUMPOUS: Jobs,I'm not sure. I can tell you that it created about an additional 200 spaces for employees. So over time it will be about 200 additional heads. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. That's all I've got right now until we get to staff report,traffic,and the others, so thank you. MR.ARNOLD: Mr. Strain,if I might. I have some information related to Mr. Schmitt's question on building height. And if I understood it,it was how tall the courthouse building is next door-- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And this building. MR.ARNOLD: --and this building. I'm understanding that the courthouse building next door is approximately 82 feet,and this building's approximately 95 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Just for a comparison. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you'd be within 10 feet of the zoned height of this building. Okay. So your next professional? MR.YOVANOVICH: Our next expert is Norm Trebilcock,who will be talking about transportation-related issues. MR.TREBILCOCK: Thank you. Good morning. My name is Norm Trebilcock. I'm a professional engineer and certified planner. I have an undergraduate degree from the University of Miami in civil engineering,a graduate degree from the University of Florida in public works,and also a graduate of the U.S.Army Engineer School,Fort Belvoir. I have 26 years of local experience here in Collier County,and so I kind of cover everything. There we go. I prepared the traffic impact statement,my firm did,Trebilcock Consulting Solutions. In the traffic impact statement,we used--the trip generation was based on the Institute of Page 15 of 88 October 4, 2016 Transportation Engineer land use codes. We did have what we call a pass-by trip reduction,and that was only applied to the shopping center portion/component of the project. It's 50,000 square feet of it,and that's consistent with the Collier County TIS guidelines. So pass-by is really--if in your intention is to,say,go from work to home or from home to work and you may stop by a gas station to get gas but your real intention is the other,that's considered what's called a pass-by trip. You're already on the road,and you're just going to stop off and then continue on. We also had internal capture,and that was consistent with Collier County TIS guidelines and approved prior TIS documents as well. Our distribution is consistent also with prior TIS documents for the project. No additional access points for the PUD are proposed. There's about eight access points to external road network out there. We also did look at what we call the displacement of cut-through traffic on re-routed Creekside Boulevard,and that's accounted for based on the Collier County 2014 determination of 64 vehicles per hour in the peak hour,p.m.peak hour. Rerouting of Creekside Boulevard is improved with roundabouts,and a divided Arthrex Boulevard road section,as David had mentioned as well.We're also proposing improvements to Goodlette-Frank Road and Arthrex Boulevard as mitigation measures for the rerouting. As an additional mitigation measure, developer impact fees will be used by Collier County to improve surrounding roadways. Just kind of as a summary of the trips as we look at things and study--you know,traffic's all about numbers--our proposed PUD conditions what we call external traffic is 2,045,the approved PUD trip cap is 1,745,with a net new of 300 trips. We also looked at,when we exclude the pass-by trips,where we're at,and that really comes out to a higher number,384 external. Again,because we're reducing the amount of shopping center. So what we did then in our study is we looked at the affect of the 384 trips plus the 64 displaced trips. We were just saying all those trips would go to external roadways,and that's what we evaluated in the study. And looking at things,looking at a map here,in green are the various roads within the PUD. To the north,running east/west, is Immokalee Road,we've got Creekside Boulevard coming across,and then this is Creekside Boulevard through the development. Arthrex Boulevard running north/south,and then there's some other Creekside streets as well. And with the proposal,really what we're looking at is that segment of Creekside,the east/west segment would be really re-routed,we'd have roundabouts on each end,as David had mentioned,to efficiently move the traffic around the development. Really,what this effect is,it would add an additional 40 seconds of travel time for a vehicle to reroute around it. So we're not closing the roadway. It's re-routed around. In terms of looking at roadway lengths to be improved,this is an example. This is Immokalee Road to the north here,and this is a section of Goodlette-Frank Road. Currently,there's a transition of Goodlette-Frank Road that occurs right in the intersection with Creekside Boulevard,and it really is operationally problematic. And so what we're planning to do is have a complete four-lane section of Goodlette-Frank Road to extend through the intersection with Creekside Boulevard and run 500 feet south of the intersection,and then at that point we would transition from four to two lanes. And what that effectually does is it improves the efficiency of that road,it improves the capacity of that roadway link as well. We're proposing double northbound rights on Goodlette. We took a look at the traffic and, conceptually,these are the improvements that would be made. And this,again,would be a mitigation measure of the project to improve conditions out there. We're also looking at accommodating on-street bike lanes,pedestrians on the side as well,and also would propose to build a signal as warranted. On Arthrex Boulevard,what we're looking at there at the intersection with Immokalee Road--right now there's a single left,and then there's a shared through and right,and we're proposing to add an additional left turn lane that will help with the efficiency of the signal operations right there at that intersection and accommodate our traffic as well. Page 16 of 88 October 4, 2016 In addition,we're proposing to improve the section of Arthrex Boulevard to make it a two-lane divided roadway and then tie into our roundabout that we're proposing to help with efficiency of traffic. So speaking of the roundabout,the roundabout would be designed to accommodate truck traffic. Staff--the one I'm depicting here,this is actually designed for what we call a WB-50 truck. Staff is specifying that we go to WB-62,which is a slightly longer truck. But you can see in the graphic of auto turn that the trucks can accommodate and do a U-turn in a roundabout. They use a speed table. And here's just a depiction of just a truck using a roundabout as well. And that's a pretty big truck. It goes up on what we call a truck apron that is allowed for a truck to utilize,go through. As I said,the auto turn exhibits show U-turns,right-angle turns,et cetera. A key in this proposal is really pedestrian safety is the goal of the integrated Arthrex campus with an understanding of the effect of speed and what it can have. Speed kills. If you have an auto that's going 20 miles per hour through a roadway,the pedestrian has a nine out of 10 chance of surviving. The odds don't get much better,though,when the speeds increase. So when you go to 30 miles per hour,it's a 50/50,and then when the vehicles are going 90 miles--I mean 40 miles per hour,it's a 90 percent chance that you can have a pedestrian fatality. And that's really what they're looking to do is to be proactive on this condition and to understand that in the future,because of this integrated campus and the way they're looking to design things,that it would make a whole lot of sense to--let's eliminate that conflict altogether and reroute folks around,you know,and to mitigate for the negative impacts of the traffic. They've come up with a proposal to really increase internal capacity of roadways in the county that really helps out. And that's really what's depicted here in terms of their master plan to eliminate that conflict between their facilities. So looking at the project impacts,the project impacts from a transportation standpoint are significant, but they're not adverse on Immokalee Road west and east of Goodlette-Frank Road,and on Goodlette-Frank Road south of Immokalee to Vanderbilt. Immokalee Road,between Airport and Livingston,is shown to operate below the adopted level of service with or without the project when we look at the planning horizon in 2021. The project impact on this section is less than 1 percent on that roadway. None of the other analyzed links are projected to be operating below the adopted levels-of-service in the 2021 planning horizon. The project is located in what we call the northwest transportation concurrency management area,or we call it a TCMA for short. Alternative improvement operations are really considered so that you achieve an 85 percent successful level of service in your roads in the area. This proposed mitigation is consistent with the desired TCMA LOS goals. Currently, 100 percent of the roads are within the level-of-service standards. But looking in the future,this proposal would help to mitigate for any issues. And that's really it. I'm available for any questions you may have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Who had the first transportation questions? Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. I have a couple of questions. Did you say you measured the traffic from the people who take the bypass from the shopping center to the west and proceed east? You said you measured that at how many vehicles per-- MR.TREBILCOCK: There was--in 2014 there was an analysis that was done,and--when we were looking at the fair share for the signal at Creekside and 41,and there it was evaluated the amount of cut-through traffic,and it was determined to be 64 vehicles per hour,and so that's the number we've used. In addition,though,we did do what I call a license plate study just completed,and that's consistent with those numbers as well. Actually,the westbound is less than what the county determination had been in 2014,but,you know,we would just live with that because that was as of record of 2014 by the Board. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. My question,though,is traveling from west to east on Creekside;is that what-- MR.TREBILCOCK: Yes,sir. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: What about the impact on the Naples Daily News? That was a significant issue when that PUD was approved. There was concerns about truck traffic and the entryway, Page 17 of 88 October 4, 2016 delivery of paper and other products as--and,of course,the newspapers in the morning hours. Does the Naples Daily News concur with the proposal to actually eliminate that section of Creekside? MR.TREBILCOCK: Yes,yes. And what we did is--that's the whole reasoning behind the roundabouts that we're proposing,to make sure that we accommodate the truck traffic as well. And staff looked at it and said we need to accommodate the larger vehicles as well. And so they are accommodated there in terms of the way they can connect and can circulate as well. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And so now if somebody wants to move from the shopping center to the west,with Creekside now gone,and they're going to go over to Goodlette-Frank,you're saying that they have to go to a certain point,then travel north,then travel east,then south,and then back onto Creekside to enter into Goodlette-Frank. So you're saying that added 40 seconds? MR.TREBILCOCK: Forty seconds of additional travel time,yeah. I did it empirically,you know, so... COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Has there been--did you do an analysis on driver behavior from a standpoint of,okay,now I'm not going to go that way anymore,so I'm going to leave the shopping center,go out to 41,and now add more additional traffic onto Immokalee Road in order to get to Goodlette-Frank? MR.TREBILCOCK: Well,that's,again,why we made the assumption that that traffic--that public traffic would leave;that,conservatively,we said all that traffic would leave the roadway.Realistically,it would be my opinion that it would not. You'd still have folks that would prefer to use a lesser traveled road like that. And with the traffic-calming devices,they'll tend to run the road at the proper speed limit as opposed to higher operating speeds. Because really what you find is the cut-through,they're coming off of a 50-mile-per-hour road or a 45-mile-per-hour road,and we're putting them on a 30-mile-per-hour road. Quite frankly,I think there's compatibility issues there with folks cutting through. And then especially when you have this--the business park looking to do a lot more intensive pedestrian,I think there's a real conflict there, and I think it makes a lot of sense to do what we're proposing. It's consistent with,when you look at Granada Shoppes that was approved back in 2001 where 107th Avenue was cut off because they looked at the potential issues of traffic cutting through and things like that. So there is a consistency there,too, so... COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well,then we get back to the issue here,inconveniencing the driver today for the convenience of Arthrex that create a campus environment rather than create some kind of crossing area or pedestrian crosswalk controlled by lights or some other option. It's basically for the convenience of Arthrex to create the campus environment. MR.TREBILCOCK: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That seems to be the sole purpose of eliminating Creekside. MR.TREBILCOCK: That is. It's the focus.And they understand that,and that's why through mitigation what they've done is they've looked out here,and they've done a significant improvement to Goodlette-Frank Road to really increase the capacity of that roadway link. It's going to have some potential issues down the road. And with these measures,it really covers things and gives and allows the staff to evaluate that increased capacity. It's very consistent with other roads where we have what we call a four-lane/two-lane section, such as Vanderbilt Beach Road between Gulf Shore and 41. It has a determined capacity of 1,400 vehicles per hour versus this road currently has a capacity of a thousand vehicles per hour. And by doing this improvement, we're going to build up that capacity. I would--it would be my opinion even greater than the 1,400 because, really,the sections south of Creekside to Vanderbilt Beach Road has very few connections. So there's very few friction there. So we're really improving and taking care of the section that has the most friction. So,again,they recognize that,and that's really why they're willing to mitigate for that with this significant improvement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. With Trader Joe's there-- MR.TREBILCOCK: Yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: --that has created a lot of traffic on Creekside. You can't even get in to Page 18 of 88 October 4, 2016 park at Trader Joe's. I understand that Creekside was a requirement for Granada Shoppes. It was a requirement for the newspaper. And now you want to take a county road and just cut it off I will save my opinions till later. I want to hear what the people say,but a lot of people,all of Naples pretty much now uses this road,more so than they did before. And with the restaurants now in there on the east side,I've just really seen a lot more traffic in the area,Norm. MR.TREBILCOCK: Yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And did you get a letter from the post office saying that they are willing to give this area up and not come that road? MR.TREBILCOCK: David,did you want to address that? MR.BUMPOUS: We've had some difficulties in communicating with the post office. We were working directly with the regional manager out of Tampa. He is no longer in that position,and they have an interim person. We had a meeting set up last Friday with the local representation from the postal service,but they canceled that about 30 minutes prior to the meeting. Tentatively,we have another meeting set up for tomorrow. So to answer your question,not as of today. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Norm-- MR.TREBILCOCK: Yes,sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --to follow up on the post office theme,don't they have an access for their trucks right on Creek--going right to Creekside now? MR.TREBILCOCK: Yes,they currently do,and there's some alternative plans that are available to them once we can coordinate with them and take a look at it with them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But until you coordinate with them,you don't know if they're going to be in agreement with it. MR.TREBILCOCK: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that a fair statement? MR.TREBILCOCK: Yes,sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The monitoring that you did by license plates. MR.TREBILCOCK: Yes,sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you just do that recently? MR.TREBILCOCK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know it's the height of the non-season right now? MR.TREBILCOCK: Yes;yes,it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Don't you think you'd have a different outcome if you did it during season? MR.TREBILCOCK: Absolutely. What we have in transportation are the DOT Department of Statistics has peak season adjustment factors that they use to adjust average daily traffic to a peak season. You know,of course it would be ideal to do it during season,but there are peak season adjustment factors, and right now the current one--the one I used was a 1.3, 30 percent,adjustment factor bringing things up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's probably applicable under a generic basis,so that can be applied anytime you want to use it. This road might be more of a specialty nature in regards to where it accesses,and the congestion that is on 41 and Immokalee Road may make this road more important than the factors that you're using have weighted it. MR.TREBILCOCK: I see. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not sure--I would rather have--did you have any study done during a height of our season that would tell us what the traffic counts were? MR.TREBILCOCK: Not for Creekside Boulevard,no. Again,this project has come up fairly recently,and so there--that was the issue there.But,again,the DOT,it's a weekly factor that gets adjusted, and there's factors for various roads such as 41,and then there's a countywide one. And I actually used the highest factor that was available. So I looked to bump things up to be conservative. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know,to vacate a road,and I know the vacation's not a part of this meeting,but it is scheduled to go concurrently with the Board when they hear this,I understand,or Page 19 of 88 October 4, 2016 somewhere around that time frame,there's a requirement to what is the public benefit. What is the public benefit of closing Creekside? MR.TREBILCOCK: Well,the public benefit,there's--is really to help another--with the integration of this project. We've got a significant business partner in the community that we want to promote their business and then,more importantly, from a transportation standpoint,that person is willing to do a significant improvement to Goodlette-Frank Road that will benefit a lot more travelers. Goodlette-Frank Road receives a lot more traffic than Creekside Boulevard,and Creekside Boulevard they're not closing. They're rerouting.And,granted,it's going to slow folks down and going to add delay,but the idea is we want to make a message here that,you know,speeders,you're not welcome here,and we'd rather have folks travel at the proper speed limit,and that's what this really helps to promote. And so,again,they're willing to do the mitigation that is important,so that's a significant public benefit. Both from a transportation standpoint,I see a balance that we're getting a lot more good here than what we're giving up in terms of rerouting this roadway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And your Goodlette Road south of Creekside intersection with it,how far are your improvements going to go down south? MR.TREBILCOCK: What we would do is the full intersection improvements would go down 500 feet,so we'd have a full improved intersection,and then we'll do a roadway transition. Basically,the transition is going to end right about the foot of,you know,where the bridge starts. We'll tie into the shoulders,existing shoulders and everything right there at the current overpass. It's about--we haven't final designed that,but there's a long transition. It's a standard transition that you use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Has your client asked you to do any studies on traffic-calming measures on Creekside Boulevard? MR.TREBILCOCK: Well,that's why we're doing the roundabouts is-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No,Creekside Boulevard as it exists today. MR.TREBILCOCK: As it exists? We did look at that. Again,they have a vision for their integration of the campus and what they see,and that's why they're willing to do these other alternative ideas. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But you didn't answer my question. MR.TREBILCOCK: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Creekside Boulevard,as it exists today,has your client asked you to do any traffic-calming studies to determine if there's another way to handle Creekside Boulevard so it's safer? For example,have you been down to Marco Island;you know the Marco Marriott? MR.TREBILCOCK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You go in front of their facility,between the City of Marco and the Marriott,they've got a pretty effective means to make cars aware of people crossing that very business busy--that very busy roadway,which is an extension of 951,and the parking lot is all across the street. MR.TREBILCOCK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So have they asked you to consider something like that for Creekside? MR.TREBILCOCK: I would not propose that. I was the public works director for Marco Island, and there's issues with that section there in terms of that works,and there are safety concerns,and there continue to be with that. Really,the most desirable thing when you get to pedestrian-type issues is you look at like a HAWK-type signal or to affirmatively stop folks,and then that adds to delay. So when you balance the delay issues here,I think this is a sensible approach when you balance everything and you look for the safety. They know their business,they know their vision that they want to promote the folks--pedestrian uses empirically. I've seen their folks where they're kind of walking around the campus and stuff. So it's going to increase,and it's going to become a significant issue. And,again,this is consistent with other things we've done in the county where we want to--you know,in particular we do it in the residential areas without question.Again,Granada Shoppes would be a great example of 107th,how it got closed off there. And this is really just the same type of concept to say,hey,listen,we want to protect the pedestrians. We know it's a heavy intended use that you're looking to do here. You're going to accommodate this traffic. We're not closing the road off completely. And then you're also going to mitigate for this out here and create Page 20 of 88 October 4, 2016 a lot of additional capacity for our road network. It's a winner. And your staff transportation staff concurs with that as well,and that's what we feel as well,too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you haven't been asked to do any traffic-calming studies for the existing Creekside? MR.TREBILCOCK: Not specifically studies.We've looked at them. That's what I'm kind of covering with you,but,yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I needed to know. Thank you. MR.TREBILCOCK: Yes,sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. I travel this area all the time. The last two years I've spent a lot of time on Creekside and that intersection. And I kind of agree with Norm's assessment of what's going on there. I see a lot of people walking. I assume they're Arthrex people. And I don't see a lot of traffic on Creekside when I'm there ever,but sometimes the traffic is moving pretty quick. So listening to Norm's comments,I agree with what he said. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Maybe what they're applying-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karen. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: --now is traffic calming. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pardon me? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: What they're applying now with the looping around of the road is traffic calming. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right,but it's not on the same road. That's what I was getting at. I was wondering if they've-- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: They still can get through. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's not what I was asking. Their statement was said,they looked at other means in which to avoid closing or taking out that section of Creekside. I'm trying to find out if there are other means that they looked at that for traffic-calming purposes,what are they? The traffic engineer that they've hired hasn't been asked to do that. That's what I was trying to understand, so... MR.TREBILCOCK: No,I'm--again,we've looked at the ideas of doing--you know,you look at another roundabout on there or raised pathways,traffic--you know,speed tables or,again,signals. And all those add delay elements to the roadway as well. And,again,in the scheme of things for them,it made the most sense to do the rerouting of the roadway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And a follow-up,Norm. MR.TREBILCOCK: Yes,sir. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The alternative route versus if Creekside was left in place,and there was some kind of a delay or traffic calming or crosswalk or other delay,had you done any type of an evaluation on driver behavior; would they choose to take the alternative route versus be stalled and waiting if Creekside were to stay in place? Had you done any kind of analysis there? MR.TREBILCOCK: No,just more as a general sense that any additional measures we'd see would add additional elements to delay,probably to the magnitude of, say,20 seconds additional type delay. And you'd tend to find folks would start to get displaced. You know, speeders,they want to speed,you know,and so you're going to find those folks going away. And,again,the difference here is,is there's willing to pay the impact for that from a--saying,hey, we're going to displace all that traffic away,and they're willing to pay that impact which I think is commendable. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So in your professional opinion,what's being offered for the other improvements is far more acceptable than what exists today and in leaving Creekside in place? MR.TREBILCOCK: Yes,sir. It's a balance,and I think it's a good balance for the community. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I would--I'm waiting to hear from our county transportation. Page 21 of 88 October 4,2016 They're part of the staff presentation,which I would expect they would be,because I'd like to,frankly,get the county opinion from the staff as well. MR.TREBILCOCK: Yes,sir. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Norm? MR.TREBILCOCK: Yes,ma'am. COMMISSIONER EBERT: You could put a crosswalk light there so people would have to stop; is that true? MR.TREBILCOCK: Right. You could do what we call hawk-type signal similar to what you have on Bayshore or I believe also on Radio Road,you know,and that would stop--affirmatively stop traffic and, again,it would create delay,yeah. COMMISSIONER EBERT: But it would leave the county road open? MR.TREBILCOCK: Yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And one other thing,Norm,I noticed in your presentation which,by the way,make sure a copy's left with staff. MR.TREBILCOCK: Yes,sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You showed a cross-section of how the road would be constructed and the roundabouts. They're not in the PUD. Normally we don't put those in a PUD,but this particular PUD has three cross-sections for its roads. If those conflict with what you're proposing,you may want to take a look at that. MR.TREBILCOCK: Thank you. Appreciate that.Yes,sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, "Mark,utilities is here;Eric and Tom." Okay. We'll get to utilities. Thank you. MR.TREBILCOCK: Okay,thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way,I read that out loud so nobody would think I was getting notes from another Planning Commissioner on how to do anything, so... COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Are they coming up now? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No,I didn't mean for you guys to come up. You must be Eric and Tom. Okay. I was just reading--I didn't want anybody to think any other Planning Commissioner was communicating with me off record,so I just read the note. I'm sorry. It will be a few minutes yet. MR.YOVANOVICH: I'll do whatever. I just wasn't sure when you wanted to hear from them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And what's your next--who would be your next presenter? MR.YOVANOVICH: Mr.Hall would be our next presenter. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that the last presenter? MR.YOVANOVICH: That's the last one on our team. Mr. Strain,are you going to take the break now or-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. We took a break already. MR.YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I saved your life with that other fellow. We took the break already. MR.YOVANOVICH: Mine? I think I was okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anyway,yeah,let's let Tim finish up,then we'll go to staff,which will include the Public Utilities. MR.YOVANOVICH: All right. Thank you. MR.HALL: Yeah. Good morning. For the record,Tim Hall with Turrell,Hall&Associates.I'm a wildlife ecologist with--my degrees are from the University of Florida. I've been practicing here in Collier County since'97,and I grew up here. I lived here my whole life. I'm here mostly to talk to you about the changes to the preserve areas on the site. So this exhibit shows the existing preserves that are currently located on the site and then the two preserves that are being impacted by what's being proposed,is the one here on the east side and this one on the west side. In terms of the preserve being impacted on the east side,the county has a hierarchy for preserves that Page 22 of 88 October 4, 2016 they look at,and there's six different criteria. If you go through those criteria,wetlands and uplands utilized by listed species or that serve as corridors for the movement of wildlife,this preserve is completely surrounded by development. It's isolated now within the--within the development. It's got barriers on two sides of major roadways with Goodlette-Frank and Immokalee;the county park,water treatment plant,a storage facility,office buildings,and the rest of this campus itself. You go through the rest of the hierarchy,dune and shrub habitats or rare habitats within the county. On-site wetlands have a functional score of.65 or.7. The upland habitat that serves as a habitat to wetlands, dry prairie,pine flatwoods and, finally,all other native habitats. So the upland and wetlands associated with this preserve fall into those bottom two categories. The Water Management District has counted this entire area as impacted, so in the latest permit modification that one of the previous speakers talked about undergoing review right now,the area's already been impacted. So from a functional score standpoint,as it currently exists with the state of Florida,it's zero. The Corps of Engineers is also reviewing it,and their functional score related to this was.48. So it's well below the higher criteria that the county has in place. Also it's important to consider that under today's current standards,that preserve area wouldn't even be allowed to be a preserve because it serves as a drainage easement. It takes water from the south and routes it through an old--there was a little creek bed that went through there. That area has expanded because of the drainage use that's occurred over time,and then the water is routed through the preserve across into the ditch here and then goes up,out,and across Immokalee Road. So under,you know,today's current standards,it wouldn't even be allowed to be counted as a preserve. The final--the proposal that's in front of you guys today is to impact some of the north and eastern side of that preserve,still leave a little bit of it there,increase the preserve area on the west side of the road through some recontouring of the lake,and then to go offsite for the remaining deficit. Through all of the iterations with this,staff had determined that the project needed a minimum of seven acres of native habitat. Under the current proposal,they're going to be short 1.35,and that 1.35 acres will be made up in an offsite area. The benefit of moving the preserve offsite is it will have a lot more impact on wildlife and utilization than the current preserve does right now. Where it's located,transient mammalian wildlife is very cut off. It still has some wading bird utilization mostly along the shorelines of the lakes,and all of that use will still remain in place with the proposal. And so that's the--really that's the gist of what they're proposing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Questions of the Planning Commission on this aspect? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead,Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Tim, several questions.One,the lake configurations,are they going to be changing? I really couldn't tell between the master plan--it appeared there were some changes to the lake configurations between what exists now and what is proposed. MR.HALL: On the east side of the road,this little northern lobe with the lake here will be filled in, and the lake will be expanded in this area,and then on the east side of the lake,there's a--the bank and shoreline along there.There will be some fill put in,and so this lake will be recontoured a little bit as well. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Is there an existing Army Corps of Engineers permit for this site? MR.HALL: The original permitting for the west side,I couldn't find a Corps of Engineers on the east side. It was all ag lands,and I don't believe they assert a jurisdiction. When they did the west side,there was a nationwide permit that was issued for the east side that included some drainage stuff,and that left it in play. So there is an existing Corps permit under review for these modifications,but it hasn't been issued yet. It's still under review. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So you have submitted.You've had a jurisdictional determination, and you've submitted for 404 permit. MR.HALL: Correct,yeah. And because of the--because of the drainage easement,it's--you Page 23 of 88 October 4, 2016 know,the direct connection to waters of the U.S.through that drainage capacity goes all the way to Cocohatchee Canal, so they could follow--they could follow the water course up through there even though there's a structure,couple structures. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I mean,clearly you're doing a dredge and fill now,so you're going to require a modification. What about Section 7,consultation? Any--there's been no listed species,or is there a listed species determination? MR.HALL: The Fish and Wildlife asked for a bonneted bat survey. There were some cavity trees associated with some cabbage palms that had died out there. These trees were peeped to make sure that there weren't any bats in the cavities,and they'll have to be reviewed and re-peeped prior to the clearing as well. But Fish and Wildlife Service had no other issues. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Let me go back to the other drawing then. If I recall, in one of your--and I was looking for it--you labeled those Preserves 1,2,and 3. So I guess going from west to east,the upper was No. 1,the middle is No. 2,and the other is 3;is that correct? MR.HALL: Yeah,it is. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So I'll use that terminology. MR.HALL: I think that might have been the county's-- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MR.HALL: --the county that did that,but yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. The preserve in the middle,then we'll label it No.2,when Creekside was originally approved,wasn't there a requirement to re-establish that preserve and enhance that preserve? Is that your understanding? MR.HALL: Yeah,it's my understanding,yes,that that--and the exotic vegetation has established within that preserve; it's going to have to be cleaned out. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And it appears that that was never done. There's never really been an enhancement on site as required. MR.HALL: I think the enhancement was actually done. I think the issue has been with the maintenance. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Because it--and I'm waiting for the staff presentations, because I have questions as well. But it appears that what they're recommending if there's any accommodation,is that Preserve 2 be the preserve where they would agree with offsite preservation versus Preserve 3? MR.HALL: That was what they put in their staff report,yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And I have questions for the staff,but I'll ask you. From a standpoint of projects you've worked on in the past,how often has there been an approval for an offsite mitigation? Have you had any projects where there's been an approval for offsite mitigation? MR.HALL: For offsite mitigation of the county preserve requirement-- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Preserve requirement,yes. MR.HALL: I've worked on two of them. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Is it--because,again,I had some conflicting--and I'll ask the same question of staff. I thought in one element the LDC says a two-to-one compensation,but you're offering a one-to-one because of the--it's less than two acres; is that correct? Meaning compensate at a one-to-one ratio versus what I believe was required,in some instances,a two-to-one compensation for offsite. MR.HALL: Yeah. I wouldn't know that. The county code just requires that whatever acreage you don't have on site you have to make up offsite. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And you have not yet--or the applicant has not yet decided where the preserve will be offsite? MR.HALL: It will be out in--adjacent to Pepper Ranch,so it will be adjacent to other conservation lands. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. All right. I'll defer--I want to hear from staff as well. MR.YOVANOVICH: Mr Schmitt,can I just say one thing for the record? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. Page 24 of 88 October 4, 2016 MR.YOVANOVICH: We originally proposed a two-to-one and were told to come in with the one-to-one,so--for the mitigation. Just wanted that on the record. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well,thank you.That's interesting. I appreciate that,Rich,thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else at this time? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah. Tim,on the Tract 5,is it possible to move that lake or that--put it in another spot on that property because this is just--no. On Tract 5 where they want to--on Tract 5 where they want to do the new building. MR.HALL: I'm sorry. I don't know where the tract numbers are. COMMISSIONER EBERT: That one. MR.HALL: This one right here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Can that pond be moved on that property to another place so they could bring their building closer to the road where they--where it might be more handy for them? MR.HALL: Well,this is--it's a lake,but I believe it's also a passthrough. It takes water from all the way to the west and brings it--brings it all the way through to where it goes into this canal and then goes down into the Cocohatchee. So if they--if they did try to move that somewhere else,then they lose that connectivity,so it would be a lot more routing of the stormwater. There still would have to be some way to get this water over to here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. MR.HALL: This is a lake here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So we have to go--so we have to go from the west towards the east on that west side property? That has to be connected there? MR.HALL: Yeah. On this one,all of the water--all of this water goes to-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: I know,into that canal,the-- MR.HALL: This lake comes this way. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yep. MR.HALL: And then these on here go over to this canal-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yep. MR.HALL: --and then down. COMMISSIONER EBERT: To the Cocohatchee,okay.I was just wondering. And then I noticed--I believe it's--yep,that's fine. I'll just wait for the other question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Mark,just one more question,and I think this is either for Wayne or Rich. What is being proposed on the west side with the elimination? Is that the proposed location for the hotel or-- MR.YOVANOVICH: East side. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm sorry,on the east side. MR.YOVANOVICH: Hotel and office building would be on Tract 9. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: On Tract 9. And that's-- MR.YOVANOVICH: Which is on the east side. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: East side,thank you.Yeah,I'm directionally challenged. MR.YOVANOVICH: That's usually my job. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: All right. Okay. So now I see it on this,yeah,with Tract B, correct? MR.YOVANOVICH: Correct. Those business uses on Tract 9. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Tract 9. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I don't have any questions of Tim,but I do of probably Wayne. This map's just as good as any to look at.Tract 6 and Tract 3 and Tract 2 and Tract 1,who owns those;do you know? Are they owned by Arthrex or an entity of Arthrex? Page 25 of 88 October 4, 2016 MR.ARNOLD: Say those again. Tract 6? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,let's start with 1,2,3,and 6,yeah. MR.ARNOLD: Tract 1 is not owned by Arthrex,Tract 1 being on Immokalee Road. There's a medical office building that was just completed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I don't care what's there. I just was wondering if they own it. MR.ARNOLD: Arthrex does not own that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do they own Tract 2? MR.ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tract 3? MR.ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tract 6? MR.ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the new relocating of Creekside Boulevard is going to put a more intense road circulation separating the other tracts that Arthrex owns. How come they're not concerned about those from a campus perspective? I mean,they've still got to cross the street,right? MR.ARNOLD: I'll let Mr.Bumpous address that,but this goes to the overall campus. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm just wondering why that isn't considered part of the overall campus and only the south is critical to be part of the overall campus. MR.BUMPOUS: I don't think it would be fair to ask to close them all. But due to our density and the expansion across the street,that's why the focus on Creekside. You know,we're focusing this project on meeting ideally the next 10 years or 10 years plus. So standing here today and knowing what we would do on those other parcels is certainly challenging,as you can imagine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you're going to--since you do own them,I imagine they'd be used for some relationships to the business that you've got there,and they're within a quarter mile of the hospital,so you'd be able to do medically related. I just thought if you're so concerned about a campus being all consistent,why would you want the road to separate them there any differently than the separation to the south? MR.BUMPOUS: I wouldn't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because you've got more road separating more possibilities there than you do the strip that exists to the south,and it's less contentious,to say the least. MR.BUMPOUS: But with smaller--less square footage and less density. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then the next question's for Wayne. Your proposed square footages are all capped.You can't go above what you've got. Why are we dealing with an FAR? MR.ARNOLD: Well,the PUD was originally approved with an overall FAR. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right,but it doesn't--it's meaningless if you've got a cap on the square footage,I would think,unless you--tell me what significance it is. MR.ARNOLD: Well,I agree with you. I don't know that there's any great significance to having an FAR where you have established square footages. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,wouldn't someone be better off striking that kind of language? I mean,it's just going to add confusion to everything. MR.ARNOLD: I don't think we would have an objection to it. We are asking to modify that FAR to bump it up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I saw that,and it just doesn't make any sense if you've got a cap on square footage. Because it doesn't matter what the FAR is,you're not going to get more than what the cap is. So why mess with it? Okay. Just something else that seemed kind of odd. That's the last question I have of your team at this point. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We were going to take a break at 10:30,but since we had that rather lively break a little earlier,we're just going to keep going for another half hour or so,and we'll take a break at 11 o'clock for a short period of time. Page 26 of 88 October 4, 2016 And with that,I'd like to get staff presentation,and that's Mike and Ray,the team. MR.BOSI: Thank you,Chair. Mike Bosi,director of Planning and Zoning. I'm going to try to provide an overview of the staff recommendation,and then I will turn it over to the subsequent specialized team members. From review,the first review that starts at a staff level is always the comprehensive planning review. This individual project,the Creekside project,is outside of our activity center but in existing projects it's been deemed consistent by policy. What that means is our Growth Management Plan tries to concentrate the intense commercial institutional,industrial type uses in our activity centers. This is a site that's just adjacent to an activity center but outside of it. So,traditionally,the square footage that are associated with those projects are normally capped at what they were as they existed. This project,because it's in a quarter mile of the existing North Collier Regional Hospital,has added square footage based upon a provision that's within our Growth Management Plan that says when you have a location of a hospital,within a quarter mile of that hospital,we want to promote and allow for the development of medical-related uses. We understand that there's an interrelationship between land uses inherently. And the necessary support functionality of medical-related uses in proximity to a hospital is critical for the success of those individual institutions. It's even supported within the actual PUD document within the sections that deal with the IC. The industrial and the commercial and the business park both have allocations that have use that are restricted to the one quarter-mile location to the North Collier Hospital. So we've added square footage to this--to this project in the past with that restriction that these uses can only be placed within a quarter mile of the project boundary to the individual hospital.With that,this has gained consistency with our Growth Management Plan from our Future Land Use Element,the additional square footage that they're proposing. In addition,the Growth Management Plan has another element. It's the Economic Element. And the Economic Element has two individual policies and object--policy and objective that would support the provision. The first is Policy 1.2 which established that Collier County will support the opportunity for development establishment of hospitals,nursing homes,and additional medical-related research and manufacturing facilities in order to promote a continuum of care and enhanced quality of life throughout the county. That's an individual policy that this proposal would further. And,also,Objective 3 of the Economic Element indicates that Collier County will support programs which are designed to promote,encourage the recruitment of new industry as well as the expansion and retention of existing industries in order to diversify the economic base. This would also further that individual policy. So from the comprehensive planning review,the Growth Management Plan,the Future Land Use Element,and the Economic Element are both in support of the proposal. From that review,from that higher level review that is contained within our Growth Management Plan,we then go to our zoning level review,our compatibility review,and the review of the individual components,such as transportation,environmental,water management. From a consistency standpoint,with the additional lowering of height,the one--the Parcel 5,Tract 5 where the research and development building is being proposed,there is going to be at least a three-to-one setback between the height of the building to the boundary of the project. So there's 400 feet from the boundary of Tract 5 to the external roadway systems,the building at 100--at 104 feet or 122 feet being the ultimate height would be set back at more than three-to-one. From a planning perspective,we believe that that ensures a compatibility and provides the scale of that building would impose upon this surrounding area that is appropriate. We do have a review from our environmental staff that we aren't supporting the reduction within the preserve area on the east side,and I will defer to our environmental staff after my conclusion to my comments to be able--to elaborate upon that. And also,as the chair has indicated,with the assistance of Ms. Ebert,that--utilities is here to explain their position. Those were the two areas of disagreement between Page 27 of 88 October 4, 2016 where staff was not supporting the application. The other specifics of staffs review is contained within the staff report,and we can provide more specifics of that. But I just wanted to provide the overview from Growth Management Plan level down to the compatibility level at the zoning stage and the specifics of the two areas of disagreement that are provided for within the staff reports. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions at this time of staff before we get the other staff members up? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike,I've got a few. On your comprehensive planning memo-- MR.BOSI: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --you talk about the expanded acres 41.6 to 49.9. I know they stated earlier,the applicant did,it's a truing up of the property. This property's had numerous changes,PUDAs,all kinds of actions on it,and it's been over years. So do you have--have you seen where this additional eight acres is coming from? MR.BOSI: Not--I mean,with the vacation of the roadway,obviously,there is a number of acreages that are provided for within that,but I think the applicant has not provided that site specific identification of all of the acreages that are being added to the currently existing 41 acres. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,do we know that the acreage being added was the intended acreage to start with so that the truing up is a real truing up and there's not pieces and parts being brought in now that really haven't been considered from the original application? MR.BOSI: Well,the PUD allocates-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Forty-one acres. MR.BOSI: --41 acres for the industrial commercial tract. The specifics of those and the total accumulation of those would be provided for with each individual SDP or plat that would be provided for. One of the things that I did and the components that we did require from a comprehensive planning standpoint,for consistency with that quarter mile--the quarter-mile restriction was we said that any square footage above the,currently,810,000 square feet that's allocated to this PUD would have to be allocated in the statement of compliance that it's going to be dedicated to medical-related uses. To ensure how we could enforce that,I checked the monitoring report. To date,there's 619,000 acre--or square footage of developed properties,but the PUD allows for 810,000 square foot currently, so there's about 193,000 square footage that still is yet to be developed within--within the individual PUD. Those--the specifics of the allocation of what is designated industrial commercial would be,I guess, trued up with each individual--as I said,each individual SDP,but I have not seen the specifics of where the additional sum eight acres are being provided for other than what we know as the vacated road system. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have you been communicating with Norm before you answered that question?Because he kind of went off on a tangent,too. I simply want to know,did you know how the additional eight--where the eight acres came from,and I think the answer is no. MR.BOSI: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're getting there,Mike. I just--it was a lot more than I needed. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I asked Wayne,too,to send me information on that. He tried to,but no one can explain the other acreage. I said,is it closing off? Is it the 64 feet you want to close off? Where are you getting--and they can't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And it was in the report,and I thought maybe staff had located it, and the answer is,they haven't. We've just taken the applicant's information. We'll go back to the applicant on that one when we get a chance. That's all I was trying to find out,Mike. And I appreciate your comments. In the comprehensive planning memo,there was a line added that says,"as to coordinator of the county's Capital Improvements Plans,"I think that was added in error. That's got to come out? MR.BOSI: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Further on down,No. 6 says,revise the master plan to redesignate property along Immokalee Road from the business district to the industrial commercial district. I believe that's no longer applicable? Page 28 of 88 October 4,2016 MR.BOSI: That was part of the first submittal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right,so-- MR.BOSI: It's been modified as such,and the consistency memo needs to be updated as such. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. In the--on the second page of the memo,it says,the statement of compliance Section 2,which restricts all square footage beyond 810,000 square feet to be restricted to support medical fatalities,and then it goes in to list examples. I tried to locate that in the document,and I couldn't,and I think--and I briefed you on this before the meeting so you could check and see maybe if there's some clarification to that. MR.BOSI: Yes. The statement of compliance--and it's not Section 2. It's No. 1.They've added the specific--that the Creekside Commerce Park PUD is located within a quarter mile of North Collier Hospital and restricts the additional square footage to that quarter-mile location. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's why I couldn't fmd it,so-- MR.BOSI: And that's Page ii of the proposed PUD document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm checking any other questions I might have of you at this time,Mike, so hang on just a second. When you reviewed this both as a comprehensive planning memo and as a staff report for the PUDA,did you have adequate time to review it? This was an expedited permitting process. It was shorter times than we normally do for regular permitting.But did you feel you had adequate time to respond to all the needs and research for the staff report and the comprehensive planning memo? MR.BOSI: We felt that there was adequate time,and appreciate the additional two weeks that was provided by the Planning Commission in delaying the hearing to make sure that we were squared away with all of these individual issues. But,yes,we felt that there was adequate time to review the substance of the material. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions of Mike? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Next staff member that you were going to have address--well,let's get the Public Utilities up here and see if we can resolve whatever issue they have or they have not resolved yet. MR.CHMELIK: Tom Chmelik,Public Utilities,for the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's Eric behind you,then,right? MR.CHMELIK: It is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Sony to have dragged you out of your office today,but there's been a question as to exactly what's going on with the request by the Utility Department in regards to their rerouting of an IQ line for this particular project and how it needs to be routed,what you're looking to gain, and see if we can get some language that's more concrete than what's been talked about so far. MR.CHMELIK: Thank you. Yes,we have a request to route a new IQ line from the north wastewater treatment plant to Immokalee Road,and it would be through this area. Our request is to fmd a mutually agreeable location for that,and we have a coordination meeting set up with Arthrex and Mr.Bumpous tomorrow morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand that you're proposing to go across Goodlette,down Creekside Boulevard to a certain point,then turn north and probably tie in under the road on Immokalee Road to the north side of Immokalee Road;is that correct? MR.CHMELIK: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're going to go--why couldn't you,instead of going through that project,go up alongside Goodlette and down Immokalee that way and stay within the public right-of-ways? MR.CHMELIK: There isn't sufficient room for the main. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,that's a good answer.Why would we put a road in and not have sufficient room for the utilities? That's kind of odd. MR.CHMELIK: Well,other utilities are in there already,and this is an IQ main. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now,you can't--there's no side available? There's no--you can't--and in the IQ,does it have a specific location within the road network? Page 29 of 88 October 4, 2016 MR.CHMELIK: No,it doesn't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So there's--within that 100-- MR.CHMELIK: We've evaluated that. That would be certainly our first choice. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I understand Arthrex's concern over their locations in regards to where Creekside's going to be re-routed and potentially,I understand,as of today's discussion,they're even talking about possibly filling in that drainage easement or that canal or whatever it is going between Creekside,the rerouting of Creekside Boulevard in Tract 5. Is that currently where you were going to run your line? MR.CHMELIK: Well,I think that was the previous discussion,but this is really what the meeting is about tomorrow. If there's a better location,we certainly want to work with Arthrex. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well--so you don't have any definitive answers until tomorrow, neither does Arthrex,so I guess we'll have to defer some kind of stipulation until that meeting occurs. MR. CHMELIK: I believe that's the case,yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. That's all I've got. Anybody else? Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: A question in regards to this issue. This was a fast track as was mentioned. When did you start working with the applicant in regards to this IQ line? MR.CHMELIK: May or previous,in the spring. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Since May? MR.CHMELIK: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And we still don't have a resolution? MR.CHMELIK: Not yet. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And this is scheduled to go to the Board when;two weeks? MR.BOSI: October 25th. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And is it--where is the sticking point in resolving this issue? It seems to me that this is not that difficult of an issue in regards to the line. You want it one way,they want it another way,but there seems to be--how big of a line is this? MR.CHMELIK: It's a 24-inch IQ main. And I don't want to answer for Arthrex,but I think their plans needed to be firmed up before we could really determine where this was going to go. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Let me then ask this: Do you think you're going to reach a solution tomorrow or... MR.CHMELIK: Yes,we do. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: All right. And do you--have you reviewed what they're proposing from a standpoint they've reviewed what--you do see an avenue of agreement somewhere between--between where you are now and where they are? MR.CHMELIK: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,Tom,I almost said Eric. Thank you for attending. I don't think there's any other questions. I appreciate you waiting to answer our questions. Thank you. MR.CHMELIK: Thank you,Commissioner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike? MR.BOSI: Chair,I had mentioned environmental and transportation,I think,are two other real relevant staff components that you may want to hear from. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Let's hear environmental first. I think transportation's going to get drawn out a bit,and so we may want to wait till after a break on that. In fact,Norm is anxious to come up and talk again,and I do have some questions for him, so... MS.ARAQUE: Hello. Summer Araque,principal environmental specialist,development review. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hi, Summer. And I think it boils down to this: Tim Hall says you're wrong,and you probably think you're right,so can you tell us why you're right so we know why he's wrong? MS.ARAQUE: Okay. Well,first of all,I would like to get back to the basics on the Land Development Code itself. This section of the Land Development Code for offsite preservation is for small Page 30 of 88 October 4, 2016 preserves. Those are preserves that t have a requirement of two acres for a commercial development. So if this development had a small preserve of two acres or less,then they would qualify; however, since their preserve requirement is seven acres,then this is a deviation. And we have not been in support of these deviations because we don't really have criteria to go by. So we are leaving that up to the Planning Commission and the Board to determine as the Growth Management Plan states that a deviation can be issued for beneficial land uses. So staff doesn't have criteria to determine if this is a beneficial land use,and that's up to the Planning Commission or Board. In addition,I would have to discuss further with them on the two-to-one. Maybe that was recommended at the previous petition that was done,finished up earlier this year. I did not review that petition,so we can talk about that. I didn't--I don't remember seeing that in this one. Also,in regards to the stormwater in the preserve,we could have expanded a little bit further in the staff report. We just wanted to put on the record that a drainage easement today would not be allowed in the preserve;however,you can divert pretreated stormwater into a preserve that has hydric soils. That is currently allowed by the code. So the difference here is that this has a drainage easement over it. But this,in my opinion,could be a preserve today,and we're talking about the preserve that's being proposed for impacts. Do you have any other questions? Have I hit all the points that you're looking for clarification on? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Summer,how long have you been doing reviews for the county? MS.ARAQUE: I've been doing reviews for 11. I've been with the county for 15 years as an environmental specialist. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And in those 15 years,how many times has there been an approval for offsite mitigation? MS.ARAQUE: So,not to correct you,but it's been a while. So we like to refer to it as offsite preserve just so that people don't get confused between offsite mitigation for other agencies. So we--I don't have a spreadsheet in front of me,but it's probably somewhere around 10. This type of deviation really has only been issued for East Gateway;however,the difference between this project and East Gateway is that this--these are existing preserves that are already platted. And I think it would be up to you to go look to see what the Board discussion was on East Gateway. Does that answer your question? The other--I guess to clarify,the other ones that we were in support of were quite small deviations. So, for example,we had a project where the--it was a residential project, so in that case you can have a one-acre preserve,for residential,is considered something that can be done without a deviation. Once you go above one acre for a residential project of a preserve requirement,then it would require a deviation. In that case it was like a 1.35-acre preserve requirement to begin with. So we said,okay,that's a difference of one acre to 1.35. It was isolated,and so we did--and there were other factors there as well,so we did recommend that that one be approved. But in this case,your preserve requirement is seven acres,and this portion of the code is for small preserves of two acres or less. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So for clarification,the code allows for the offsite deviation-- MS.ARAQUE: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: --for preserve requirements if it's a small nonfunctioning or low-value preserve that currently exists. In your opinion,this preserve is--what is your position as far as the functionality of this preserve? And from what I read,I believe what you're stating in the review is that you're recommending disapproval because this is deemed to be a rather significant preserve,and to allow for the 1.35 acres offsite deviation,would it,in your opinion,adversely impact what remains as a preserve? MS.ARAQUE: Correct. So this is--the impacts,actually,just to make sure everyone is aware,are actually of two acres because they're proposing to add,recreate.65 acres on the other side of the road. So the impacts of two are actually to the highest quality vegetation on this site. And,yes,Tim did go through the criteria in the code,but looking at this as an environmental specialist,a biologist,this type of vegetation is probably one of the nicer preserves that you will see in Collier Page 31 of 88 October 4, 2016 County. So it is a--and very little exotics and a very diverse vegetation from oaks to pines to cypress is a very nice preserve,actually. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Does this appear to set some kind of precedence then? MS.ARAQUE: Oh,definitely,yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: If allowed. MS.ARAQUE: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's the same kind of precedence we stopped at East Gateway. We allowed a little more flexibility in East Gateway because it wasn't already existing,and there were some changes;the project had not been built. But I mean,I think that to give this up would be wrong,and I haven't heard anything yet that's changed my mind on that. So,Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: And that other one that we okayed was Bear Paw which was that--the family one where it was so tiny anyway,where we allowed them to take that 1.3 acres off. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,that was--that meets the code. MS.ARAQUE: Yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah,I know,but she was talking about a very small area,because we don't do many of these. MS.ARAQUE: Right. That one did not--as I recall,did not need a deviation because it met code. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions from the environmental perspective? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Summer. MS.ARAQUE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to take a short break and come back and try to get into the very complicated discussion of transportation. Take 10 minutes. We'll be back here at 11 o'clock. (A brief recess was had.) MR.BOSI: Chair,you have a live mike. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Everybody,if you'd please take your seats,we'd like to get moving. Ladies and gentlemen,if you'd please be seated. We left off before the break with staff reports. We finished environmental,and we're moving to our transportation professional if he's here. Good morning,Mike. MR. SAWYER: Good morning,Commissioners.Mike Sawyer,principal planner for Transportation Planning. With me today I also--I also have Tom Ross,who assisted staff as far as our review. He is from CH2MHi11. He's our consultant. I also have Trinity Scott,who's our Transportation Planning manager. Just real briefly just to get started,we have found the petition to be consistent with the GMP.We do have road capacity for where the project is going based on the added trips that are being added to the PUD. With that,I'm open for questions,and we're available. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I mean,we've got a memo produced by somebody in transportation. Maybe it was you. It says,supplemental staff memo. Was that yours,or who wrote that? MR. SAWYER: That's a combination,but yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I certainly would like someone from staff to explain the elements in that memo because they start out talking about the--No. 1 gets into improvements on various(sic)Immokalee Road and some of the intersections,so can you just kind of walk us through these improvements and see--and explain to us how they're going to increase--or,in fact,I think we heard testimony that the functioning of the road system is going to be better with Creekside closing. And I'd like you to explain from staffs perspective how that's going to happen if you agree with that. If you don't,I'd like to know that,too. MR. SAWYER: Okay. That's actually a number of--number of questions all in one,certainly.And there's a number of things that I can do to try and explain,you know,what we use as far as how we put Page 32 of 88 October 4, 2016 together our review of the project. To go over the talking points that we've got for the proposed developer agreement-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I don't need--there's a lot of paragraphs here. MR. SAWYER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just need a quick summary of each one,what we're expecting. For example,the cycle times on the light at Arthrex Boulevard and Immokalee Road,they're going to put in dual lefts,I understand,and I understand also there's a southbound--from the opposite side of the roadway,there's a concern over how they cycle in and out,and it's been some--basically the shopping center puts a lot of traffic onto that light from the north side. Have we looked at all this as a package,and are the cycle times changing? Are the dual lefts going to help? What's happening with that intersection,for example? MR. SAWYER: Certainly related to this project,the dual lefts certainly will help for this project. We've not,honestly,looked at what's happening on the south side because that's independent of this particular petition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You mean going south-- MR. SAWYER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --because it's on the north side going south. MR. SAWYER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well,by doing dual lefts on Arthrex Boulevard going north onto Immokalee,is that going to be able to shorten the cycle times of that light because you've got two lefts going instead of one? MR. SAWYER: Correct. You're going to increase the capacity of that signalization being able to cycle the traffic through. So we won't have as much of a conflict on Immokalee at that point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What about--now,if you're making dual lefts out of there,you're going to go over to 41. Now,the right-hand turn lane on 41 is one I have to sit in periodically,so I know it backs up. The left-hand turn lane is going to take on probably twice the amount of traffic that would be coming north off Arthrex. How are we changing that intersection? MR. SAWYER: The one at Immokalee and 41? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. SAWYER: That is--that particular intersection is going to take more time because there are more players involved with that particular intersection. That is a longer-term solution that we're going to have to actually study,similar to other studies that we're currently engaged in as far as other particular intersections. I believe that intersection was also brought up when we originally looked at Naples Daily News as well. So there's a number of players. There would be a number of people that would have to contribute to that ultimate solution. And currently we are not studying that intersection. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well,then let's get back to your memo and the points that have to be taken into consideration. I guess in the developer agreement is what's going to be formatted? MR. SAWYER: Correct. This is just a series of talking points as far as getting a developer agreement put together for the proposed project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SAWYER: Okay? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SAWYER: As you can see,we've already talked a bit about the improvements that are proposed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number 1. MR. SAWYER: On No. 1. Number 2,basically,that is talking principally about the improvements that would be going on Goodlette,which,again,the applicant has discussed previously. We have not looked at what is being proposed at this time;however,there would be plans that we would review as we normally would on any particular project such as this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,you've got two kinds of mitigation you're talking about--in No.2 Page 33 of 88 October 4, 2016 you're talking about equal mitigation and alternative mitigation. What's the difference? MR. SAWYER: I've actually got a presentation I can go through real quick to try and explain that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I was hoping you would have something. MR. SAWYER: If that would help. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I'm trying to get to. MR. SAWYER: And I've got--why don't I just start with this,and we'll just go through this briefly, and then we can go through questions. Are we on? There we go. Basically,just briefly talking about TCMA's equal mitigation or alternative mitigation. GMP Policy 5.6,basically,is the county shall designate Transportation Concurrency Management Areas,TCMAs,to encourage compact urban development where an integrated and connected network of roads is in place that provide multiple viable alternative transportation paths or modes for common trips. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now,Mike,what that means is that anywhere in the area that you have on the blue--no,no,the next page where it says northwest TCMA,you take all those road segments and you average them out,and if you have a deficiency in the north end but it averages out,you can kind of absorb excess from another point in that TCMA? MR. SAWYER: As long as you don't exceed--and we've got--you know,a couple of slides that better explains that. As long as overall you don't reach a certain percentage of failure within that area,you can do development,in essence. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SAWYER: Okay. And we've had two of them.We've got the northwest TCMA,which is--as you can see Creekside commercial is basically almost right in the middle. We also have the east central TCMA. And I think we've talked about that particular one in relationship to Pine Ridge Road more recently with some of the other petitions that we've looked at. With Policy 5.7,each TCMA shall maintain 85 percent of its lane miles at or above the LOC(sic) standards,level-of-service standards. If fewer than 85 percent of the lane miles are achieving the LOS standards,the proposed development shall not be permitted unless modifications of development is made sufficient to maintain the LOS standard for the TCMA,or the facilities required to maintain TCMA LOS standards are committed. Basically,that's just saying that we still need to make sure that we get commitments to improvements whenever you're in a TCMA area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But what it means is,you could have a failure at one intersection, like 41 and Immokalee,but because it's averaged with the rest of the road system and in the TCMA,as long as the overall whole TCMA doesn't exceed 85 percent of its threshold,they can still proceed and still meet concurrency by our code. MR. SAWYER: Correct. Basically-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's how this one's being looked at,basically? MR. SAWYER: Basically. Currently,within the northwest TCMA, 100 percent of the lane miles are above 85 percent LOS standards. So that's a key element right there; we are nowhere near the 85 percent in this particular TCMA. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that's one of the primary reasons staff has said this is inconsistent and you've recommended approval is because of that factor,and it doesn't take into consideration the failure or the potential failure of the immediate road system adjacent to this project. It looks at the full package. MR. SAWYER: We look at the larger bathtub.For a lack of a better answer,yes,we look at a bigger bathtub. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just want to understand it,because the Creekside Boulevard is one of the bigger issues happening here. And with the removal of that,I'm just trying to understand how it affects the overall program. Obviously,it's going to put more traffic on the other streets. We don't know quite how much yet,but all that still--staffs looking at it as though it's being absorbed by the overall TCMA goals. MR. SAWYER: Correct,yes. Okay. Policy 5.8,if the proposed development impacts either a constrained roadway link and/or a Page 34 of 88 October 4, 2016 deficient roadway link within the TCMA by more than de minimis amount,which is more than one percent of the adopted LOS,or an amount on a hurricane evacuation route,which this is,yet continues to maintain the established percentage of lane miles indicated on 5.7 of this element,a proportionate share congestion mitigation payment shall be required. The mitigation is separate from operational impacts and is addressed at time of development order. Now we get into the actual mitigation. We've got equal and alternative mitigation. This comes from our TIS guidelines,which is Resolution 2006-299. Number 17,equal mitigation for operational impacts: To mitigate the impact of development traffic, a concept called equal mitigation will be used except as otherwise required by the Board of County Commissioners. Equal mitigation shall mean the implementation of an improvement that,at minimum, results in the reduction of delay per vehicle on each lane group at deficient intersections prior to the addition of the development traffic. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike,I was hoping you could explain this in simpler terms. MR. SAWYER: I'm trying. I'm trying. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean,honestly,I can read the code,and I'm sure we all can. MR. SAWYER: I'm trying to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I wanted a simple,basic term that--you transportation people use so many smoke and mirrors,and when we try to get an answer,it's so confusing. I simply wanted to understand it in a little more basics. If we can't get there,that's fine. I'll just keep plugging away and try to understand it. MR. SAWYER: I'm trying to get there,Chairman. Eighteen,alternative mitigation for operational impacts--and you're right,we can all read this. Basically,the difference between equal mitigation and alternative mitigation is where we take whatever the mitigation amount needs to be for any particular development,and we either have the opportunity to do select operation improvements directly related to the project throughout the area where the development is located, or we concentrate those improvements,the mitigation,at a specific,more critically needed location. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,then that leads to the question I was trying to get to in a way. What select traffic mitigation issues are being applied to the various rerouting of Creekside Boulevard?What's going to happen? What select mitigation measures have they come up with? MR. SAWYER: Right now what we've got,looking at what we've got as far as the suggested talking points with the developer agreement,that's going to be No. 1 and No. 2. Principally,No.2,which are the improvements that we're looking at for Goodlette,getting that section of Goodlette improved from the current two-lane configuration to the four-lane configuration where we've got all of the conflict points,you know,the entrances,the exits,and allowing the rest of Goodlette south of where the improvements are going to be--we really don't have any entrance or exits all the way back to the next intersection. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: According to the backup to your memo,in 2016,remaining capacity at Goodlette-Frank Road will be 82 trips. How is that going to be affected by the final point when Arthrex is finished with their building? MR. SAWYER: That's partly why we're looking at wanting to get Goodlette improved where we've got the two-lane section coming from Vanderbilt going north to the bridge,going from the bridge--in that particular segment,we don't have entrances and exits,so we don't have conflict points. Basically,once you leave Vanderbilt,start heading north,you don't have conflict points,so traffic is free-flowing from that point all the way across the bridge. Once we get past the bridge,then we start getting into where we've got entrances and exits.Those are the conflict points,and they get more numerous as we get closer to Immokalee. So improving that section, that road segment from the bridge north Immokalee to a four-lane configuration as opposed to a two-lane, should give us more capacity for Goodlette. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have a series of letters that designate our traffic levels of service A through F;F meaning failure,D meaning close to failure. What does E mean? Most of the road system in this area,with the exception of Goodlette-- MR. SAWYER: I'm going to have Trinity come up and help answer that one. MS. SCOTT: If I may, I'm sorry,I was not sworn in this morning. If I could be sworn in. Page 35 of 88 October 4, 2016 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We can arrange that. MS. SCOTT: Thank you. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. SCOTT: Thank you. Sony about that. For the record,Trinity Scott,Transportation Planning Manager. E is our acceptable level of service on the majority of our major arterial roadways within Collier County as adopted by our Comprehensive Plan. So it means that a roadway is reaching its capacity but it's not over its capacity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And most of the roads I noticed in Norm's study show these at E. I think there's one D,and I think it's Goodlette,so the rest of it's all at E. Okay. That's all I have right now. I mean,anybody else have any traffic of Mike? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Norm,as a follow-up--I know you've been anxiously awaiting to come back up and answer a few questions. While Mike is here,I've had some questions from your TIS that you've submitted. MR.TREBILCOCK: Yes,sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In part of the project,they indicated that there's 810,000 square feet of medically-related uses on this property,and I can't find where you've addressed that square footage in your TIS. Can you tell me how you wove that into your TIS? MR.YOVANOVICH: Where did we say that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the comprehensive planning memo. I'm sorry. You're right. It wasn't you guys that said it. Our Comprehensive Planning Department said that your statement of compliance has a reflection of 810,000 square feet of medically-related uses. How have you addressed those in your TIS? MR.BOSI: Chair,that statement of compliances says it's 810,000 square feet allocated to the PUD, not all allocated to medical related. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then fair enough. I don't have that exact one in front of me right now,but I will shortly. Okay. It says that the--to ensure new square footage is restricted to uses,a provision has been added to the PUD within the statement of compliance which restricts all square footage beyond 810,000 square feet to restricted to support--to be restricted to support medical facilities. So that means we have 810,000 square feet of nonmedical-related facilities,and all the rest above that would be? MR.BOSI: No,no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you explain that to me? MR.BOSI: In the request it indicates within the commercial. In the industrial there is 550,000 square foot of existing allocated to that individual land use,and then on your business tract,there is currently 260,000 square feet of business uses that are allocated. So that is your total of 810,000 of existing PUD language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's how I can,then,figure out what Norm did with his. Okay. Thank you,Mike. MR.BOSI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And,Norm,let me see-- MR.TREBILCOCK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your improvement analysis,I think Mike answered that,and I think that's all. Sony,I just had that one question on how the 810,000 fit in. I understand now. Thank you. MR.TREBILCOCK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of transportation? Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I don't know if this is for Norm or not,but when they were here in March,they just kept moving stuff around,and that kind of bothered me,because I cannot get the square footage on anything here. At one time it was 620-,you took 70,000 square feet off in March,you bring it down to 550-,now you want to up it 166-. And for restaurants and that type, it was 40-. You wanted to up it to 60-. This was Page 36 of 88 October 4, 2016 just six months ago-- MR.TREBILCOCK: Yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: --and now you're bringing it down to 50-because the restaurants are in place. MR.TREBILCOCK: Yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: The only problem with that is when you came in March, it was already at 48,000, so you were,like, 8,000 over. It's just like you're just kind of moving things around. And to be honest,I was trying to look at this,and I understand all the importance,but this originally was set up for--I've got a million,now,square feet,and I'm coming up with one million 300 and something,and I'm going,wait a minute,and now you're telling us that it's--or Arthrex is telling us it's 300,000 square feet more for this building. So it's just--I can't get a real figure,and I think that's where I'm-- MR.TREBILCOCK: Sure. COMMISSIONER EBERT: How many do you really plan for this whole project? Is it going to be, like,two million square feet? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's not a question of Norm. That's probably of Wayne. MR.ARNOLD: Yes,sir. What's the question that you'd like me to answer? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: She wants to know if you're going to have two million square feet total on that project,or what it will be if it isn't two million. MR.ARNOLD: I'll have to do my calculation,and I can let you know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what we're looking for. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that,we'll move on to public speakers. We're going to start our public speakers. We're going to break at noontime and then come back at 1 o'clock. So I think the first speaker up--I think Mr.Pritt has asked to be the first speaker. He's nodding yes. And I have no objection to that. Ray and Mike,does that work for you guys? MR.YOVANOVICH: Mr. Strain,did you want Wayne to answer the acreage question for you before you go to public speakers or later? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No need to. We'll get it before the day's over. I've made a note of it. Okay. Now,the way we're going to work public speakers is Mr.Pritt represents some of the homeowners associations and groups in the area.He's asked for extra time. It's been granted. He has two professionals that will have a little extra time as well,then we'll move to regular public speakers. Regular public speakers are restricted to five minutes unless otherwise waived,and we intend to hear everybody that wants to talk today. So the best way we can accomplish that is to make sure you have a speaker slip with Mike over here, but we intend to miss nobody before the day's over. Mr.Pritt,it's all yours. MR.PRITT: Thank you,Mr. Chair,members of the Planning Commission. My name's Robert D. Pritt. I'm here on behalf of Bay Colony Golf Club,Inc.,Estates at Bay Colony Neighborhood Association, Inc,Collier's Reserve Association Inc.,and the Foundation at Pelican Marsh,Inc. All of the above are property owners associations owning and/or representing owners of property that is adjacent to or across the street from the Creekside Commercial Park CPUD. I do not represent any of the property owners in their individual capacities;just the associations. My clients have serious concerns about the proposed intensification of development in the Creekside Commerce Park CPUD. Many of their constituents made their investments in homes and recreational facilities in reliance upon an ambiance that is unique to not only the county but also to their neighborhoods. While there's been a tolerance by--for most commercial uses and developments and the associated traffic over the years,it's also useful to note that this is the fifth amendment to the PUD,that's the PUD document itself,most of which have involved development intensity,including an increase in traffic. Immokalee Road from U.S.41 to Goodlette-Frank and actually onto Airport-Pulling Road is one of the most constrained roadways in the county. I don't have,personally,the information on that,but I do wait Page 37 of 88 October 4, 2016 for the traffic light regularly on U.S.41 at Immokalee. In this case,the stated rationale for increasing height and development intensity is for an expansion of the company's headquarters and the creation of jobs. My clients are in support of jobs and progress and applaud the company's commitment to the county. We want to make that very clear. The original requested height was an increase from 35 feet to 205 feet,and only today is it officially being scaled back to 122 feet. I'm not actually sure if it has officially been scaled back. They've made that representation,but I haven't seen it anywhere else other than the representation here and the news and the local newspaper. At any rate,this is still well over a threefold increase. It's taller than any commercial building in the area and possibly in the county. Stunningly,the planning staff had recommended approval at 205 feet,which indicates that their recommendation was and is based more upon political considerations and probably tremendous pressure upon them. I don't know. But it certainly is not based upon professional land use and planning principles. Similarly,the traffic study presented to you is likely understated as to the effect both by the applicant and by the county transportation staff.We just heard from both of them today. I think this is still a true statement from when I put this together. The proposed closure of a part of Creekside Boulevard really exacerbates the already stressed traffic patterns. The application proposes to compromise the sanctity of preserve areas as well as on-site mitigation requirements. We do not think there's any strong need for doing so and agree with the county staff on that count. While we just last Friday saw a possible design of the Arthrex--I think they call it a signature structure or marquee structure on the headquarters building--we saw this in the newspaper--there's no guarantee that it will actually resemble that rendering because the structure will be approved only by the administrative staff. As far as we can tell,that has not changed,so we still don't know,and you do not know, what this is going to wind up looking like. This is--this will be brought to--if the deviation is approved,the staff--this will be brought to the staff,the same staff as those recommending approval of a 205-foot building rather than the Commissioners at a public hearing or even this Planning Commission. It proposes a deviation from county architectural standards,meaning it could theoretically wind up looking like anything for all anybody knows. We're at the mercy of the developer and also at any potential caprice of the developer. My clients have engaged David Depew of Morris-Depew&Associates to testify regarding planning and traffic issues and Brown Collins,an environmentalist,to testify regarding environmental issues today. From a legal standpoint,I raise the following objections and concerns: One,the actual proposal continues to change with new proposals presented,even today,and with a revised staff report released only last Thursday. The briefing of my clients was Friday afternoon. They're only a small portion of all the neighbors in the area. As it is,this is irregular and affects the ability to have reasonable consultation with our experts and to react in a logical manner. Zoning is not supposed to be Helier Skelter,and county staff,until now,has always required a complete application before it goes to a hearing,including to a hearing in front of this board. Secondly,from a legal standpoint,we still think that the special allowance for height and closure of a public road and ignoring environmental standards include--I'm sorry--constitute illegal spot zoning. We raised the spot zoning issue at the first hearing,and we don't think that that has been corrected. Zoning standards and decisions are to be based upon what the proposal is,not who is making the proposal. Contract zoning: We think that the zoning analysis is apparently based upon the contract zoning, which is also illegal. There's a contract between the state and the applicant for job creation that is still secret and a contract between the county and the application for tax relief in exchange for jobs within the county. That could be anywhere in the county. This rezone is hopelessly entangled with those contracts rather than being respectful of the Growth Management Plan,your Comprehensive Plan,the Land Development Code,and just normal principles of Page 38 of 88 October 4, 2016 rational and compatible zoning. Compatibility is at the very heart of zoning.Zoning cannot be a done-deal,so how can the decision makers be fair when it is their own contract that is the support for the application?This would be a violation of the due process fairness requirements. We've heard discussion concerning the Comp Plan and environmental,you know,and some of the other things that are being provided;however,remember that already the government,the county,is contributing up to$5.9 million of taxpayers'money toward economic development. Economic development can be done a lot of ways other than running through--running amuck over your Land Development Code and your Comprehensive Plan,your Future Land Use Element,et cetera. Another issue on due process,the neighbors are not permitted by law to see that state contract. It's a secret contract still,yet they should have a right to comment upon the actions of the local government before the action's taken.That contract is being used as the reason why this has to be expedited,and we've seen several problems with regard to that even today. We heard that they're going to talk with the post office pretty soon. They're going to talk with utilities maybe tomorrow. This is not taken care of,that's not firmed up. The criteria for--that we look at with regard to environmental issues are criteria for you to consider, that they can't be considered by staff. All of these things are victims of so-called expediting of the process. Piggybacking: The proposed amendments are represented as being for the benefit of a good cause, Arthrex,and it's effect on the economy of Collier County; however,a large portion of the proposal does not include Arthrex but instead attempts to piggyback other properties and intensities into this application. And I know we did hear testimony where they kind of tried to cover that by saying,well,you know, the hotel's probably going to be used by Arthrex a lot. Well,a lot of hotels around could be used by Arthrex, so we think that this is a major problem. So my conclusion and request would be,first of all,as to Arthrex building,Tract 5. A,the Planning Commission should either recommend rejection of any increase in height or at the very least limit the increase to no higher than that of the North Collier Hospital building which we believe--and we think we had testimony--we believe that to be 104 feet,but we'd like to have that height to be 100 feet,no more,if you do approve it,and we ask you not to,but if you do approve it,no more than 100 feet overall or an all-in height; B,any architectural plan should be subject to the public hearing,some public hearing somewhere. Either as part of the current rezone or at a subsequent site plan hearing. Architectural standards of the codes must be followed,or a deviation through the public hearing process should be required. There's nothing that was submitted today that tells us,again,what it is that's going to be looked at. So far I have not quoted any cases,but I'm going to now. I'll just do it once. There's a case from the U.S. Supreme Court years ago. It's called Cleveland Plain Dealer versus Lakewood,and that says that a standardless delegation of the authority of the--in this case the Planning Commission or of the County Commission,to the staff is invalid and unconstitutional. There have to be standards. There has to be something to be applied no matter who applies it. And they're asking to be excused from the deviation,to be excused from your standards. So you have--best I could figure out,you have a standardless--a request for a standardless delegation to the staff of--to determine whatever this still mystery building's going to look like. Thirdly,any signage on the building should be modest,and if it must be placed or it can be placed near the top,we would ask that it not be illuminated. We haven't talked much about the sign issue,but that is--that is an issue,and having lighted signs at the top of buildings near neighborhoods can be a problem. Secondly,Creekside Boulevard,the Planning Commission should recommend that it not be closed or re-routed. On environmental--thirdly,environmental preserve areas and on-site mitigation should be maintained and not changed. And,four,as I indicated concerning piggyback or riders,any increase in square footage, development intensity,or traffic capacity requirements for the CPUD that are not directly attributable to the proposed development on Tract 5 should be rejected. Page 39 of 88 October 4, 2016 We've asked that they take that away so that that not be part of this issue. They've indicated they're not going to do that,and we think that that's not fair. That's not anything that needs to be expedited. I said that at the neighborhood informational meeting. That part does not need to be expedited,and we would ask that that not be approved. Thank you. David Depew will be testifying on our behalf,and then Brown Collins. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,Mr.Pritt. MR.DEPEW: Good morning. For the record,David Depew,and I have been sworn. I am a land planner. My office is at 2891 Center Pointe Drive, Suite 100 in Fort Myers,and I have been a planner in the state of Florida since 1980. I've been a member the American Institute of Certified Planners since 1983. I'm the former director of Community Development for Lee County. I have practiced all over Southwest Florida,including in Collier Counties,Monroe County,Lee County,Charlotte County,Hendry County,as well as throughout the state of Florida. I'm here today on behalf of the clients Mr.Pritt mentioned to you. The request that's been submitted,I believe,from my review of the application materials has some significant deficiencies and difficulties in terms of what you're being asked to approve today.Let me go through those as quickly as I can. I know that it's been a long morning and promises to be a longer afternoon. The initial element that I'd like to discuss is the additional 198,000 square feet as described in the submitted traffic study. It indicates there's going to be an additional 3,895 average daily trips placed on the overall network in accordance with the traffic analysis that was submitted for the request. That means there's going to be an additional 202 a.m.peak hour trips which accompanies an additional 384 p.m.peak hour trips. So that talks about an additional 3.37 trips per minute in the a.m.peak,and an additional 6.4 cars per minute in the p.m.peak that are going to be attributable to the additional square footage that is being requested. In this particular area of the county,which has been discussed here,this is a Transportation Concurrency Management Area. You already have,as of May 2016,traffic counts on Goodlette that were 19,266 average daily trips at the count station just south of Immokalee Road. On Immokalee Road itself,east of Goodlette,there were 49,296 average daily trips recorded. On the west side of the intersection over by U.S.41 on Immokalee,you're looking at 22,803 average daily trips. When you get onto U.S.41 north of the intersection of Immokalee and 41,you're looking at almost 50,000 average daily trips--sorry,61,000 average daily trips and 39,000 average daily trips south of Immokalee. So the proposed development is going to add a significant number of trips to an area of the county that already has a significant amount of traffic located inside of that particular district.And the reason I say that is this is in addition to a development that's already there. This is an add-on to something that you already have approved for this particular location. I point out that it also,as part of the traffic study,has a 20 percent rate for internal capture which I think may be overly optimistic,especially given that the project itself is separated by an arterial roadway,a portion of the project that is on the east side and a portion of the project that's on the west side,and yet you're using internal capture, so internal capture is going to have an impact on the arterial roadways. So the Creekside Boulevard removal is a little bit more of a difficult problem to grapple with,but I would point out to you that this roadway is on the 2025 long-range economically feasible map of your Transportation Element. That roadway's there as a two-lane connector,and it doesn't show a circuitous connection,which is what they're proposing here. It shows a direct connection as a reliever for that stretch of Immokalee between Goodlette and 41. By putting in the circuitous route,my belief is that this reliever function on that roadway is going to be severely degraded,and it will no longer function as the reliever roadway that the transportation plan actually envisions. The lack of complete streets and the production of a road system that includes complete streets,I think,is directly counter to the whole argument that we're trying to create some kind of campus at this location,and the applicant has indicated they're not interested or they are unable to actually put the complete streets into the design of the relocated Creekside Boulevard. So I think that's a serious problem. Page 40 of 88 October 4,2016 The project proposes to increase the allowable height,as you've heard just this morning,to 122 feet for the proposed structure. And as Mr.Pritt said,this is a three--more than a threefold increase of what's already been approved.And the lack of the ability to look at what that building is actually going to appear as is,I think,another serious problem in terms of compatibility and consistency with the plan. The additional 166,000 square feet of the development floor area is--got a very good chance of overpowering this neighborhood because there's nothing quite like it in the neighborhood itself. And with that,I want to go over to--I'm there. All right. That's what I wanted. What we did was we took the Google Earth LiDAR material and geo-referenced it to this particular location. And we took a building that was 122 feet above existing grade with a parking garage of three stories at 14 feet per floor. The perspective views that we then are going to show you here are from this elevation of 122 feet. And we didn't try to do anything more than just put a very--very generic facade,because we simply didn't know what the final design was. And you'll see on these various perspectives these are the locations as to where they were taken with the terrain on in Google Earth so that you can get an idea. And we saw in the applicant's presentation what's going to--what it's going to look like on the horizon,and I would submit to you that's not a very good representation of what you're going to--what you're going to actually see with this building. And so we've got the structure at this location with the 122 feet of height. You can see Bay Colony behind it to the south and the surrounding development. This is a view of what you're going to see from the top of the building. You can see into the neighborhoods around there. You can see the No. 10 fairway. You can see some of these homes that are down in Bay Colony. This is what you will see from the top of the building looking to the south. This is what you'll see from the building looking towards the southwest. You can see the tall buildings in the distance over here. Those are the condos down on the gulf. Now,you're not going to see any other buildings in this area that are even close to this height. This tower is going to be the only thing in the area that is going to show you that. Now,this is looking off,then,towards the post office to the west. And,again,you can see the condos over on the beach,and the gulf,but you're not going to see anything in this area that's even close to this size. You can see the post office;you can see the Naples Daily News building. This is the look to the northwest,and you can see across the area into Collier's Reserve to the right-hand side of the screen. This is looking north towards Bonita Springs and,again,you can see into the developments that are across Immokalee Road to the north. And,finally,we've got the view that's east towards Airport-Pulling off in the distance and,again,you can see the developments that are in this area. You can see the residential development that is on the right-hand side of the screen and even past onto--in the center of the screen. So those are--and I have these on the desktop so they'll be left here. There's also a thumb drive down here so the staff will have the presentation. But the point was that--go back over here. The point was simply that this is going to be a major impact on the skyline. You're going to see this building. You know,we can do all kinds of visual studies that you want,but once you get into this building and you're looking out,you can see what--you know,this is going to be a major impact on this particular area. You are setting a new standard for development in this area by the height on this particular building. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Excuse me. Is there a reason you didn't do a view to the northeast,looking at the hospital? MR.DEPEW: None particular. We just-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I was just wondering if it was,like,the same elevation. MR.DEPEW: I can go back and see if you can see it in one of the others. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: No,you couldn't. I looked. MR.DEPEW: There was no particular reason. I mean,we had to cut it off at some point or another. I can do views at 10 degrees. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay,yeah.Because you seem to go--you seemed to box the compass,then you skipped over that. Okay. Page 41 of 88 October 4, 2016 MR.DEPEW: We did it to the north,the east,and the west,but then we did a couple to the south; we did two or three to the south-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Right. MR.DEPEW: --in order to show you the closest residential development and what was happening with it. That was the particular purpose with it. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David,I've got one question for you. MR.DEPEW: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You kept saying, "you can see," "you can see,"and you were using 122 feet.That's called the--it's not the zoned height.The zoned height would be 104,and that's to the top of the--the way it's defined would be the top of the roof which means someone's--no one's going to be up at 122 feet. That's on the outside of the roof. And--let me finish. MR.DEPEW: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And at 104 feet,that's the top of the flat deck of the roof. I mean, someone may go up there occasionally to repair something,but it's not like it's going to be occupied. And they're 12-foot-high rooms,so you'll really be down to about 90 or 92 feet where someone would be standing and looking out if that was what you were trying to portray. I think that--somehow I want to make sure we understand no one's going to be standing on the roof at 120 feet. MR.DEPEW: Right. But one thing, first off,we had a problem because we only found out about this on Friday at 122 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So did most of us. MR.DEPEW: So,I mean,you know,the idea that we got it together over the weekend--I had my graphics guy working pretty hard on the thing to pull it together for that. But setting that aside,the point was to give you a perspective of how tall the building was in comparison to everything around it more than to give you views of everything,but rather to show you the perspective of the building and--the height of the building as it related to the views around it. So,I mean,that really is the key. You can--we can go back and drop that down by,you know, 30 feet,and-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your phraseology was, "you can see," "you can see,"and I just thought,no, really no one's going to see from 122 feet. But if that--I understand your objective now. Thank you. MR.DEPEW: The application is asking for a deviation with regard to the architecture. And part of the point of the views that I showed you there is to show you that this is going to be viewable. It is going to be--you can--you will be able to see this building and,yet,what we don't have is any idea of what this building's really going to look like. And the deviation,I think,and as Mr.Pritt has mentioned,is one that's very important. I think that the views of this building need to be reviewed by the neighbors and by the surrounding stakeholders in this particular area. I think that the massing,the bulk,the facade articulation,and the potential for all of the details associated with this building need to be brought back before the public given the fact that we're talking about such a massive and large structure in this particular area. The applicant's indicated there's 198,000 square feet being added,all of the medical uses,but that's not really how the traffic study analyzed this. And so I'm with you in terms of the issues related to what all the square footage is,because it's not clear to me that the traffic study has adequately analyzed all of the additional uses as medically-related square footage. They've added additional business park uses as well as additional medical uses it,and it's not clear to me that the traffic study and the representations that have been made here today are correct or at least consistent,one with the other. The deviation regarding on-site vegetation,Mr.Collins is going to discuss that. I'm not going to get into that in any detail. I would note that,typically,for a 106.8 acre site pursuant to your Land Development Code,the required preservation area should be 26.52 acres. When you start doing the math of what's there, what's open space,and even if you add in lakes,there's a deficit,the way I calculate it. So I think there's a significant question that's related to what is open space,what is preservation space,and what is the requirement in accordance with the current requirements of the code. They're asking for additional square footage. I think the additional open space and preservation area needs to be met if Page 42 of 88 October 4, 2016 they're asking for additional consideration. Finally,there's nothing in terms of anything that's been done as part of the analysis that talks about what's going to happen during the process of construction of this building. This is going to be a major construction effort in this particular area. It has the potential for significantly disrupting the activities that are taking place,the residential activities that are taking place in close proximity to this building,the placement of cranes,the stockpiling of steel,the traffic of concrete trucks associated with the construction of this building. No one and nowhere has any of those potential disruptions and compatibility concerns been addressed as part of this application. The Future Land Use Element in its goal states that the management plan is a guide to land use decision making so as to achieve and maintain a high quality of natural and human environment with a well-planned mix of compatible land uses to promote the public's health,safety,and welfare. The Policy 5.4 actually states that new development shall be compatible with and complementary to. So it's not just compatibility; it's a complementary relationship between the new development and the surrounding land uses. And I don't think that a three-to-one relationship between the height of the building and the distance around that building is actually articulated anywhere in any of the codes or the plan. So if that's the measurable objective,I think it needs to be articulated a little more clearly,because that's not anything I found in any of my review of the plan. I'm going to skip over a bunch of stuff so that I can get to my conclusions. As demonstrated by the material that's been presented today both by the applicant,by the staff, and in terms of this some of the contentions that have been presented both at the last hearing and this hearing and some of my testimony,I would tell you that I believe the proposed change is not consistent with the Growth Management Plan,or at least at this stage it is impossible to determine whether it's consistent with all of the provisions of the Growth Management Plan. It may be consistent with some,and it is certainly,I believe, consistent--inconsistent with some as it is currently articulated. The proposed development is not consistent with the existing land use pattern. You can see from the--you can see either from what's on the visualizer now or from the PowerPoint that I showed you that there's nothing in this area that's quite like this and will not be like this if this is approved at this level. The lack of the ability to look at the articulated facades and the elevations of these buildings in their final format,I think,is also a significant problem in trying to determine whether or not the development is consistent with the existing land use pattern. We believe that the proposed development with a building that's significantly higher than any other structure in the vicinity will create an isolated district that is unrelated to the adjacent nearby districts. We believe that the current existing approval is the logical response to existing conditions. The existing district boundaries are not illogically drawn in relation to the existing conditions on the property,and they don't deny the applicant of any kind of reasonable use of the property. In fact,by the--again,looking at the traffic study that was presented to you,they still have over 140,000 square feet of medical,dental untouched. They have over 225,000 square feet of business and office park untouched. It's still there to be built. They haven't even begun working on that at this point. So it's simply not--it's not consistent to proceed forward with this in this kind of a fashion based on this. There are no changed or changing conditions that require this amendment. The change will certainly adversely influence some of the proposed living conditions in the neighborhood. The development will add 3,895 trips to a roadway network already in a Transportation Concurrency Management Area. The development is proposing to reroute drainage elements and remove wetland areas that function to manage surface water,and there has been no data provided so far that determines whether this proposed change will create a drainage problem. Proposed construction of a 122-foot-tall building may,indeed,reduce light and air to adjacent areas. The residents in this area have indicated that permitting the PUD amendment will significantly and adversely affect the values and the quiet enjoyment of their property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr.Depew,you need to start to wrap it up. I had worked with Mr.Pritt to Page 43 of 88 October 4, 2016 limit you to 15 minutes and the other gentleman.You've gone well beyond that-- MR.DEPEW: Sony. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --so could you get to your-- MR.DEPEW: I will finish up right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As far as fmdings,we do understand those. We have those ourselves, so thank you. MR.DEPEW: The proposed--I will finish simply by saying the proposed application,I believe, lacks sufficient information to make an informed decision regarding the impacts of the development and,as proposed,I believe it's inconsistent with the Growth Management Plan and violates specific provisions as well as the overall intent of the LDC. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Are there any questions of Mr.Depew? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No,but I do have a question for Mr.Pritt and Mr.Depew both from a standpoint. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It was suggested that there should be some kind of public hearing or architectural review committee of some sort. Now,I've been gone from the county for almost seven years and,as most know,I was on the county staff for about eight. I don't recall of any public hearings for architectural reviews or nor do I recall any--the Board approving any type of public hearings or architectural review committee.Am I wrong? MR.DEPEW: You are not wrong. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Is this something that you're proposing now just for this case? MR.PRITT: We're proposing now--remember,this is an expedited review. You've done nothing like this,as far as I know,in the county. You're being asked to approve a whole lot of things,including a pig and a poke,and there should be some kind of review. And if it's not to be done--if you don't want to have it be done by a separate architectural site plan review,then have them put in,as part of their plan,what this building is going to look like. That could be put right into this,it could be added right to this as an exhibit, part of the site plan that's attached,master concept plan-- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well,wasn't that-- MR.PRITT: --so that it could be reviewed now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going off on a tangent here. Mr. Schmitt isn't aware of the rules that have changed since he was here. You ought to get with staff during the break,and they can fill you in on how we handle these issues,and that way it will make it more relevant to why your-- MR.KLATZKOW: Let's just-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --concern is. MR.KLATZKOW: Let's just put that on the record,Mr.Bosi. MR.BOSI: At the time of the zoning,there is no requirement to submit any architectural--any architectural embellishments or any architectural codes. As part of the zoning process,we do not require that architectural be submitted. It can be and can be useful only to augment an application.It is not part of the requirement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that's not the issue at hand. Mr.Pritt is suggesting that the deviation being requested to allow the staff to do an administrative review of architectural change to the building--this building,first of all,exceeds the square footage in which it would normally come under,our architectural review,so I think they're trying to enter in to say,we want--we may want some changes to the architectural standards. If we do,we want them to be able to have a deviation that says they can do it administratively. Is that what the gist of the deviation is? MR.BOSI: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what the issue is,Mr. Schmitt. Our architectural code limits the size of a square footage of a building that could apply for a deviation. They're asking to deviate from that. Mr.Pritt,did you have anything you want to-- MR.PRITT: I would say it's both. One,this is expedited,and a lot of people out here want to know Page 44 of 88 October 4, 2016 what is it that they're actually proposing.We don't know. That's too vague to be--to even be able to respond to. So that's one. And,two,there are no standards left,that we can tell,that the staff will even be able to apply if this is approved as requested. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So noted,Mr.Pritt.Thank you. Mr.Depew,I appreciate--go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I have one last question. The opening statement by Mr.Pritt, basically your opening statement, summarize it,basically saying that the staff is submitting its professional standards to basically public,or correction,to political pressure? That's kind of what I thought I heard you say. MR.PRITT: I said that that could be happening. When you get--when you have what looks like it's a done deal in something like this,and then the staff is expected to come through and do something,do their analysis,that does enter into it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I just want clarity for the record. MR.PRITT: I'm not saying that the staff has done that,but when you take a look at all of the noise that has been generated prior to this coming up,in the contract between the state that we don't know--we don't even know what it says,and the expedited review,everything's that being done,I would be shocked if there's not a significant amount of pressure that they feel,whether it's rightly or wrongly,and that enters into decisions,because it certainly is not--this certainly is not sustainable on land use and planning principles. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else,Mr. Schmitt? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I wanted that clarified. MR.DEPEW: I believe Mr.Yovanovich wants to cross-examine me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then he'll have to wait till 1 clock what we resume after lunch. So with that,we'll adjourn for lunch and come back at 1 o'clock and resume with the cross-examination,then we will entertain the next speaker up. Thank you. (A luncheon recess was had,and Mr.Eastman is absent for the remainder of the meeting.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike? MR.BOSI: Chair. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good afternoon,everyone.Welcome back from lunch. If everybody will resume their seats,please.We left off with the presentation by Mr.Depew,and we began--we're moving into cross-examination by Mr.Yovanovich. Richard,if you're done talking,you may proceed. MR.YOVANOVICH: I appreciate it. I was talking with Mr.McIntosh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,he's not one of the people standing at the podium over there,so let's focus on what we've got to do. MR.YOVANOVICH: Mr.Depew,I would like to go over some of your professional credentials,if I may. MR.DEPEW: Sure. MR.YOVANOVICH: Are you a civil engineer? MR.DEPEW: No,sir. MR.YOVANOVICH: Are you able to testify to drainage and other related issues based upon your educational background? MR.DEPEW: Not from the standpoint of engineering. Only from the standpoint of planning and site design. MR.YOVANOVICH: So you don't have any ability to testify to the drainage impact of this project on--the drainage impact of this project? MR.DEPEW: No, sir. MR.YOVANOVICH: You would have to rely upon the appropriate district and county staff to review and approve the project,correct? MR.DEPEW: I have civil engineers that work with me. I would rely on them,I suspect,probably first. Page 45 of 88 October 4, 2016 MR.YOVANOVICH: So have your civil engineers done any analysis on the proposed plans for this project? MR.DEPEW: No,sir. MR.YOVANOVICH: Are you a transportation engineer? MR.DEPEW: Not a transportation engineer;however,I am a certified transportation planner and have had training from both Georgia Tech and University of Florida and have been certified as a transportation planning expert in administrative hearings as well as in Circuit Court. MR.YOVANOVICH: So let's talk about that for a moment. Did you review Mr.Trebilcock's transportation analysis? MR.DEPEW: I did,yes,sir. MR.YOVANOVICH: Do you agree with his conclusions that there are not level-of-service issues related to the increased traffic for this project? MR.DEPEW: Based on the methodology used by Mr.Trebilcock,I would say,yes,that is absolutely correct from his study. I'm not sure that I completely agree with some of the assumptions of his study. But based on what he did,I did not find any technical errors in his study. MR.YOVANOVICH: Okay. So you would agree with me that our transportation impacts are consistent with the Collier County Comprehensive Plan? MR.DEPEW: Insofar as that study concludes that,I would agree with you. Insofar as,like I said, whether or not I agree with the assumptions of that study and some of the details of that study,then I'm not prepared to agree with you. MR.YOVANOVICH: Have you done any independent analysis as to the traffic impacts of the proposed project? MR.DEPEW: We have. We took a look at the traffic impacts of the proposed project,and we found that there were some initial concerns with regard to the transportation analysis and the methodology used for the transportation analysis,as I highlighted in my testimony. MR.YOVANOVICH: Have you provided an analysis for us to review? MR.DEPEW: No,sir,I have not. MR.YOVANOVICH: Have you provided any analysis to county staff to review? MR.DEPEW: No, sir. MR.YOVANOVICH: Was today the first time you've ever expressed those transportation concerns to county staff? MR.DEPEW: Yes, sir. MR.YOVANOVICH: Is there a reason why you haven't talked to county staff about transportation-related issue in the past? MR.PRITT: Mr.Chair,I'm going to object to this. This is my witness. I think I can object. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're so noted. Your ground for objecting? MR.KLATZKOW: Hold on. This isn't a court proceeding. Let's just--this is a very informal process,and we're not going to turn this into Perry Mason. I mean,if the Chair's-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm fine with that. I'm just trying to accommodate Mr.Pritt. MR.KLATZKOW: Mr.Chair,it's at your discretion to allow these questions or disallow these questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. We've already agreed to cross-examination. And,Mr.Pritt,I notified you,if you had any questions,we would take them through the chair and get your answers,so... MR.PRITT: Thank you. The reason for that is that everything, including the reports from the county,have come in in the very last few days,and any intimation that he has been delinquent in sending anything to the county-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,Mr.Depew is capable of defending himself in those answers. Mr. Pritt,he could easily have said the same thing if that was the case. MR.PRITT: Well,I don't know that he would.I object. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead,Mr.Yovanovich. MR.YOVANOVICH: Did you review the Collier County Economic--the Economic Element of Page 46 of 88 October 4, 2016 the Collier County Comprehensive Plan? MR.DEPEW: Yes, sir. MR.YOVANOVICH: Do you agree with Mr.Arnold's conclusion that economic development is encouraged by the Comprehensive Plan? MR.DEPEW: Yes, sir. MR.YOVANOVICH: Do you agree with Mr.Bosi's conclusion that the Economic Element is to encourage the expansion of existing businesses in Collier County? MR.DEPEW: Yes,sir. MR.YOVANOVICH: Did you review the Collier County--the Conservation Element of the Growth Management Plan? MR.DEPEW: I did. MR.YOVANOVICH: Are you--do you agree with the provision that says--that Ms.Araque referred to that allows for a deviation to the native preservation requirements based upon beneficial uses? MR.DEPEW: I didn't analyze that issue, so I would have to defer that to Mr.Collins. MR.YOVANOVICH: You started to go into that area, so I just wanted to know how far-- MR.DEPEW: What I was talking about was open space and not the specifics about preservation and the areas of preservation. MR.YOVANOVICH: And I think you calculated the native preservation requirement at 26 acres; is that correct? MR.DEPEW: Something along that range. Let me look at my notes here. According to Section 3.05.07 B1,the required preservation area would be 25 percent for projects greater than 20 acres. MR.YOVANOVICH: Twenty-five percent of what? MR.DEPEW: Twenty-five percent of the area of the project. MR.YOVANOVICH: So it's your testimony that we're required to put 25 percent of the entire project into a preserve area? MR.DEPEW: No. My testimony was that the data provided was not completely clear and not sufficient to make the determination as to whether the full 25 percent of the preservation area that was required by the code had actually been preserved. That was my testimony. MR.YOVANOVICH: Did you review the existing PUD? MR.DEPEW: I did. MR.YOVANOVICH: Are you questioning whether or not the existing PUD requirements are not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan? MR.DEPEW: No,sir. What I'm questioning is whether or not the current request provided the adequate information to make that determination and insofar as I believe that it did not. I believe the application was deficient. MR.YOVANOVICH: Okay. Did you review the height approvals for the PUD applicable to North Collier Hospital? MR.DEPEW: I did,yes,sir. MR.YOVANOVICH: What's the zoned height allowed under that PUD? MR.DEPEW: My recollection for the hospital is that the zoned height was 103 feet. MR.YOVANOVICH: Okay. What about--did you review the--did you review the permitted height within the Pelican Marsh PUD? MR.DEPEW: I did,but I don't have any notes on that with me here today,so I don't recall it. MR.YOVANOVICH: From a professional planning standpoint,is it your testimony that a 104-foot-tall zoned height building is inconsistent with a 103-foot-tall zoned height building? MR.DEPEW: No,sir,not solely based on the absolute height. MR.YOVANOVICH: What about location of properties? MR.DEPEW: I'm not sure I understand the question. MR.YOVANOVICH: Well,do you know where North Collier Hospital is? MR.DEPEW: To the northwest of the subject property. MR.YOVANOVICH: Is it adjacent-- Page 47 of 88 October 4, 2016 MR.DEPEW: Sony,northeast of the subject property. I'm getting back and forth with west and east again. MR.YOVANOVICH: That's okay. I do the same thing. Is it--North Collier Hospital adjacent to Collier's Reserve? MR.DEPEW: It is,yes, sir. MR.YOVANOVICH: Is North Collier Hospital closer to Collier's Reserve than Creekside? MR.DEPEW: It is,yes, sir. MR.YOVANOVICH: And I think you just testified that the zoned height in the North Collier Hospital project is 103 feet. MR.DEPEW: Yes,sir. MR.YOVANOVICH: And we're asking for a zoned height of 104 feet across a six-lane road. MR.DEPEW: One hundred four feet with 122 feet maximum,yes,sir. MR.YOVANOVICH: And what--if you have a zoned height of 103 feet,as you just testified, what's the maximum height allowed? MR.DEPEW: On the--it would--I don't know off the top of my head. I thought it was something like 115. MR.YOVANOVICH: So are you telling me that a 115-foot-tall building on the north side of Immokalee Road is compatible with Collier's Reserve yet a 122-foot building across a six-lane highway located probably 300 feet from Immokalee Road is incompatible with Collier's Reserve? MR.DEPEW: No,sir. I'm not saying anything like that,because I haven't done any studies or analysis of the hospital. I'm only taking a look at the current property,its location,and its juxtaposition with the surrounding properties and what's going to happen with the height at this location for this building. MR.YOVANOVICH: So you've done no analysis of the permitted zoned heights around your client's properties? MR.DEPEW: Certainly I have,but remember this started out at 205 feet. The 122 only came on Friday. So our initial analysis and our full analysis started out with a--with the original request,which is 205 feet. We have scrambled since Friday to try and get some analysis on the 122 feet. Believe me,I did not go into the details on height analysis that I would have had the request still been at 205 feet. MR.YOVANOVICH: So I'm confused. When did you learn that the height was coming down? MR.DEPEW: I think we saw an article,or I was contacted by the client on Friday. MR.YOVANOVICH: Okay. So you had done--had you done a detailed height analysis of what surrounded the properties when the original proposal was 205 feet? MR.DEPEW: Yes,sir. MR.YOVANOVICH: So tell me what the surrounding heights that had been approved in the area are in the surrounding communities. MR.DEPEW: I didn't bring all that information with me because it's no longer relevant to the case. We know that the Naples Daily News was in the 72-to 75-foot range,and we know that the hospital was within the 103-foot range. But I didn't go into any more of the analyses because this had lowered its height down to 122 feet. MR.YOVANOVICH: Is there a reason why you did your sightline analysis from the rooftop of our project versus from the ground level as you had originally done? MR.DEPEW: Yes, sir. We changed our analysis because we wanted to demonstrate what was happening with the height of the building and the perspective of the top of the building and who would be able to see the top of the building. MR.YOVANOVICH: Or what the top of the building could see is really what your analysis showed,correct? MR.DEPEW: Right. MR.YOVANOVICH: Now, from a ground level sightline analysis,what you will see from the Bay Colony Golf course? MR.DEPEW: We did not do that at 122 feet that I have. MR.YOVANOVICH: So you have no evidence today to dispute the sightline analysis that we did Page 48 of 88 October 4, 2016 for the 122-foot-tall building. MR.DEPEW: I do not. MR.YOVANOVICH: Did you do any sightline analysis from the ground level of Collier's Reserve entrance? MR.DEPEW: Not for 122 feet,no, sir. MR.YOVANOVICH: Did you do it for 205 feet? MR.DEPEW: We did. MR.YOVANOVICH: Do you have any reason to believe our sightline analysis for the 122-foot building is not correct? MR.DEPEW: From Collier's Reserve? MR.YOVANOVICH: Yes. MR.DEPEW: No, sir. MR.YOVANOVICH: That's all I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,Mr.Depew. MR.DEPEW: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The next person up would be the environmental-- MR.BOSI: Brown Collins. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Collins,I've got to ask you to limit your time to 15 minutes,if you don't mind. MR.COLLINS: If I take that long,I've failed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well,Mr.Pritt and I had agreement before the meeting started,so I want to try to adhere to it. MR.COLLINS: I understand. Thank you. I appreciate the guidance to start. My name is Brown Collins. I'm a plant ecologist. I have a bachelor's degree in rain science from Texas A&M in 1969,and a master's from A&M in planting ecology in 1972. I have been certified by the Ecological Society of America as a professional ecologist in 1982,as a certified professional soil scientist by the Soil Science Society of America under the American Society of Agronomy in 1983,and I have been a member and certified by the Florida Association of Environmental Soil Scientists as long as it's been in existence. My office address is 2159 Morning Sun Lane in Naples. I have project permitting experience in Collier County since 1973,have worked on a variety of things. And as I look at this,it was interesting because I looked at it initially,and it looked like,hey,we have this mixed-use area here,and there's a few little preserves,and this ought to be pretty straightforward. What I found looking at the preserves and spending time in them and having my staff spend a little time in them is that most of the area listed as preserves on the figures that have been shown to you is exotic. The only preserve on site that doesn't have a consequential exotic presence is the one proposed for impact. The largest preserve in this development,the one proposed for expansion,is strongly dominated by exotics. The county staff report documents this in excellent fashion. And sometimes you see things that are logically--that logically do not progress. Sometimes you see things that are counterintuitive but still right. This just makes no sense to me. We're talking about,we want to take out an area that is unique to my experience in Collier County. It is created by development but serendipitously evolved on into a wonderful little preserve community. What you have at the outer margins of this are veteran slash pines,really good specimens of this species. As you go downslope,you have a beautiful oak hammock,just wonderful,and then it gets into, essentially,a swamp. And if you're a snapping turtle,it's heaven. We--you know,in our times out there,the amount of diversity in this little area is remarkable. Every time we've been out we've seen from five to eight species of butterflies which I didn't expect there at all. The wetlands that are there are,in my estimation,unique to my experience, for sure,in Collier County and more especially in this part of Collier County--and I truly don't understand the logic for impacting this area and adding to the exotic-dominated area. And part of this is we have an applicant in saying we would like a deviation,and we have a track record with this applicant. When they came in for the original Page 49 of 88 October 4, 2016 Did you do any analysis under the Collier County Growth Management provisions ranking the preserves? Did you do any analysis to determine where this preserve ranges? MR.COLLINS: Is "analysis"the right word? MR.YOVANOVICH: Yeah. I'm asking if you did any analysis. MR.COLLINS: No,I'm asking you--I looked at it. I'm not sure--"analysis"to me means one thing. What I did look at is under the criteria for deviations was things that,essentially,you're not going to find--for example,the offsite stuff,you won't fmd this offsite. If you find this again in Collier County, good for you. MR.YOVANOVICH: So if I were to fmd this in Collier County,would you allow me to impact it? MR.COLLINS: It's not my call. MR.YOVANOVICH: Now, do you know whether or not the Army Corps of Engineers or the South Florida Water Management District will allow--give you credit for a preserve where there's an underlying drainage easement? MR.COLLINS: There's two questions. You're asking"allow"or"give you credit." Which one first? MR.YOVANOVICH: No,let's go--well,let's do them both. Let's start with"allow"and then"give me credit." MR.BROWN: I see no reason why they wouldn't allow it. MR.YOVANOVICH: Okay. And now would they give me credit? MR.BROWN: As in? MR.YOVANOVICH: Would I get credit for preserving this land-- MR.BROWN: In what form? What kind of credit? MR.YOVANOVICH: Well,you brought the credit up. So you tell me what you meant--you told me--your question was,there was two questions there. One,would they allow me to do it,put it in a preserve,and then the other was would they give you credit. So why don't you explain what you meant by the word"credit"and then tell me whether or not I will get credit for it. MR.BROWN: I do not,again,understand the question. If you can read the transcript back to me for the sentence,I'm good,but I don't understand where you're coming from. MR.YOVANOVICH: Well,that's all right. I'm just trying to understand what you're saying.We'll move on. MR.COLLINS: Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well done, sir. Thank you. MR.BROWN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Summer,would you mind coming up and responding to Stan's questions? MS.ARAQUE: For the record, Summer Araque,principal environmental specialist. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan had the question. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: How does a preserve get that bad? Does nobody go out and look at it,or was it not done to begin with? MS.ARAQUE: So just bear with me for a minute. I don't have the exact history typed out in front of me,but as part of this review I did a little research,and what I found,that this was addressed--in the process of being addressed through PUD monitoring sometime in the last decade,and then the PUD monitoring section staff kind of dissolved due to the downturn in the economy. And,basically,the PUD monitoring case that was going on just kind of was forgotten about. That's the research that I see when I pull up the PUD files in our system. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Who's responsible for maintaining that preserve? MS.ARAQUE: It would be whoever owns it or whoever--and who it's dedicated to on the plat. That might be a better question for petitioner as to who it's dedicated to on the plat and who owns it. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Does anybody know? MR.YOVANOVICH: I'd have to look it up. I don't know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray,would you mind going to the tax assessor's map site,click on that Page 51 of 88 October 4, 2016 preserve, find out who owns it. And when you do,just let us know. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah,but that doesn't mean that they're responsible for maintaining it. It could be the POA. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,it will be interesting to see who owns it. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Because even the lakes,common water management plan, would be--the POA would maintain even though the person would own the land under the lake. MS.ARAQUE: I can pull up the files in CTS.They're right--unless you know. MR.YOVANOVICH: According to Mr.Gensen,he says he believes it's the POA that has responsibility for maintaining the preserve areas. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And who controls the POA? That Stan's next question. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: How many members are in the POA? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Usually it's the developer and whoever the buyers are of the various lots. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Half a dozen? MR.YOVANOVICH: There are multiple property owners out there at this point,so I don't know. But there are multiple property owners out there.They're all responsible for the POA. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'm curious about something. Can you dissolve a POA unilaterally,everybody just decides we don't want to be a POA anymore? And if you do,what happens? MR.YOVANOVICH: Well,the one thing I learned when I was a young lawyer was to not-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: It's that long ago. MR.YOVANOVICH: --is to not guess because I don't do that type of work,so I cannot answer that type of question. I don't know. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Does the county know? Can you dissolve a POA? Can you dissolve a POA unilaterally? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That might be a Heidi question more than-- MR.KLATZKOW: At the end of the day,there's a code requirement that that area remain free of exotics. So at the end of the day,somebody's going to have to do it. And if there is no POA,it's going to be the property owners in general that are going to have to do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I don't disagree with you,but I think Stan's question's a little different than now. He's-- MR.KLATZKOW: It doesn't matter. At the end of the day,if you want to dissolve it,somebody else is going to have to step in and do it. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And who do you go after? You go after the property owner even though there's a POA supposed to do the maintenance according to some legal document? MR.KLATZKOW: If the property owners dissolve their own property owners association,you would go after the property owners. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Just the one whose property that's on? MR.KLATZKOW: No,this is a PUD. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: You'd go after all the property owners as though they were a POA? MR.KLATZKOW: Yes. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. I was just curious. Thanks. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Stan,wouldn't it be--if there was some kind of legal document that was filed as an easement or to the CDD,or some other association would be the legal entity but,yeah,it would end up the being the property owner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike has-- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I believe-- MR.BOSI: We checked on the property appraiser's office,and it's the Creekside Commerce Park POA/Creekside Commerce Park Property Association is the owner. They also submit the annual monitoring report for the PUD. So I would imagine they probably are the entity that is responsible for-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: So everybody in there has to pull the exotics out of that site? Okay. Thank you. Page 52 of 88 October 4, 2016 MS.ARAQUE: For clarification,that area was supposed to be a recreated preserve,and that was never done. That was part of that PUD monitoring case. There was a planting plan,and they were supposed to follow through with that,but that was not done,and then the exotics came in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think we've certainly well established all those facts now, so thank you. Let's move on to the next--now we'll go to public speakers. For those of you who are going to speak,a couple things. You should have been--if you were here this morning,you would hopefully have stood up when we swore everybody in. If you weren't sworn in,when you come to the microphone,let us know so we can get that accomplished. I also ask that you limit your time to five minutes. Redundancy isn't necessary. If you like what the speaker ahead of you had to say,just simply say you support what the speaker's comments prior to you were, and that is as effective as if you repeated it. So with those things in mind,when you come up to the--when your name is called,if you'd come up to the microphone, spell your name for the court reporter and tell us your address,and we'll move on from there. Mike? MR.BOSI: The next speaker would be George Mutter followed by Andrew Dickman. MR.MUTTER: Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is George Mutter. M as in Mike,u-t-t-e-r. And I'm speaking for the--you asked for my address first. I'm sorry, 12627-- 12627 Collier's Reserve Drive,and I'm speaking for the Collier's Reserve HOA. Before talking about the specifics of the amendments to the PUD,I'd like to make it clear that the Collier's Reserve HOA specifically supports economic growth,generally and at Creekside,and I mention that because in the last week or so there was some assertion made that we were antigrowth,and that's not the case. Our objections are to the current form of the application because we think things can be changed and still accomplish the economic growth. We object to the closing of Creekside Boulevard because we think it's unnecessary and will increase traffic on Immokalee Road and Vanderbilt Beach Road. What I'd like to do is list a couple of these,then I'll come back to some of the specific points. But we think,especially for parcels west of Goodlette-Frank Road, there is not a need to increase the floor area ratio from.35 to .45. We believe that the total height of the proposed building should be limited to 100 feet,and something else that hasn't really been mentioned,but that the signage should be limited,as I believe it was for the Naples Daily News building in the adjoining PUD,or certainly a nearby PUD,and, finally,we support the position of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida that there isn't any need to encroach on the protected area. Regarding the closing of Creekside Boulevard,much has been said,and I think in some measure I would just say that we agree with all of it,that it was a county--that is to say that the county some years ago asked for that road or required that road to be put in,and all I have heard is that it's a safety issue with people walking across the street and the pedestrian,if you will. Just as an outsider,you say we can protect schoolchildren walking across streets on their way to school,but engineers,scientists,and highly paid office people can't cross the street? I mean,it just--it doesn't make sense. Furthermore,it seems that if we're closing that road,we're converting a public benefit to a private use which,again,doesn't seem as though that ought to be the right answer. As to the height of the building and the floor ratio,as Commissioner Strain asked a while ago about who owned all the different parcels or several of the different parcels,it does seem that there's plenty of land that could accommodate the needed space for the additional 560 employees and even for more than that at the existing--at a height of--a maximum height of 100 feet or thereabouts,and at the existing floor area ratio. And I guess I would like to address the--now I'm speaking a little bit more just for myself,but I think the Board would endorse it if I went to them and asked. Mr. Sawyer mentioned earlier today that with respect to the traffic,if we have--I'm paraphrasing here,and not in technical terms. If we have a congested area,his term was,well,we look to a bigger bathtub. I tell you,from those of us who live right near the intersection of Immokalee Road and 41,and Arthrex Page 53 of 88 October 4, 2016 Boulevard as it comes out one side or Collier's Reserve Drive as it's on the other side,we feel like we're swirling at the drain. You know,I don't know where the bigger bathtub is,but at that point it's a problem already. And in an earlier--I think it was in the public meeting,Mr.Trebilcock commented that he knew we had a problem. The objective was not to exacerbate it. It's hard to imagine how it could not be exacerbated. And then the other comments that have been made--I'm trying to think, some of the commissioners, I think,referred to it--about the--how we started out with one thing, and we've had all these amendments to the PUD. I came here three years ago from Ohio,and I have to tell you,I mean,it's been disappointing as a citizen to see that what is 35-feet height one year,then we come back and we say,well,we want this whole parcel to be something more,and we're back a couple years later saying we want this parcel to be something more. It does seem to defy the common sense characteristics of stability of environment. That concludes my remarks. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Next speaker,Mike. MR.BOSI: Andy Dickman, followed by Dalas Disney. MR.DICKMAN: Thank you. Good afternoon.Andrew Dickman,Dickman Law Firm, 809 Walkerbilt Road. And the last name's D-i-c-k-m-a-n. I'm here as a business owner and as a resident. I wanted to come here simply because I wanted to see if you guys could look at this from a high altitude,and the reason is is that my family's lived in this area probably about a mile and a half west of this area. I moved my law office about a mile northwest of this office--of this area,and we frequent this area, this area also at the Vanderbilt area. And it's live,work,play for us.We want to be in the area. We don't want to have to drive all over the place. Our post office is right there. We travel,so I'm going to direct all of my comments to the abandonment of Creekside Boulevard because that's what I'm really concerned about. We use that all the time. We go to the post office. Frequently,we'll go through Goodlette to get to our office and cut through there. Just last week there was a huge crash at Vanderbilt Beach Road,and U.S.41 backed up all the way on 41 to Pine Ridge. Had to go--so easily we could go back through this way. I believe the policy's good planning is to have alternate road routes. I feel that what they are proposing is to privatize what is a public road,and I really don't think that we'll continue to use that road if we're driving through their campus. I was a little chagrined when they changed--when I saw the sign changed to Arthrex Boulevard,but we bank right across the street,we go to Publix right across the street,we go to Trader Joe's,and we were very,very happy when the light was put on 41,because that was an extremely dangerous left turn for a lot of people,left turn coming out of Creekside Boulevard. So the fact that there's a light there,I think is a huge benefit. You've got great housing in Naples Park. This is a very,very--if you look at the Mercato/Pavilion node and this node,it has really grown in the last 10 years. And to take away what is a very important surface road that is an alternate really let's--whenever there's a backup on one of the major roads,it's really going to be a problem. Unfortunately,in Collier County,the structures have been set up so that most communities are gated communities,and they empty out on your major roadways. So this is a real good opportunity to maintain a fantastic node where you have mixed use. Now,I compliment Arthrex,of course. I mean,you need more than a tourist's economy here. I don't appreciate the very polite threat that they had about we'd like to stay,but we may not be able to. I don't know if you heard that. I want to emphasize that in season--and I've lived here,at least in that area,for 15 years.In season, it's triple. I think the traffic engineer said it was--that he jacked it up 40 percent. It's not. It's triple in season. So taking away a very important privatized--to privatize this road is a problem. Now,if they're worried about traffic fatalities or traffic problems,there's nothing wrong with Page 54 of 88 October 4, 2016 traffic-calming devices. Those can go in there. And I've been through there a lot,and I don't see a lot of drag races,because I go to the post office. We go through there. I don't recommend traffic circles,because as you saw the truck,they go up on the apron. Those big trucks leave big,dark tire prints up on the apron,and the landscaping doesn't always look as good as it should. But there are plenty of other traffic-calming devices that you could put on Creekside Road without abandoning it and achieving the same result that they want. I don't think that you're going to find a public benefit for vacating this roadway. I think if you bring 'it through their campus,I think they are going to take over that roadway,whether it's a public roadway or not. I think you're going to see it set up for their employees and their employees only. I have seen their bicycles. I have seen their carts. I think what's happening here is probably in large part they don't want to walk or ride their bikes in the heat of the summer,because I don't see a lot of danger there,to be honest with you. So that is my objection,really. I think Mr.Pritt made some other issues--some other points that I would echo but,really,for me,as a business owner directly north of that,we use our banking directly across the street,and then go to the post office. A lot of my employees go through that area. I think that you'd be making a mistake traffic-wise if you eliminate that roadway,because it won't be used as a secondary arterial. And I think your--the shopping center that's the Granada shopping center,it's just coming back. That shopping center has struggled a little bit.And so it's just coming back,and to have that light there really, really helps. You have Trader Joe's,and then you have all those restaurants in there,and having that light there really,really helps,and that's really what you want to do is really help those nodes. And you've got a lot of live/work/play people that want to be in that area.I drive maybe five miles a day,and I want to keep it that way. So thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,sir. Next speaker,Mike. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Could I ask a question? MR.DICKMAN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: What sort of traffic calming do you--if they lowered the speed limit to 20 and put in speed bumps, speed humps. MR.DICKMAN: I would go for humps,not bumps,because the bumps are a little annoying. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah,tables; whatever. MR.DICKMAN: Tables. I've seen a lot of the blinking-light cross-walking things where someone could press a button,and then you get the blinking lights that tells traffic that they have to stop for pedestrians. There--your planning staff knows all about it. There are other types of traffic-calming devices. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I was just wondering what kind of devices you would still use that road and not decide that they're too much and go somewhere else. MR.DICKMAN: You could do bump-outs with landscaping because you get a lot of shade, because the skinnier the road is,you'd slow down traffic.Right now it's just a straight road. It's a little wide, but I think that you do have to accommodate the cyclists,and that's another thing. I cycle through there. But I don't see--I mean,forgive me,but I use it quite a bit,and I don't see super high-speed traffic going through there. But I do agree that,you know,humps and maybe some other devices would work in that area. And if you have to do traffic circles,do traffic circles. But I'm just saying when I looked at that truck,I know what traffic circles look like after four or five years,and they have to be cleaned because they have tire marks on them. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Thank you. MR.DICKMAN: You're welcome. Thank you for the question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,sir. Next speaker,Mike. MR.BOSI: The next speaker is Dalas Disney,who I do not see in the audience anymore. Then David Bupp,B-u-p-p,then after that would be William Pratt. Page 55 of 88 October 4, 2016 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way,ladies and gentlemen, some of these names were provided on slips from our last meeting that got moved forward,so there may be an opportunity-- MR.BOSI: There's about 34 of them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just keep reading them through,yeah. MR.BOSI: Donna Pratt. MS.PRATT: I agree with whatever they said. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ma'am,if you have to--if you are going to agree,you need to do it on microphone so that we can pick you up. It just can't be done by talking out from the audience. MR.BOSI: Hall-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait. Ms.Pratt's coming up,I believe. MS.PRATT: Donna Pratt,and I'd just agree with what everybody else has been saying for Collier's Reserve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We appreciate it. Thank you,ma'am. MS.PRATT: Okay. MR.BOSI: Hall Cohen? MR.THIRION: He's not here. MR.BOSI: Brian Matting? (No response.) MR.BOSI: Jeremy Morgan? (No response.) MR.BOSI: Jerry Thirion? MR.THIRION: Got one. Good afternoon,Mr.Chairman and Commissioners. My name is Jerry Thirion,T-h-i-r-i-o-n,and I am the general manager of Bay Colony Golf Club; 9740 Bent Grass Bend,Naples,34108. The Board of Governors of Bay Colony Golf Club has voted to oppose the petitioner's application to change the Creekside PUD as presently presented.While we are appreciative of some of the changes that have been made from the original plan,we still feel that there are other issues that need to be addressed,some of which have been brought out,signage,et cetera,et cetera. So I won't go into all that,but we still feel there's more that needs to be addressed. Too many more questions than we have answers. Among reasons already stated and more to follow,we feel strongly that by taking this action we will face severe economic damage to the estates neighborhood relating to the devaluation of residential property and a significant negative impact on the value and sales of Bay Colony Golf Club memberships. Please do not approve this action today.Present residents and members and returning members and residents deserve the right to learn much more about what is being proposed and a chance to voice their opinion. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. MR.BOSI: Next speaker is Bob Fauls. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: He's not here. MR.BOSI: Followed by J.T.Battenberg. MR.THIRION: He's not here. MR.BOSI: Nicole Johnson. And Ms.Johnson will be followed by John Miller. MS.JOHNSON: Good afternoon. For the record,Nicole Johnson,here on behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida and our over 6,000 supporting families. You've heard a lot of different concerns that the community has raised,but the Conservancy is focused specifically on the proposed Preserve Deviation No. 3 seeking leave from the Land Development Code Preservation Standards to allow development extension into 2.3 acres of currently identified and conservation easement protected preserve areas. The Conservancy is requesting that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the preserve deviation based on three different facets:The first is the misapplication of the Land Development Code Page 56 of 88 October 4, 2016 section which is being requested for deviation;the second is the fact that the preserve in question and, therefore,the deviation has no direct link to the Arthrex campus expansion; and,third,that the deviation cannot be appropriately justified. The Conservancy sent you a letter in great detail expressing our concerns,but I want to go through those just briefly this afternoon. First,there's the issue of the Land Development Code provisions,and this LDC section allows under certain very limited,very specific conditions for an applicant to forego the county required retention of native vegetation and to take that off site. The Conservancy was involved when the county was putting together those provisions,and we were, first of all,concerned that they would be expanded and potentially misapplied in the future,but the county staff really made sure that it was for very,very limited circumstances,and those circumstances were for a residential development where the preserve requirement,in its entirety,at the beginning of the process,was not more than one acre in size. For commercial,that was bumped up to two acres. We've seen this applied consistent with code,and it was mentioned earlier,the Landings at Bear's Paw,due to their small and unusual shape of their parcel and the fact that they did have less than one acre in total of required preserve,they took that offsite. We've seen deviations to this code policy.And,let's see,East Gateway,they had come in earlier this year,or I guess last year--time flies--where their total vegetation requirement was seven acres;however, they had not yet gone in and done any of their platting,and so they were requesting that they take two acres offsite. Those instances are very,very different than what you have before you today. In this case,the conservation easement,that legal and contractual mechanism that sets aside those preserves in perpetuity,has already been executed. It was executed as part of the 2013 plat. It was signed by the developer at that time,and it includes the 2.3 acres that are now being requested to be removed from conservation and intensified. That's not the intent of the code.There's simply no nexus there in the Conservancy's perspective. And I do want to point out that this is definitely important for this 2.3 acres,but it's also a much bigger issue. We're seeing with the urbanized area being built out,when you have infill and redevelopment projects,those want to go into preserves because everyone has an important project,a good idea. Preserves are now really being looked at as a placeholder for future intensification,and probably the biggest example of that was when the county looked at and rejected the idea of putting ballfields at North Collier Community Park.Tremendous community outcry on that one. If Creekside Commerce Park is allowed to go in and renegotiate the conservation easement, certainly other applicants are going to want the same. Everyone's going to have a unique situation,a good idea where they want to go in and impact those preserves. A couple of the things that we heard earlier: The idea of the proposed on-site additional recreation of preserve over on the west side of the road. The Conservancy certainly supports additional restoration,but to go in and fill in a lake to restore that area and then go and impact an existing functional preserve on the east side simply isn't appropriate. We've also heard about application of the CCME policies and what qualifies as a preserve or not, and,again,really,that's what you do at the beginning of the project. That negotiation for Creekside was done in 2005/2006 before the original PUD was approved. So we don't need to be going back and renegotiating those things today. And the third issue is the applicant has indicated that their off-site is going to be on a parcel adjacent to Pepper Ranch,and I don't believe that there is any Conservation Collier parcel adjacent to Pepper Ranch, and that's the only thing that the county today allows for offsite mitigation. And looking at the second issue,touching upon the fact that the Conservancy believes that this deviation has no direct link to the Arthrex campus expansion nor the state grant funding and,because of that, it logically follows that denial of this deviation will not impact Arthrex's ability to expand their campus,and it should not jeopardize their state grant funding. At the August 30th neighborhood information meeting--at the August 30th neighborhood information meeting,this was the Arthrex campus expansion that was proposed. Where on there is that Page 57 of 88 October 4, 2016 preserve that is seen as absolutely necessary to this project? It isn't there. You have over here--whoops, sorry. Over here is where that preserve is located. It's not part of campus expansion. Moreover,encroachment into the preserve isn't a new idea,and it did not originate with the Arthrex grant award or their expedited permit application. The same deviation was included in the Creekside Commerce Park PUD amendment that was originated and submitted back in 2014. Prior to that amendment coming to you earlier this year,that deviation had been removed,but it demonstrates that Creekside East,Inc.,the owner of the preserve,has,for a number of years,targeted that preserve for intensification,which begs the question of whether it's appropriate for Creekside East,Inc.,to have their unfinished business coat-tailed on Arthrex's expedited review process. The Conservancy believes it isn't appropriate. Regardless,the bottom line is Arthrex can expand and redo their campus without impacting the preserve,and we encourage them to do that. The Conservancy's final point goes to the merit of this request. There's been a lot of discussion about benefit,overall community benefit,and how that is impacted or not by this Deviation No. 3. And I think that we really need to look at the evolution of this PUD to take a look at that. In 2006, the PUD was approved. In 2013,they came back,and they didn't request any increase in square footage,but they did ask for additional uses,including intermediate care,group housing,and hotel/motel,which will be restricted to the east side of Goodlette Road. At the time,the applicant indicated that a hotel was really,really important,and it would be an important addition to the Creekside campus. The applicant informed the Planning Commission at your January 17th,2013,meeting that the hotel would be located--that the hotel would be located right there. After that PUD amendment was approved--I'll get that at some point. After the PUD amendment was approved,you had the Landmark Hospital go in in the area where the hotel was supposedly going to go. You had the memory care facility go in at Immokalee Road. You had your commercial plaza go in at the corner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nicole? MS.JOHNSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: During the lunch break,you had asked me if you could have one more minute.And I said,well,since you do represent an organization-- MS.JOHNSON: Ish. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --we'll provide some-- MS.JOHNSON: One more minute ish. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's been 10 so far. MS.JOHNSON: It has not been 10. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. I've been watching,so,please,you're going to have to wrap it up, okay? MS.JOHNSON: Okay,okay. I am wrapping up. Now you made me lose my train of thought.That gets me another 30 seconds. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We should penalize you for the long letters you write. MS.JOHNSON: They're fascinating;they really are. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Ish. MS.JOHNSON: So the bottom line is that,you know,Creekside East,they've been well aware since 2006 of what their maximum square footage is,what their maximum area is for development,and they have gone in,and they have put everything besides a hotel within their development footprint. Now,they're coming back and they're saying,we really need a hotel/motel. It's critical. Give us more room,and let us put--essentially,what they're wanting to put in the preserve is a parking lot. It would be a parking lot in the preserve to serve the hotel. This is from the water management and Corps of Engineers'application. Here's the preserve;this would be the portion of the preserve retained,and here is the parking lot. From the Conservancy's perspective,it just doesn't make sense to allow that preserve to be impacted. Page 58 of 88 October 4, 2016 And I had a great analogy,but that's okay,I'll save it for my next letter. And I'll suggest that if a hotel is so important,then there is some space left on the east side--did it again--on the east side of Goodlette Road. This is the area that hasn't been developed yet,but you also have this expanded area. I know that they're trying to lease that for medical offices,but if a hotel is that important, let's renegotiate,let's put the hotel there, or let's put it offsite. There's absolutely no justification for this deviation. I'm going to end with--I promise,I'm ending. I'm going to end with just a couple pictures,because this preserve has really been seen as,I think,rather sterile. If you look at the environmental supplement,it is home to a lot of wildlife,and that's the point of these urban preserves. Not just listed species,but wildlife. And this was a photo similar to this that Tim showed you,and that's a condo for some sort of wildlife. We had a volunteer,Tim Thompson,who just pulled to the side of the road, stepped out on the sidewalk,and after a couple minutes found some great wildlife. I'm not a birder,but I think that's a warbler. Another bird living in the preserve,or at least utilizing it,and a picture of really how nice that preserve looks. So we ask that you recommend denial of Deviation No. 3. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next speaker? Ladies and gentlemen,we'll have to refrain from the clapping. Next speaker,Mike? MR.BOSI: Next speaker is John Miller,followed by George Robinson. John Miller? (No response.) MR.BOSI: George Robinson? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Not here. MR.BOSI: Jim Fischer? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Not here. MR.BOSI: Jerry Carbone? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Not here. MR.BOSI: Ted Nering? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Not here. MR.BOSI: Denise Maccarini? MS.MACCARINI: My name is Denise Maccarini,and I'm the property manager for the Estates at Bay Colony. The address--my last name is M-a-c-c-a-r-i-n-i. The address is 10495 Goodlette Road North, Naples. Our community borders the Arthrex complex in Creekside. The residents in my community were extremely upset at the thought of having a 205-foot-tall building being built in Creekside,and I received many letters and emails from them concerning their opposition. They appreciate the fact that Arthrex has now lowered the height of the proposed building to 122 feet. From the building proposed on Tract 5,the Arthrex employees and visitors will most likely be able to look down into the yards and pool areas of many of the homes in the Estates at Bay Colony. When they purchased or built their homes in good faith,our residents depended upon the fact that there were building restrictions which had been put into place by Collier County for the Creekside complex. They felt comfortable that these restrictions would prevent the type of development which took place on the east coast of Florida. They invested in homes here in Naples because they did not want to live in a place like Fort Lauderdale with large commercial buildings on every corner. Arthrex also proposes closing off Creekside Boulevard so that their employees can enjoy a campus atmosphere. This roadway has been used several times in the past to transfer residents from our community to Naples Community Hospital via ambulance in emergency situations. Eliminating this shortcut could mean the difference between life and death for someone in our community. While Arthrex is a good company for the community,and we applaud their growth and success,we Page 59 of 88 October 4,2016 feel that it should not come at the expense of the residents who have invested substantially to live here. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next speaker? MR.BOSI: Next speaker is Norm Thompson,followed by Shirley Booth. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Not here. MR.BOSI: Andrea Johanssen? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Not here. MR.BOSI: Diane Pleeler(sic)? (No response.) MR.BOSI: Kristi Bartlett? MS.BARTLETT: Kristi Bartlett,for the record. K-r-i-s-t-i,B-a-r-t-l-e-t-t,Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce,2390 Tamiami Trail North. I've had the pleasure of working with Arthrex on this project since its inception through my role at the Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce. And projects such as this do not come along very often, especially to a community like Collier County. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to slow down a little bit. She's got to type as fast as you talk. MS.BARTLETT: Oh,I'm sorry,Terri. This is a highly competitive process,as other states were vying for the Arthrex jobs,and they still do so on a regular basis. The project brings over 560 jobs at an average wage of$54,000,which is significantly higher than the Collier County average wage of just over$43,000. It includes a capital investment of over$63 million. And as David Bumpous referenced,their annual economic impact is$1.67 billion by the year 2020. That's annual,and that's both direct and indirect economic impact. They're planning for their future,one that includes 15 to 20 percent annual growth,and they need the expansion to house these future employees. Regarding the issue of the timeline and the speed at which the project is moving, for the fiscal year--Fiscal 2016 to 2017,the state legislator voted not to fund the Quick Action Closing Fund. This is one of the incentive programs that Arthrex has been awarded. Because of this,June 30th of 2016 was the deadline to have this project approved at the state level. This,of course,has ramifications on the future of the project,as it speeds everything up. So this is why we are moving at a faster clip than we normally would for a project. There also is some questions about the state contract and as to why that has not been made public. This is not dictated by Arthrex nor is it dictated by the county. It is actually the State Department of Economic Opportunity that keeps the contract confidential for 180 days after it is signed. The chairman of the Planning Commission has seen the contract,but it will be confidential until late December of this year. And there is the possibility for it to go an additional year because of the confidentiality clause in the state statute. I also wanted to clarify some of the information that was shared by Mr.Pritt. The county obligation for the state incentives is not 5.9 million. It is actually 1.76 million which,when you consider the$63 million of capital investment,is very,very,very small,and especially smaller than some of the other communities that we were competing against for this project. Finally,a lot has been said about the character of the community. I think the reason why Arthrex has expanded here is because of the character of Collier County,and they love the fact that this is their home,and they're able to provide great opportunities for their employees.They've demonstrated their dedication through partnerships with Collier County Public Schools,Florida SouthWestern State College,FGCU. They have donated millions of dollars to many of the nonprofits in the community. They are also consistently on the list of best places to work.And anyone that you hear that works for Arthrex,they always say it's like family,they love it,they appreciate everything that they receive,and they usually have a lot of retention there,and they don't lose a lot of employees. Finally,Arthrex needs room to grow to continue to enhance our community and support our Page 60 of 88 October 4, 2016 workforce. I ask that you show your commitment to economic diversification and economic sustainability by approving the application. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next speaker,Mike? MR.BOSI: Next speaker,Michael Dalby.Followed by Andrea Kent. MR.DALBY: So,Michael Dalby. I am the president and CEO of the Columbus Chamber,address being 2390 Tamiami Trail North. You've heard much today about this project and its expansion and the idea of making some accommodations to allow it to take place. I can't overstate the public benefit which has been stressed so many times of 560 jobs. These are 560 individuals that you're probably not going to hear up here today because they're not here. They're working. Arthrex employs over 2,000 workers here in the area. Again, that's a lot of public benefit. As this discussion is going forward,our plea is that everything is done that is possible to keep this project and to allow it to go forward to working on both sides of this equation to be able to make it work. They're an amazing company. As Kristi said before me,there is a lot of competition for these kinds of jobs, tremendous competition. These jobs benefit our entire county.They benefit future citizens. They benefit our youth,families that have desires to have their kids come back here and work. These are rare jobs to be able to have in a community. And so,consequently,we fight hard to get this kind of a project to work,to fmd those incentives to make things come together to bring it all here and keep it here. I think it's important to know as you go forward that those jobs are so,so important in every one of our sectors. They cut across hospitality,real estate,retail,business services. So it's not just those jobs that are created,but all the ancillary impacts that happen from those jobs. Now,I can feel some people just going,well,that's okay. We get it. We support their jobs,we just don't want it here,or we don't want it there,or we don't want it in that manner. The challenge is is as you try to fit the project within the existing square footage,the areas that are available,they're actually doing a good job of remaining in this spot where they're at and not sprawling out into some other area but instead saying,we can do this project here,but here's the adjustments we need to be able to make it here. It's a tremendous company,which has done much here in the community in terms of philanthropy, much in terms of overall public benefit. It's the very company that you most want to have these kind of jobs in your community in terms of economic diversification,in terms of trying to add to our economy of tourism and real estate and agriculture to diversify and be able to have these kind of jobs. So,again,my plea is that you fmd a way to approve this and to keep this project moving forward so that we can have the benefits of the jobs here in the community,not only those 560 that will be created,but the thousands of other jobs that are associated with Arthrex. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next speaker,Mike? MR.BOSI: Andrea Kent,followed by Karen Dillon. (No response.) MR.BOSI: Brad Merkel? MR.MERKEL: You got one. Good afternoon,I'm Brad Merkel,M-e-r-k-e-1,and I'm a full-time year-round resident of 12519 Collier's Reserve. I want to thank the commission for the opportunity to speak. I did send you-all an email yesterday. Unfortunately,the new member did not get it. I will do the CliffNotes or the CliffsNotes of the letter and also shorten it up based on what we heard today. The lightning rod for me as a member of Collier's Reserve and a resident of Collier's Reserve is not the tower height;it's the traffic issue. There was a discussion earlier today about the big bathtub. Unfortunately,I don't live in the big bathtub. I live in the little bathtub in Collier's Reserve. I can tell you Page 61 of 88 October 4, 2016 from day-to-day experience,we have a significant issue in traffic in that quadrant today. That's before we have all of the growth that's coming from the west that's already been approved,west of 41 on Immokalee, and it's before we have all the additional traffic coming into this area from the east,which is very significant, and all of those programs have been approved. This is on top of all of those. So any driver counts that are taking place today are not including traffic that we see--will be seeing coming in in the future. So those of us that live it are living a crisis today. So I appreciate rules and regulations that balance the bathtub,but it's not balancing,basically,41, Immokalee,and Goodlette-Frank. Appreciate--sorry. Appreciate the fact that,actually,I've heard by being here today at least three of you really passionately going after questioning the closure and/or rerouting,if we want to talk about that,of the existing east/west thoroughfare of which we have precious few. So thank you for that. In my heart and soul,what I wonder about the commission and Collier County in general is we have so precious few east/west roads already,how can we be considering closing down an existing public thoroughfare for the benefit of a private company?That just doesn't feel right to me. Traffic;that's the big issue. Now,the building height is also an issue.I'm thinking that it's less of an issue now because of this new information that we have. But I would still want to take a real hard look at the 103 feet. When I look at--when I look into Creekside,I don't see the 103 feet of the hospital. I see the highest tent in the pole--pole in the tent being Naples Daily News. And as the gentleman that was here in the last meeting, Richard Crawford,the chairman and CEO of the Crawford Group Development and Real Estate stated,once you give a free pass to somebody going higher,they're going to line up behind it,and your job's going to become even more difficult because everyone will want to get that high. Not only did he say that,that's basically what Arthrex said,you know,to quote in the--assuming that the quote is correct that was in the Naples Daily News that says,with the high price of land in Collier County,we need to grow up and not out. And you heard this morning from Mr.Arnold that that's what's required,and that's--and the people that follow will--even in his own words,was saying that you will--we will end up with a lot of buildings at that height,whatever height we allow. So please keep in mind that that Miamification that we talk about comes if we allow even 103-foot.I personally think we ought to be using the 75-foot Naples Daily News as the bogey,and trying to keep Arthrex to have their growth plan but stay within that height. The third piece is I just wanted to fully support the Conservancy. I think they do a great job,and I'm 100 percent behind them in what's the third issue in this proposal,and that's the environmental issues. I think we certainly should not be touching any of the preserve. Having said that,there's a ton of options left to Arthrex;you know,there's at least three.The one is deal within,I'll say,the 75-foot limit,others might say the new 100-foot limit,but shuffle around within the existing footprint. I also saw today a lot of land that's not being used but owned by Arthrex. They've done some good things,it sounds like,in the past by moving warehousing out. The plan currently says,let's move some manufacturing out. That's the kind of creative things that good companies like Arthrex do. I think they bought the property knowing what the traffic limitations were,what the tower limitations were,and what the environmental constraints were,so let's come up with plan so they can grow but grow within that footprint. If not,guess what? They've got land elsewhere. They can shuffle things around like they did with warehousing. And they can go to Ave Maria,or they can go to Fort Myers. And if worse comes to worst,they can buy some more land. But I really want to stress that I don't think that we can't find together a solution for Arthrex in this area. And,finally,in closing to the Commissioners--and I'll read this--I appeal to your personal sensibilities to protect the character,the integrity,and the value of the Creekside area and the surrounding neighborhoods as though you lived there. Please do not allow the degradation of this public roadway and infrastructure and allow spot zoning that could become the Trojan horse or, frankly--now even from some of the people here today said it will be--in other words,the Trojan horse that allows our skyline not only at Page 62 of 88 October 4, 2016 Creekside but within Naples to change. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,sir. Next speaker,Mike? MR.BOSI: Next speaker is Art Warburton,followed by Blue(sic)Rosoff. MR.WARBURTON: My name is Arthur Warburton, 850 Barcarmil Way,Collier's Reserve, 34110. I am an 18-year permanent all-year-round resident in Collier's. I'm also an owner at Remington Reserve next door,which people here may not know. It's just a small 50-unit condominium development between Collier's Reserve and the hospital. And I think what I was going to say is basically aimed at,please do not close Creekside.It seems to me that back in about 2001 that road was very justified to support the development of the Granada Shoppes, and I think that's just as valid today as when it was agreed to by this commission. The next time it came up was with the Naples Daily News,and the condition there that had to be met was the large truck requirements,the large deliveries. And that was well thought out at that time and,once again,Creekside proved to be an important factor in that decision. And I would say that you made two good decisions. The third one,please don't close it this time. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Next speaker,Mike? MR.BOSI: Blue Rosoff. MR.ROSOFF: It's Alan. MR.BOSI: Alan. MR.ROSOFF: It's Alan Rosoff. R like in rose, S like in Sam,o-f-f, like in Frank. Thank you,Commissioners,for letting us address you and,moreover,thank you for the two-week time--extra time you gave us to prepare.Thank you. I am a member of the Collier's Reserve homeowners board and,moreover,I've been a resident of Collier County for 16 years. Like Mr.Mudder said,we support Arthrex. There's no denial what a great positive impact they have on the county,on the economy,on the quality of life.And if they can use their present campus,great.But the word and the definition of what--or the interpretation of what a campus--a corporate campus to me,and their interpretation puzzles me. This is not an 18th century university with no streets. This is a 21st century corporate campus.And I don't care if you look at pictures of Oracle,Exxon Mobil,Amazon,Microsoft,the Pittsburgh R&T campus, AT&T,all of them have streets through them. People come and go. They might have buses,but they all take into account that cars and traffic are a part of day-to-day business life.This should be no exception. Safety of employees is a factor why they want to close. Well,of course,that's important,and we've all heard alternatives,whether there's speed bumps,calming influences, speed humps. There are also bridges that can go across. Beyond skywalks,just pedestrian bridges so the street is there,and you don't even have to worry about the speed bumps.They're not very expensive and they do work,and we see them all over, especially in a lot of urban business campuses. But I am a little surprised where--the way it's voiced. And not trying to pick a fight,but what Mr. Bumpous said,well,we've had accidents there in the past. Well,why haven't they in the past gone and said, can you put some speed bumps in? Can you put some lights in rather than waiting this long to close the road. And at the end of your presentation,not to pick another fight,there was what I at least interpreted as a veiled threat to say we want to stay here but,if we don't(sic),we're out of here. Well,gee,let me get this. I'm an employee for Arthrex,one of the best companies to work for in America,and now I'm given a choice. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir,could you direct your attention to us,please. Thank you. MR.ROSOFF: Oh,I'm sorry. My apologies. You're given a choice. You can either cross the street,or you can pick up your families,grab your kids out of school,sell your house,and move 2,000 miles. That just does not seem like a realistic option,and I'm a little confused by it. Page 63 of 88 October 4, 2016 But getting back to the--there have been enough conversation about how Creekside was founded, after Granada,how it was changed to accommodate,or the needs of the Daily News. Now,here we are in 2016 where the demand on the road increases,yet there's a desire to close it. And what are those demands? One--you've heard many of them. Let's look first to the Arthrex employees. Though they're moving out 500 employees,they say there are 560 coming in. The 500 coming out are two shifts. The one's coming in are 560. That's more than a 300 increase. So you're going to have 300 people coming in addition during peak hours. Those same 300 people,like all of us who've ever gone to work,are going to be given errands--or have errands after work,whether it's going to the grocery store,they're going to be going to the surrounding shopping centers. They're going to be crossing over,creating more traffic. There is the Daily News. Part of their PUD agreement was to use Creekside for their trucks.What happens now? There's the postal trucks. Again,they're going to have a meeting. Yes,I think the fact that you started talking in May,and it's now--it's now this many months later,they're moving quickly by the postal calendar. But that is going to create incredible problems now that a road is being changed for them. Granada shoppers,enough people have alluded to that,they're more successful again. You have Trader Joe's,you have more restaurants,and there's the talk of at least two additional retailers going in there, and they're only going to create more traffic. So what you have is pressure on Goodlette at Immokalee,at Immokalee and 41,and where we are right at--right at Collier's Reserve. As Mr.Mutter alluded to and others,we already do have a present traffic problem,certainly Arthrex did not cause that,but if this change does go through and there is a closing,it's only going to make the problem far, far worse. And,again,one of their representatives said,well,we didn't cause a problem. That might be true,but it you have eight people in a boat that can only take eight and 12 more get in and it sinks,it doesn't matter whose fault it is,it's cause to take a look and say,what is the effect going to be,the total effect,and how can it be rectified. Last but not least in terms of details,I'm no expert on driving,but I used to drive 35,000 miles a year, and a lot of people who know me would say badly. But what I've learned is people want to take the most direct route and usually the fastest route. And if they're not going to be able to take the most direct route,it better not slow them down considerably. People are not going to take this circular route. That's just not in the instincts of drivers. They're going to go out to Immokalee,they're going to go to Vanderbilt,and that's just going to create more and more traffic. It seems to me that both you-all--please,I don't want to be presumptuous and tell you-all to think or the county commissioners,but this can be a win-win situation. They can truly have the campus that they want,the jobs that they want without impacting traffic. Take a look at the way most business campuses work. They use some of those ways to get pedestrian traffic. Please,look to that,and everybody can be a winner in this. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,sir. Next speaker,Mike? MR.BOSI: William Ebben,followed Gail Garratt. MR.EBBEN: My name is Bill Ebben. I live at 12254 Collier's Reserve Drive. I've been living here about 20 years,and this is about the fourth time I've been in this room discussing this particular piece of property. A little history. All I remember of vignettes like this,Granada Shoppes was going to be just like Waterside Shops. Oh,yeah. Then the next thing was,well,when we put in the Creekside Commerce Park--I remember having a meeting and sitting in a meeting with Mr.Martinelli. We said to him,instead of naming this Creekside Commerce Park,what if we just call it Creekside so it wouldn't look like a business park? He said,great idea. About two weeks ago,I come out of Collier's Reserve,all of a sudden Arthrex signs are all over the Page 64 of 88 October 4, 2016 place,and street--evidently,the county must have approved this--changed it from Creekside to Arthrex Boulevard. You would have thought maybe that we might have got a phone call to say,let's talk about this. Now,as far as traffic is concerned and the post office,I don't know if we're untypical of the 250 people that live in Collier's Reserve,but we don't go to that post office because you can't get in there. We go out,take a right,go to Immokalee,and go up to Wiggins Pass to the other post office because that post office, especially in season,is out of play; is that right? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: The whole town. MR.EBBEN: The other thing,Creekside Boulevard,only because I have a peculiar habit,I'm on Creekside Boulevard six times a week going east and west. Yes,Virginia,there are people walking on the sidewalk on the south side of Creekside Boulevard. There are occasionally some people walking on the east side of what is now Arthrex Boulevard up to,I guess,the post office. I've never seen anybody walk across the street,okay, so that's that. The other thing,I remember I think in this room,maybe one of you or your predecessors said the following,because I remember it like it was yesterday: When we approved the Fifth Third building on the northeast corner of Vanderbilt and 41,we now know that was a mistake because,as you know,that sticks out almost as much as those drawings and pictures that the gentleman earlier said today. So you might think of that. Because there's no question in my mind--and we suggested this the day we had the informational meeting--we could take and plan the 560,000--or 560 more people and whatever the square footage is,and put it on that campus in low buildings. Somebody at the information meeting said,just take your 222-foot building and turn it on its side. I just--I can't believe there's not enough room to do that in that space. Last point,in the other times we've been here,there's been a lot of things said from these kinds of podiums that we're going to do this,we're going to do that,we're going to do this. Well,not to go back in history,but we're still waiting for the air-condition enclosure on the Tyco building,which is now their manufacturing bui--that was never put in. We are still waiting for a couple other things that we were promised. So,please,whatever order you issue,go through the record,please. Anytime anybody has said"we'll take care of that,"please make that a condition of what is done; otherwise,we'll be back here three or four years from now talking against the 15-story hotel that somebody wants to put up over next to the long-term care unit. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. And,Mike,before we go to the next--it's been an hour and a half. The court reporter,definitely with all these variable speeds of speech,could use a break. We'll take a break for nine minutes. Come back at 2:40. (A luncheon recess was had.) MR.BOSI: Chair,you have a live mike. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike,thank you. Everybody,if you could please take your seats,we'll resume the meeting. Thank you. We left off with continuation of public speakers. Mike,will you call the next speakers,please. MR.BOSI: Yes,Chair. I believe--we have nine speakers left,just for your information. Gail Garratt. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Not here. MR.BOSI: Doug Fee,followed by Don Smith. MR.FEE: Good afternoon. This is Doug Fee.I live at 754 Pan Am in the Wiggins Pass area. I wanted to put on the visualizer a picture here. What I'm showing you is a document from your AUIR and particularly in the right--I'm sorry,the top left is Old 41 and 41. One is blue highlighted,and one is green highlighted. The language beside those two are failed on Old 41 in 2019 and projected to fail in 2023. This is county information. The reason why I show you this is,in fact,the intersection of 41 and Immokalee Road has failed. I travel this road on a daily basis. And even in summer,the traffic is quite heavy. Page 65 of 88 October 4, 2016 Somebody mentioned 50,000 car trips. What you have in front of you is a health, safety,and welfare issue,and the reason why I say that is I've spoken in the past about response times on EMS. You have a failed intersection. Mr. Levy,Mike Levy, said that the county needs more time. He also said there's no study on this intersection. Somebody asked the question,Ms.Ebert asked the question,what is the aggregate square footage to Mr.Arnold. I have not heard that answer yet. It's very,very important to your decision making. You cannot at this point--you cannot approve any more square footage at this corner. I can tell you that many times as I'm traveling south down 41 there are three lanes,and if you go to the turn lane,those two turn lanes that go onto Immokalee Road,they're backed up into the third lane of 41,and we're not talking 10 feet,20 feet,30 feet,50 feet, 100 feet;it is way back there. And you can't improve that intersection. There's a turn lane that goes to Walmart,and there's a turn lane that goes to Riverchase. You are putting the public in this general area in an emergency situation. And I'm sorry if this is about a company.It's really not about a company. It's about a failed intersection,and you have to address that.I'm not aware of any expenditure by the county at this point to do anything with that intersection. Now,add that to the fact that they want to--they want to close a road in this area. Folks,if you live in this area,you cannot do that. All of these people,they live in our neighborhood. They know. And,quite frankly,I want to say,I apologize for the EMS not making it to your home. When you have an emergency and you can't get through there,tell that to the family members. And I'm serious about this,because I know some people that have had problems with the response times on EMS in this area. It's a very bad area congestion-wise. Six or seven years ago there was a project in our neighborhood called the Bay House,and I'm going to put something on the visualizer. During this hearing--many of the people in this audience,the whole neighborhood came together--there were two towers that were being suggested on this property at 180 feet. Fred Reischl,who's a planner for the county,as well as Mr.Bellows. Mr. Schmitt would have been at that meeting. Probably Mr. Strain was there. And I just want to read what Fred Reischl put on the record in reference to this PUD amendment. The original PUD was for two 180-foot towers. Staff had recommended denial of the height. The petitioner has reduced the height request from 180 to 86 feet above flood,with flood being 11 feet. Staff feels it is compatible with the surrounding area. The Land Development Code says that the PUD zoning district may depart from the strict application of standards such as building heights. According to planning principles,height is not always a bad thing. At 11 feet higher than a possible neighbor, staff feels it is compatible with the surrounding properties and recommending approval of the 86-foot height. Now,I put on the visualizer where the Bay House is. It's on 41. You can see the yellow highlight as well as where the proposed tower is.It is in the general neighborhood. Now,this is years back,but it's the same plan. It's the same planning people. Why was it not compatible at 180 feet in our area but yet staff,a month ago, said that 205 was compatible for this building? Now,we know that this applicant has lowered it to 120,and I really think that you need to take out of the equation the hospital. The hospital is there for miles and miles and miles,and it needed to be accommodated. To me,it did not set the height limit in our area. This is for a private business,one that is respected but one that cannot change the neighborhood from a compatibility standpoint. If I go five miles south of here to the City of Naples,I believe their height limit is 42 feet. Seems to me that if we give 100 percent,which is 84 feet,we're still granting the right for this homeowner,or this commercial business,the ability to make a profit,do what they needed to do.There's 2,000 square miles. The Fifth Third building at Vanderbilt,when that got approved, Sally Barker changed the Land Development Code of the C4 zoning,I believe it was 125,down to 75 feet. To me,that is your commercial height limit. Even though this is a PUD,to me,it should not stray much from that zoning district,okay. How somebody would suggest 205 would be compatible and have staff recommend approval at 205 Page 66 of 88 October 4, 2016 I don't know how that got done. Quickly,the third thing I'd like to say is about preserves. And all of us living in the Cocohatchee River area,we value our preserves. If you live in a homeowner association,when those PUDs,when that development got approved,it was granted the ability to have units,but along with that,the lifestyle has the preserve,and each of those homeowner associations have to maintain them. I don't see where the county should,after the fact,allow a developer to undo the preserves that are set up when the neighborhood approved the project. We have a project in our neighborhood called Cocohatchee Bay. They got some advantages by going up into the sky. They got approved. But for that,they left property in preserve,golf course. Now after the fact,they want to change. You guys have heard this three or four times. I'm guessing they'll be back,but it's the same issue,okay. The last thing that I want to say is--so please support the Conservancy with the preserves. I saw a movie over the weekend called Sully,and Sully was the captain of that airplane that was landed in the Hudson. And there was a room full of about 100 NTSB board members, experts,and they were all challenging him as to why didn't you fly that plane back to the airport. And they did simulations and there were experts. And in the end, Sully justified that you have to add the factor of human,okay. It's not about simulation. It's about human and the timing of it.And the reason why I raise that is because I believe the issue of our transportation in this area--I don't care how many experts you have who say we've simulated this,we've simulated that.The facts are right now that everyone in this room knows that the corner of Immokalee Road in that general vicinity has failed. And I don't know what the county has planned to deal with that-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr.Fee,you need to start wrapping it up. You've gone quite lengthy,okay. MR.FEE: Okay. So please deny this at this point because at 105 feet,I don't feel it's justified,and do not close the road,and I thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike,next speaker,please? MR.BOSI: Don Smith, followed by James Day. MR. SMITH: I'd like to thank the Commissioners for allowing us to speak today. My name is Don Smith. The usual way, S-m-i-t-h, 9848 Brassie Bend. I live in Bay Colony on the golf course. A couple points. If I may,I'd like to ask Arthrex representatives a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No,you'll have to ask us,and during the rebuttal period,we'll have some questions after all the speakers are done,and one of those may come up during that period of time. MR. SMITH: My question was,what is the R&D budget for Arthrex? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That isn't an item that involves the Planning Commission,so it's not one that we would be able to ask. MR. SMITH: Okay. My point being this: I'm really questioning--I'm not a planning expert or zoning expert,et cetera,et cetera,but I'm really wondering how the Arthrex complex could have possibly been tucked under this quarter-mile radius situation when,in fact,the vast majority of what's being done there is a manufacturing operation,not a--which is why I was trying to separate the R&D piece. You know,if you take this to its extent,you could really say that if I wanted to put a Johnson& Johnson bandage plant--I'm being facetious,naturally--over there,that's,quote-unquote,medical. So I think the definition is stretched as to what medical is. Typical hospital,obviously,wants all kinds of satellite operations for doctors,therapy,et cetera,et cetera. This is atypical in that regard. It really is unlike most,quote-unquote,medical operations as we know them. The second point I'd like to make is we live,as I said,on the golf course and have been residents since 2000. My wife and I are very involved with the Naples Winter Wine Festival,the Immokalee Foundation,et cetera. Combination of those two charity operations produces anywhere from 15-to$20 million a year of dollars that go to the most needy recipients in this area. And,to a certain extent,another way to look at that is that we really stretch the budgets in a lot of ways of schools, social programs,et cetera,et cetera,to the extent that the living conditions for those most needy in this area really are benefited from them. Page 67 of 88 October 4, 2016 Why do I bring that up? A goodly number of the people that we're talking about being impacted real-estate-wise in Bay Colony and Collier's Reserve,et cetera,et cetera,are participants. My wife and I have done the dinners for the Naples Winter Wine Festival for six years running now, and I know a number of the other residents have done the same. And as I said,we'll be impacted; we know that. And I would beg the commissioners to think about the height restrictions so that,basically,that doesn't become an issue as it relates to living in Bay Colony. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,sir. Next speaker,Mike? MR.BOSI: James Day followed by Ross McIntosh. MR.DAY: Good afternoon,ladies and gentlemen. Thanks for a few minutes here for me to speak with you. My name is James Day,D-a-y,34-- 11976 Collier's Reserve Drive. I've been a Florida resident since 2008. I live in Collier's Reserve,but I'm speaking to you,I feel,as a resident of District 2 of Collier County. So that's the orientation,please,of my remarks. I would observe that this is a very fluid project. This is a moving target. I went to a neighborhood information meeting just before I left on vacation,and it was a very much different-looking project than what I hear--read in the newspaper on Sunday. So this must be a considerable challenge for you to deal with your policy and how you're going to handle this situation. I have a concern with the way the Collier County Planning Commission and Growth Management offices are going about doing your job. With immense respect I have for Mr. Strain;you are very,very impressive in how you do this job,and I'm impressed with the quality of people,Mr.Bellows,in your organization; individually,great. But it seems to me that the focus is a bit off. I moved to Naples because of the wonderful character of this area intentionally. I did not go to the east side of Florida. I came here because of the character of this area;not because of its industrial/business infrastructure,but because of the quality of the kind of communities that we have. It seems to me that is the number-one priority that we should keep in mind. When you talk Naples to anybody around this country,if they know this area, "ah,"they think, "great." They think of Bay Colony, Pelican Bay,Collier's Reserve,other places. All due respects,they're not thinking about Creekside Commercial Park. You need to maintain and grow,preserve,improve these kinds of communities and don't take actions that are going to be detrimental to them. Now,I'm not antibusiness. Certainly,we all want jobs in Florida. Certainly,we're happy that Arthrex is located here and that they're a great company,and they're growing their business; great.But they have an adequate tract of land in which to be continuing to operate and grow their business and I'd,therefore, like to offer some comments about the way this whole process has proceeded.And the reason why I express some concerns about your operations. At the neighborhood information meeting that I went to,they were talking about a 205-foot tower. Now we're talking about a different number. But when I examined the memo from the staff that was prepared for the September 15th meeting,which I was not at--I was on vacation--I was amazed to read that they were willing to accept the 205-foot building. Now,I would just observe that there are a number of tracts on this property,and the amendment is talking about increasing the height unilaterally on everything to the west of Goodlette-Frank from 35 feet to 50 feet. I haven't heard much discussion about this here today. And then on the east side of Goodlette-Frank,Tract 9,to go from 35 to 85 feet. So we all tend to focus on,first,205 feet,that will get your attention,but the entire area has a unilateral increase in height. And, frankly,I haven't heard of a good explanation of why all those buildings need to be increased,especially when they're talking about the headquarters tower being quite so large. It would appear to me,just casual observation,that there's plenty of building space there,and there's plenty of ways to accommodate a growth of 560 staff without,first,a 205-foot building,but now--even a Page 68 of 88 October 4, 2016 100-foot building. Your staff said,incidentally,in that report--not the September 23rd report,but the one that must have preceded it--the staff said,quote,because Collier County doesn't have a maximum height limitation, the proposed 205-foot-tall building is not inconsistent with any regulation in the GMP. Therefore,that said to me,hey,they could have come in with a 400-foot proposal,and your staff would have said,ah,it's not inconsistent with anything,so I guess we could approve it.There's a problem here. You need a building height limitation. It's odd to me that there isn't a building height requirement in Collier County, so we ought to get on it now. The change to 122 feet recently made was great to see but,near as I could tell from reading the paper,with all due respect,it didn't have anything to do with either staff,right,or the commission. It was the local communities with the pressure that they put on the applicant that resulted in a change. You have a role to play in all of this. You should not be passive and say,well,they want 205 feet. I guess it's okay,or now it's 122. You should be proactive. You need to set a limitation now,I submit,on building height. We all know the three tallest ones around,Fifth Third,Iberia,and the hospital across the street. Pick your number,whatever it is,85 feet, 100 feet. Pick a number and then stick with it. As far as,again,coming back to this application,I believe you should press the applicant on why they cannot expand the buildings on that footprint to accommodate the growth rather even--than the 100-foot-high tower. One more comment on the environment. That was covered extremely well by the person from the Conservancy. Everyone's commented on Creekside Boulevard.Mr.McIntosh is going to follow me and do a superb job,I'm sure,so I will defer to all the remarks he's going to make. I would like to make a final comment,again,about the process. I live in District 2. I'm represented by that chair to the left of Mr. Schmitt. Incidentally,I'm delighted,Mr. Schmitt,that you are now on this commission.Effective September 15th--and I was greatly concerned before I heard this,that chair was vacant,the one next to him on District 2 is vacant,and District 4 is vacate. Here is a very substantial amendment to a PUD that threatens to change the character greatly of North Naples,and you all are considering it with that kind of vacancy. I feel that I'm not represented.Remember,we had a revolution in this country against taxation without representation. I feel I'm not represented. I argue you should not act on this application until that chair is filled and that person understands the issues well enough. Even worse,if you advance this on--final thought--to the Board of Commissioners on October 25th,that's going to be the last meeting,I think,for three,two meetings? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's second to the last meeting. MR.DAY: Second. It's the ultimate meeting,then, for three of the Commissioners,including the commissioner for me,District 2. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir,I've got to ask you to wrap up. MR.DAY: Okay. I'm just about there. So I'm not represented here on the Planning Commission, I'm not represented on the Board of County Commissioners. I argue no action should be taken on this until that chair is filled and until the Board of Commissioners'posts are filled. So I respectfully urge you to urge your staffs to take a fresh look at all the good quality input that they heard today and fill the vacancies so that District 2 can be represented. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,sir. Next speaker,Mike? MR.BOSI: Ross McIntosh,followed by Jim Carter. MR.McINTOSH: Good afternoon,Mr.Chairman,members of the board. I'm Ross McIntosh, M-c-I-n-t-o-s-h. I live at 933 Barcamil Way in Collier's Reserve. I'm a 35-year resident of Collier County and a 10-year resident of Collier's Reserve. I've asked to have posted on the visualizer my version of the chart that Wayne put up a little earlier. Page 69 of 88 October 4, 2016 You'll notice that one distinction--basically,this is a height list of properties that have come up in conversation and been referred to.I thought it would be helpful if we saw them on a single sheet. You'll notice that what's absent from my list that Wayne mentioned was the 200-foot high-rise buildings at Pelican Bay. They're not on my list.They were on his list. I would observe that folks who bought million-dollar golf course homes at Pelican Bay were aware before they bought their homes by virtue of the master plan there were to be 200-foot condominiums built in the locations that they were built. We,on the other hand,when we bought our million-dollar homes on the golf course,expected 35-foot buildings where a 123-or 122-or 125-foot building is now proposed. I think the--if we take a look at these heights,what we see is that they're all clustered on the south side of 100 feet;that we've had verbal reference to 103-foot Naples Community Hospital. Although the PUD for Naples Community Hospital indicates that it's a 100-foot building,I'm not sure where that three feet came from. But the point is that if you look at the allowances for tall buildings in our part of North Naples,it ranges from 75 feet to,basically, 100 feet. My belief is that the residents of Collier County and probably--I say of Collier County,of Collier's Reserve--and probably our neighbors to the south would be amenable to a building that had an actual height of between 75 and 100 feet,and this right room would thin out in a hurry if that were the proposal. So I would recommend,or I would request that this board recommend an actual height of 100 feet, and that should solve the height issue in my estimation. Something that my chart includes that Wayne's chart did not include is FAR. While I agree with Chairman Strain that there's no need for an FAR--reference to an FAR in a project if,in fact,there's a building square footage cap--this PUD,for whatever reason has it. I think it's fairly evident,by the way,that if we don't need an FAR,then this board should recommend against an increase to .45 since we already have--which has been requested. We should just limit it as it is to .35. What's interesting is I made a--just using simple math,how big is the project according to the county's PUD list,and how many square feet of commercial are approved according to the county's PUD list, and how many square feet have been built according to the county's PUD list. It is possible,then,to determine the FAR of the projects that we've been referring to that have been coming up. And what we discover is that Riverchase,which is the commercial property at the entrance to Collier's Reserve,has an approved FAR of.17--half what the existing approval is at Creekside--and a built FAR of.12. And as we go down this list,we see that the 103-or 100-foot Naples Community Hospital,that PUD has an FAR of.26 versus the.35 at Creekside and a built FAR of.15. This is by virtue of the--this is calculations from the county's PUD list. And as we go down the list,we see that FARs in these commercial areas that we're referring to all seem to be in the low 20's or below with the sole exception of the Naples Daily News building,which has an approved FAR of.38 and has a built FAR of.3. Again,dramatically less than at Creekside. So the observation--the simple observation is that Creekside,not only are they asking for more height,but they've also got more girth. It's a much denser project than its surrounding projects already. I'm not arguing against the additional square footage,but I am simply trying to illustrate that we already have a very dense project in that location. And,again,I didn't hear the answer to where that eight acres came from. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's coming up as soon as the public speakers are done. MR.McINTOSH: Because my--again,my calculations show that even with the proposed additional square footage,the FAR in the project is going to be somewhat less than.35. So,although it's out of balance,it doesn't need to be amended. It can be left at.35. And those are my comments. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,sir. Next speaker,Mike? MR.BOSI: Jim Carter,followed by Dianne Shanley. Page 70 of 88 October 4, 2016 MR.CARTER: Good afternoon,Commissioners.It's a long day for you, long day for us. I have been in those chairs;I know what you're going through. And trying to distill everything that I've heard today, as you are trying to do in your minds,is a major issue here is what we're talking about community character. And what should the height be of a commercial building in Naples? Now,we have a lot of different zones where various heights have been,quote,established but continually varied depending on the situation. And I think it's time that we draw that mark in the sand that says enough is enough. Either we establish a building height for commercial buildings in Collier County and live by it,or we're going to keep going through this same process meeting after meeting after meeting. Because this is not the last one you will hear. Whatever number is established,whether it's 75, 110,it doesn't make any difference,because next time somebody's going to come up with another one and the next time. And so what you get in Collier County is building-height creep. And all we look at is,gee,I don't know what's happening to our community. Well,I know what's happening to our community. We are losing a big element of community character,an area that we have spent a lot of time,energy,and money on. Joe,you were in the commission(sic)when I was a commission,as was Mark,as was Stan. We all have been through this. When are we going to learn to establish a standard and live by it? That's the question. You may not be able to make that decision as a Planning Commission,but you don't have to go forward and accept what is unacceptable. I think the standard in Creekside was set at 75 feet for logical reasons when the Naples Daily News had to have that to put the new presses in.Up until that point,in North Naples--and I have lived in North Naples for 25 years. After the Fifth Third Bank went up,we didn't have any more of those problems,because there was an understanding that building height would be limited. And now we take Creekside,a business park,and suddenly want to change a building height. We also want to change the road. We want to close a road that's open to the public,a public thoroughfare. It was put there on the basis of the Granada Shoppes. All the past history seems to be ignored. We don't seem to learn. We keep making the same mistakes. So I'm saying,don't close Creekside. There are alternatives for Arthrex. And,by the way,Arthrex is a beautiful company;it's a great company. Surely it meets the economic development concerns of this county;no question about that.But they're also a very smart corporation. They couldn't be as successful as they are without figuring out alternatives for the area that they occupy today. Do they have to have a building higher than 75 feet? Are their corporate planners and their architects not capable of staying within the limitations of land that they have? Can they not put an overpass,walkovers over a road if they're concerned about employee safety? I don't believe that. I think they're a great company,and I think they could live within the constraints of a business park that is in the middle of residential communities. Residential communities were there first,ladies and gentlemen. They came after that. So I implore this Planning Commission,as you send this forward,I would ask you,that when you send it to the commissioners,that you deny anything higher than 75 feet and keep Creekside Boulevard open. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,sir. Next speaker,Mike? MR.BOSI: Dianne Shanley,and then followed by Jeff Davis. MS. SHANLEY: My name is Dianne Shanley.That's D-i-a-n-n-e, S-h-a-n-l-e-y. I live at 886 Barcamil Way in Collier's Reserve. I have a set piece that I was going to say,and it would have been really quick and easy for me to read it,but I've heard a number of things here today,and I wanted to kind of address those. So I ask you to bear with me if I do stumble a little bit in trying to figure out my notes. First of all,I do want to say that I was disappointed that this has come up when seasonal residents are away. Now,there was a gentleman who spoke about the employees of Arthrex who aren't here to bolster their side of the story. Well,I would submit that there are also people from our communities who are not Page 71 of 88 October 4, 2016 here. Now,I understand the reason why this was fast-tracked. We hadn't heard anything about that until today. So,yes,okay, fine,I can understand,but still I think these people should have been able to have their say. The other thing is,for the height of the building,a lot of people have said a lot of things. I will say that from Collier's Reserve,I can see the entire hospital,what is it, 104 feet high,if that's the ultimate height with the HVAC and all that on it,I don't know. This particular building is going to be 122 feet with the HVAC.Just saying,I'm probably going to be able to see,and I don't know how beautiful it's going to be. We talked about the roads and closing Creekside Boulevard. Now,it was stated that Arthrex has had 15 to 20 percent annual growth,and they think that their request is going to be good for 10 years. Well,with that kind of annual growth,I don't know,I haven't done the math,but they may be asking for the remainder of the road to be closed,and I think that this is inappropriate for a public road that people use and a company that wants to have that road closed. But the main thing that I want to address--and Nicole addressed it for the Conservancy--but it's a little bit more about preserves. Now,a lot of people get all hot and bothered and think,oh,preserves, animals,birds,big deal;you know,we want business. Well,I've got to tell you,if we're going to get all these, all my baby booming relations that are going to be coming and moving down here,we need to worry about our aquifers. We need to worry about oxygen. And preserves do create water that is filtered for aquifers. It has nothing to do with just wood storks or foxes or whatever,but what we're going to drink. It also has to do with what we're going to breathe. Plants convert CO2 to oxygen. Now,if you want to have all that oxygen in the eastern part of Collier's Reserve--or Collier County, hum, fine and dandy,but what kind of air are we going to have around here? Arthrex,again,everybody is saying,is a good company,and I believe that they are. I've seen things that they donated with other organizations that I work with,and they've been terrific. But they have to continue to be a good neighbor,and I think they have to address these issues that the people here today have come up with. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,ma'am. Next speak,Mike? MR.BOSI: Jeff Davis, followed by the final speaker slip of Donna Reed Caron. Jeff Davis? (No response.) MR.BOSI: Donna Reed Caron. MS. CARON: Good afternoon,Commissioners.Donna Reed Caron,for the record,790 Wiggins Bay Drive. I actually wasn't going to get up and speak today;however,I will just concur that I concur with Mr. Pritt and Mr.Depew and Ms.Johnson and Mr.Mutter and several other speakers who have gotten up here from Collier's Reserve and Bay Colony. I did have one question,though, for your discussion afterward,and that has to do with wherever you get to in height. At the original 206 feet,the building would have required,by the FAA,obstruction lighting on top of it. I don't know now that be it's down to 122 if that still applies or not. I think you need to find that out,because that certainly is going to affect every single one of these neighbors,speaking of compatibility. And I just want to make sure that that's up for discussion and you get some real and true answers on that. For the rest of it,I think everybody's made good points about that road and about the preserve and the serious concerns about height in this area. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And that was the last speaker,Mike? MR.BOSI: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there anybody in the audience who has not spoken but would like to speak? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that,we'll go back to the applicant. There are maybe some Page 72 of 88 October 4, 2016 questions from the Planning Commission members that have come up and about as a result of the public input,and before you get into your rebuttal,we like to ask any questions that we may still have. Stan? Diane? Joe? Karen? Anybody? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I have a follow-up question for transportation when we get-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's go. Well,right now--it's open for everybody right at this point. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Transportation,is--Trinity,are you representing transportation? Who's representing transportation,county staff? MS. SCOTT: We have a team here available to answer any questions that you may have. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You are recommending approval of the elimination of Creekside Drive based on the alternatives that have been proposed,specifically the improvements that are being proposed; is that correct? MS. SCOTT: Yes,we are recommending approval based on it being consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant has proposed a mitigation strategy,and it is with regard to the potential vacation of Creekside Boulevard,which has become a stipulation within the PUD which we required a specific design vehicle be accommodated. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Now,in your review and then the staffs review,there have been numerous comments today considering impact,most of them,of course,subjective in nature,unless you're a certified professional engineer or transportation engineer. I'm asking the staff,have you reviewed and considered,prior to this--I know you haven't since today's meeting,but most of the impacts that have been addressed have been addressed by email or elsewhere. Have they been considered in your evaluation? MS. SCOTT: Yes,they have. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And you still believe that it's in the best interest of the county to vacate Creekside Drive considering-- MS. SCOTT: What I will say is that the vacation is a separate item that is being addressed through another process that will go concurrently to the Board,and there are still items that we are waiting for as far as the coordination with the post office, et cetera,that may alter what portion of Creekside Boulevard could be vacated. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. I heard that,but that doesn't leave me with an answer from the standpoint of--I know what the applicant wants; I've heard what the applicant wants. Certainly there's concerns about the impact. They are--go ahead. MS. SCOTT: The analysis that they provided to us in their transportation impact analysis accommodated for all of the vehicles that--through a prior study,the 64 p.m.peak vehicles,in their analysis with regard to the capacity that would be utilized on the adjacent roadways. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Trinity,you're not closing Creekside Drive,right? You're vacating a portion of it and creating a detour? MS. SCOTT: Yes. It would be an alternative route that-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. MS. SCOTT: --per the PUD,they would reroute it. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I keep hearing you saying you're closing Creekside Drive, but you're not. MS. SCOTT: It would be rerouted-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: You're rerouting it. MS. SCOTT: --based on the design criterias-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: So people would just have to travel a little farther if they choose to? MS. SCOTT: Yes. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Trinity,can I ask a question on this? I did speak with Mike before the meeting started today because of the post office.I did read a quick little email that no one has met with them Page 73 of 88 October 4,2016 yet,but they were not in favor of any of this to this portion. We,today,as a Planning Commission do not--will not be familiar with what is going to happen because it's not taking place. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You said that staff is not in support of eliminating Creekside? COMMISSIONER EBERT: No,I said the post office is not in support of-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,I thought they testified the post office hasn't responded. COMMISSIONER EBERT: There is an email. MS. SCOTT: For the record,Trinity Scott. I reached out to the post office myself to the Postmaster General for the Naples area. Because,as I said,as a separate petition to this,we are reviewing,as staff,the vacation,and so I reached out to the post office to get some input from them.And I did speak to the Postmaster General yesterday morning. And I will tell you that I played phone tag with the gentleman for several weeks of trying to discuss with him,and he indicated to me that he had had some conversations with the applicant and that they had a meeting and that,for some reason on his behalf that he had had to cancel that meeting Friday and they were unable to meet,and that he did copy me on an email that they are meeting,I believe,tomorrow. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But did he say they were against this? MS. SCOTT: Let me see if I can get the exact email. We can pull it up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I'm just curious. I didn't know this information was available. MS. SCOTT: He said that he--he said,I will not entertain any changes that affect my postal operation without on-site involvement,meaning he wanted to have a meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does that answer your question,Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I remember dealing with the post office when they built that building,and I'd rather have a root canal. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So you've been working with government before? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of the applicant? I have one,two,three, four,five,six,seven--about a dozen. Why don't we start with the excess acreage resolution. Could you put the site plan,Ray,that was back on the overhead,probably underneath that one,or the one that just shows--was an aerial with the yellow lines on it. MR.YOVANOVICH: Someone took the exhibit, so we'll get another one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They took the exhibit?That's public record. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It wasn't the guy that was here early this morning,was it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He took it with him when he was hauled out,yeah. MR.YOVANOVICH: I'm not going to ask him. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,there was a PowerPoint that had it on it. MR.YOVANOVICH: But we had a hard copy of it,too,that we were using. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only reason I would like it up there,I'd like whoever did the search and discovery of this eight acres or nine to show me where it is on that map. MR.YOVANOVICH: I've got it,Wayne. You're up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's not the one,but-- MR.YOVANOVICH: Well,that's the current master plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The one I was looking at is the aerial with the yellow dotted lines. That was the outline of the PUD. MR.YOVANOVICH: Yellow dotted lines? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. The one with the outline of the PUD on it. It's a little easier to see what land you're dragging--you're bringing into the PUD that way. MR.ARNOLD: For the record,I'm Wayne Arnold. First,the PUD boundaries are not increasing,Mr. Strain. The question was-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I still don't know where the eight acres is. Page 74 of 88 October 4, 2016 MR.ARNOLD: What you're referring to is the difference on rectifying the acreages. And Mr. Yovanovich said this morning that we're trying to true up those numbers. What happened,the original PUD master plan that was approved in 1997 was a hand-drawn rendered plan that had acreages associated with it. And as this has evolved,Barron Collier Companies,who were the original developers,have sold off tracts of land,and they know exactly how many acres they've sold off to different developers. So the last effort that we were going through back in 2015 that was approved in early 2016,we were attempting to rectify the acreages because we needed to know the acreages in very much detail to determine the wetland and the other upland preservation area impacts. So they were truthing that information on their auto CAD system to demonstrate what they had sold. So we had more accurate acreages than we had back in 1997. We also,in this effort,were vacating a portion of right-of-way,which is about a quarter of a mile long,that's 64 feet wide,which nets you a couple of acres. So in tightening up those numbers, for instance,when Barron Collier Companies sold a tract of land, they sold it including buffer areas that had to be planted as part of the project. When you add in buffers to each of the tracts that were sold for development and you add in the area that was to be vacated,you come up with the difference of the eight acres. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But let's back up, 1997,20 years ago,this plan was done--you said they were,what,maybe a hand-drawn master plan with the numbers written on it. And so you believe that Collier County at that time approved--in fact,you might have been the administrator at the time--approved a master plan for this project without a legal description,tying the acreage of the legal description to the Planned Unit Development-- MR.ARNOLD: No,sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --and that the PUD had all these wrong numbers in it by eight acres,which is worth about a million dollars an acre. So we've lost eight million bucks over the last--now,how does that correspond to the tax assessor's map?I'm just-- MR.ARNOLD: The PUD is 106 acres. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR.ARNOLD: The PUD that's proposed is 106 acres. There's no new acreage added. We tightened up the internal line work. If you look at the original master plan,it had an area set aside for rights-of-way,and there were assumption based on how wide certain rights-of-way might be. We now know Creekside East, for instance,has been platted. We know exactly how many acres that right-of-way is. We know exactly how many acres each of the platted tracts are. So that's the rectifying numbers that we were accommodating as part of this PUD amendment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the change that you decided to allocate the eight acres to happens to be the IC tracts;is that-- MR.ARNOLD: Maybe I can have David Gensen from Barron Collier-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then I'd like to know,once we determine--because you're looking at about eight acres,41 minus eight--almost nine acres.You look at an FAR of.45 against those nine acres,that's a considerable impact,and I'm just wondering how that factors into the overall pictures. MR.GENSEN: Again,for the record-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've picked a really awkward time to decide to rectify the acreage,but go ahead. MR.GENSEN: I understand--understood,but we were trying to make sure everything fell into place. For the record,David Gensen with Barron Collier Companies. Mr. Strain,when the original PUD map was--you can see in areas like where my finger is between the right-of-way of Goodlette-Frank Road and the B tract,that was excluded from the B tract areas. That was excluded and was kept as an open space area. This roadway in between the B and the IC tract,that was included as part of the right-of-way tracts. There is no right-of-way there. Page 75 of 88 October 4, 2016 So what we've done is we've gone back and rectified everything so that based on--the individual tracts do not exclude the buffers. They are included with the tracts that we sold-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You didn't separately plat those tracts then? MR.GENSEN: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ah,okay. That's why today we ask people to separately plat the tracts. Okay.That makes a lot more sense now. So that's basically the 8.77 acres that's shown on the last line on this page? MR.GENSEN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR.GENSEN: And so everything is--as far where it's come from, it's all fallen back into where it was. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No,I understand it now. I just--now that you've explained that,that makes it crystal clear. Thank you. MR.GENSEN: You're welcome. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah,because I had called Wayne last week to--because I couldn't find the acreage either,and he was going to look that up and get back to me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,Wayne did something else for you,too. He's got an answer to your total square footage. MR.YOVANOVICH: You know what,we're doing really-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got to use the mike,Rich. MR.YOVANOVICH: I'm going to let--Mr.Gensen's one for one. I'm going-- MR.ARNOLD: Again,Wayne Arnold. The question was how many existing square feet do we have that's been-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes,total square footage for the whole project. I think that's what she was asking for. MR.ARNOLD: Today Mr.Gensen has looked at all of their records for what's been sold and constructed,and it's approximately 734,000 square feet that's been constructed to date. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know if constructed was the question. But,Ms.Ebert,is that-- MR.ARNOLD: Approved for the PUD. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well,I was looking at the TIS,and it's--you know,this is how much you have;this is what's built. Out of the 400--out of 400 beds,only two-something were built. I'd have to go back in the TIS and look. And the hotel hasn't been built yet,which I understand,but when you're moving everything around like you were doing--and I know it was not counted,but you also took--you're changing the business along Immokalee Road and putting that into the commercial. It's just--it's very confusing at the way that you were doing things--and let me just see if I can't find this. MR.ARNOLD: Well,Ms.Ebert,part of the difficulty you have in comparing just the straight PUD, which has IC designated parcels and B designated parcels with uses,is that when we prepared the traffic impact analysis that Mr.Trebilcock prepared,he has to make assumptions. And we know how much the commercial shopping center square footage is, for instance,because it just got constructed and CO'ed,so we know that square footage. He can assign the use code for shopping centers to that for traffic impact purposes. The same for the intermediate hospital. We know how many beds are constructed to date. I think you'll look at his assumptions. He looked at the total maximum number of hotel rooms,for instance,that aren't built,but that's part of his analysis,the same as the intermediate-care hospital. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. And then on this--then I was looking at the proposed development plan,too,which is on the back. You have the miniwarehouse,which is 151,000 square feet. It shows in the PUD but I--that's what's so confusing about this. That's why I called you a couple times, because it was not adding up. You're saying we have how much built already? MR.ARNOLD: Approximately 734,000 square feet has been built to date. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And you want 300,000 for this building? Page 76 of 88 October 4, 2016 MR.ARNOLD: The proposed Arthrex headquarters building would be approximately 300,000 square feet,but keep in mind they would be demolishing about a 116,000-square-foot building. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's the grand total of the square footage that you're proposing to put on the 106 acres? Can you just give us that number? MR.ARNOLD: Well,I'm going to have to make an estimate based on--the hotel, for instance,is expressed in numbers of rooms and numbers of beds for the intermediate care. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fine. Take a stab at it.Let's just see if we're in the ballpark. MR.ARNOLD: Okay. Full buildout looks like it's going to be 1.3 million square feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do you know .3 FAR gives you 1.616? And then you're going to .45,which will give you 2,000,077. So why the increase in the FAR? MR.ARNOLD: Well,I think the question is what you use as your basis for calculating the FAR. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One hundred six times 43,560 times.45. MR.ARNOLD: The way the PUD is expressed,Mr. Strain,I believe it says the IC and the B parcels. So if you add those acreages together,it's substantially less than the 106 acres. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Explain that again. I know it's less,but what I'm saying,you've got plenty of room in the.3. Where do you--where are you--and that's why this FAR is getting kind of messed up. I'm not sure now,since Ross brought the issue up,why you need the increase from.35 to.45 if.35 will hold all the square footage you possibly could want. MR.YOVANOVICH: The problem is this PUD is calculated on net developable acreage versus every other PUD that's on gross acreage. So we don't use the 106 to calculate what it is. We're using roughly 50 acres to come up with the allowable square footage. If we did it on a purely--the 106 acres,we'd be fine with the.35. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: At one point in the many amendments this project went through in the past, there was a discussion about increasing the square footage,and part of the argument from,I believe--I don't know if you were on the team,but the PUD application at the time was that,well,you know,our project can go to.35,and if we increase the square footage as we're asking,we're still not exceeding that .35 overall. That's why I'm trying to correlate the.45 now to the overall,because if that's a backdoor way into increasing beyond the maximum you're already asking for,we'd like to know it now. MR.YOVANOVICH: It is not. What happened was,when we--and I was on the team,and when we were doing the math back then,the 810,000 square feet fit within the.35 on the net acreage calculation. So what we're saying,if you're going to continue to go with a net acreage calculation,to add the 198,000 square feet we want to add,we need to bump it up to the.45. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or you need to include a total square footage this project will have to abide by,period,and that will be the cap,and then we'll have something to relate to from now on. MR.YOVANOVICH: Which would include--would that include the hotel rooms-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whatever way--and if the hotel has to be done on an FAR--and I know the ALF is a.6,I believe. MR.YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not sure,if I remember correctly--those are some exceptions,but it would be nice to work it in a direction that we're customarily used to rather than the unique way this project has evolved. So that's why--you don't have that number either today,I would assume. MR.YOVANOVICH: No,I don't know what that number would need--the.45 on a net basis works for us,which would include what we expect for the hotel square footage as well as the buildout of the, you know,assisted living and others. So the.45 on that net acreage works. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I'm concerned that if it's greater than the actual square footage that could be computed based on whatever amendments happen,that that's going to be again used for an argument to increase the square footage because,gee,we can do .45. Last time it was,gee,we can do .35. The square footage doesn't come up to that,so let's give us the rest. MR.YOVANOVICH: Mr. Strain,I'm sure there will be other questions,so let's see-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,yeah. MR.YOVANOVICH: Let's see if we can calculate a number for you that would say overall square Page 77 of 88 October 4, 2016 footage within the entire project is X. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike? MR.BOSI: And I don't know,maybe I'm oversimplifying this analysis,but there's 810,000 square feet that's currently allocated to this PUD in square footage. And they're requesting 198,000 additional square footage on top of that 810,000.My calculator says that's 1 million square feet-- 1,008,000 square feet. I'm not sure--it seems it's pretty straightforward. MR.YOVANOVICH: But it doesn't include--Mike,it does not include the hotel rooms,and it doesn't include the beds for the ALF. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right,but we can leave those as values as they're currently stated-- MR.YOVANOVICH: Exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --excluding all the other square footage. At least then we've got a handle on it. MR.YOVANOVICH: That would be it. I would recommend 1,008,000 square feet,because that's the 198-plus the 810-,right? Is my math right? Plus the hotel rooms that we've currently got in there plus the ALF beds. And then you know your numbers.We don't need to deal with FAR anymore because you know your numbers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I'm trying to get to. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have another question then--because Mark asked earlier. Arthrex owns Tract 6. I'm sure they plan on building there. MR.YOVANOVICH: And we have to keep within the 1,008,000 square feet allocated in the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Anyway,so we'll set this aside for a minute,but you guys look your numbers over. Staff,if you guys could check this against--for a discussion after we finish with the rest of the questions,then we'll get back to it. There was a question about the signage as it relates to the Naples Daily News. Has this project for this building,the taller building--I don't recall any requested deviations from the sign code.They're just going to be strictly what the sign code allows,right? MR.YOVANOVICH: To the building? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR.ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Someone say yes. MR.ARNOLD: We have not asked for a deviation from signage for this project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then it will be restricted based on the code. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Didn't I read somewhere,though,with the--with the Arthrex sign itself,a monument sign,there was some kind of a deviation for the monument sign? MR.BELLOWS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that's already a past deviation,isn't it? MR.ARNOLD: That wasn't a deviation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah,it was a statement. MR.ARNOLD: There were designations of minor versus major project entry signs. We designated one at the corner of Creekside Boulevard and Goodlette-Frank Road from minor to major. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: One other question on the sign,Wayne. I know it's 200 square feet,but they can put two on the building. Some people's concern was because you--because of the way it's situated, it could go towards the top,and you can have a lighted sign. So you've got 400 square feet,200 over here and 200 over there. Is there something that we can put in there that it is not going to be at the top of the building in the Arthrex-- MR.ARNOLD: Ms.Ebert,all I know is what I've heard Mr.Bumpous tell us,which is that they haven't really even looked at building signage requirements for this building at this time but prepared to work within the limits that the code provides. Page 78 of 88 October 4, 2016 COMMISSIONER EBERT: So that's 200--400 square foot lit? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know what the code provides offhand,without looking it up. MR.ARNOLD: I don't know what the code provides either,but if that's the correct number, it is. But whatever the LDC provides for and whatever our PUD may provide for, so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The traffic issues,can you put that yellow dotted aerial back on that shows the outline of the PUD. If you can't do it--somebody must have a copy of it. It can't be that hard. MR.YOVANOVICH: Well,apparently it is. I may have done this the old-fashioned way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Terri saved the day. Thank you. Okay. I've got two questions involving traffic from this sign--from this page. First of all,the point made by Mr.Depew was interesting,and I want to explore it a little bit. He said that the capture rate may be applicable on the east side of Goodlette Road,but the west side,how do you explain it there? And maybe you didn't do it that way,but I'd like some clarification on that. MR.TREBILCOCK: As far as the--you still will capture traffic across. You're not traveling across,you know,miles of roadway to get from Point A to Point B. So,you know,you're just crossing a singular roadway to get back within the site. So we would still consider that as a capture for the property because you're not having to go down miles of roadway or anything like that internally. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,then you should get the credit for the capture of any site that you have alongside another site that has shopping center. MR.TREBILCOCK: No,it's internal to the property and the parcel. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,it's not internal.It's got a public road going through the middle of it. How does that make it internal? It's like two separate projects. The one on the right is more of a shopping center style,and the one on the left is more of an industrial park style. And you looked at them both as though they were shopping center capture rates; is that correct? That's what I'm trying to find out. MR.TREBILCOCK: No. The shopping center was a pass-by,and that would be a car traveling down the roadway would stop into the shopping center on the way,or to the gas station,so that's a pass-by rate. The internal capture would be somebody that,say,at the hotel,they're going to go into--they're going to go into Arthrex to get training for the day. So they're just going to cross Goodlette-Frank to get in there. And so we're capturing that trip. They're not going out on the roadway for miles like a--you know, typically,when we look at a project,there's certain vehicle miles traveled for any individual use,and you're not looking at that in this case.You're bringing it right in and through. I mean,there is a crossing element. I get that. But the point being is you really are not putting them out on--you know,three miles of road might be an average thing for a given use of travel. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That makes it clearer. On this particular map, see the words"Immokalee Road"up on Immokalee Road? MR.TREBILCOCK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're right at Goodlette.Just below the R on"Road,"is that a left turn only into Creekside? MR.TREBILCOCK: Yes,it's a directional left,uh-huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So if you're heading east towards 41 and Immokalee Road,you can--if you know the community,you could take a left there,pick up Creekside,go down through that development,catch the light at Goodlette and Creekside,go across and head over to Trader Joe's or whatever else is over there,you may--or even 41 to try to avoid the traffic at 41 and--at 41 and Immokalee Road. MR.TREBILCOCK: Yes,sir,uh-huh. Once there's-- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: However,you'd have to take that brief detour. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,that's what I'm trying to understand. MR.TREBILCOCK: Right. It's-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you make a left,go down,make a right,go straight through the intersection,make a right,make a left,make a left,make a right,you eventually get there. Page 79 of 88 October 4,2016 MR.TREBILCOCK: Right. A lot of folks,you'd rather be on a two-lane roadway than being on a six-lane facility even if it may be a little circuitous. The key there,though,is with that--with this design, you're going to get the folks that are not going at the high speed rate that are just trying to cut through. They're leaving a 50-mile-per-hour roadway to another 45,and they're not about to really want to go 30 miles per hour as we post them to do. I mean,that's a reality,and that's really what we're looking to address here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I understand. MR.TREBILCOCK: Yes,sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the--oh,were you involved in the Naples Daily News or the Granada Shoppes PUD? MR.TREBILCOCK: Not directly,no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you wouldn't know about any of the Creekside commitments in those two PUDs? MR.TREBILCOCK: I've reviewed the PUDs for both of those,and that's where,like,Granada Shoppes had the obligation to close out 107th Avenue on the side--on the residential side so that that wouldn't be a pass-through. Now,that was a public roadway. That was a public street that was closed as part of a PUD process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. As far as the Naples Daily News requirement,isn't it for the truck traffic to come in off Creekside,and that's why the turn-- MR.TREBILCOCK: Yes,sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --radius are being amended so that they can continue to do that? MR.TREBILCOCK: Yes,sir. And there's time frames. It's also to--also to internally go from Granada Shoppes which wouldn't be affected here as well because you'd still have the access through Granada Shoppes. So there is no effect there or anything, so they could still utilize that. And to your point,that's the other reason we'd have to do the roundabouts like Trinity said to the higher standards. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's all I've got of transportation. Thank you. MR.TREBILCOCK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The exhibit that you guys used to show the architectural style of the building,do you have any problem with including that as an exhibit to the PUD? MR.ARNOLD: Again,this is Wayne Arnold. While Rich and Mr.Bumpous are discussing that point,just to keep in mind,these records get copied in black and white and recorded,so the translation of those documents doesn't do very well,has been our experience. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,you know,I thought that,but I went to see some records lately,and they were in color. Do you know if they've changed that or not? MR.ARNOLD: I don't know that,Mr. Strain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because I thought they were coming out in color now. What's your answer,Richard,to the question? MR.YOVANOVICH: Well,as long as they're conceptual architecture,because we haven't designed the interior of the building yet,so we don't really know the final,but the concept--we're okay with the concept. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that would be helpful only because I'd hate to see you turn around and have a heavy stuccoed Spanish Mediterranean tile roof building seven stories high,not that that's ever going to happen,but who knows what in the minds of architects could come up with. So at least this would have some idea of what was at least presented at a public meeting. MR.YOVANOVICH: If you're talking about the style and design of what we've shown you-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR.YOVANOVICH: --then that concept we're fine with. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: FAA lighting. Ms.Caron brought up an issue. Is anybody on your team familiar with that particular issue and how it might or may not apply to this? MR.YOVANOVICH: I'm looking around for help. Page 80 of 88 October 4, 2016 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought Summer was coming up. MR.YOVANOVICH: I did,too. I was getting excited. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know whatever regulations are required to be met,you'll make them,and I'm not sure there's anything that is involved at a hundred and whatever,22 feet,if that's the number that comes out of here. MR.GENSEN: For the record,David Gensen,Barron Collier. The research that we've done so far has shown that anything that is 200 feet and above it requires marker lighting. So under the original concept for this,we would have had to have done some lighting of the facility. Now that it's under the 200,obviously,we can forego that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'll be honest with you.I did call the FAA because of the heliport--I did not realize the hospital had a heliport--and spoke with a Lana. And you're right,at 200 feet you would need obstruction lighting on it.Bringing it down,they're not sure,but they still need the information on it because of the heliport. I don't know whether the hospital has any lighting on it or not. But it was a concern because it--that would be the tallest building around so--and it's like within,like,a 2,000-foot barrier,so those are--but it's your team that has to answer that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I think the last issue was verification that the square footage cap and the--with the exceptions of the hotel and the ALF,which are set by FAR,is whatever it is. Do we know what that number is? Are we still satisfied it's whatever number Mike had? MR.YOVANOVICH: It was the-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 1,008,000. MR.YOVANOVICH: 1,008,000 square feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It doesn't include the hotel or the ALF,which will be consistent to whatever calculations are in the PUD. MR.YOVANOVICH: You mean as far as beds go and room numbers? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR.YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then that would eliminate the need for the references in the PUD for the FARs. MR.YOVANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which is a kind of convoluted reference anyway the way it's managed, so... Okay. Well,that gets us past a bunch of questions I had. Does anybody else have any questions? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I just have one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So the PUD,when it first started development,the owner put Creekside in,the road in,built the road,and turned it over to the county? MR.YOVANOVICH: Actually,it's a--it's interesting. The road is privately maintained,but there's public access. So it's owned and operated by the POA,but it's not--I mean,it's not--I don't think the county--the county does not physically own the road,and we maintain it. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay. So they could gate it? MR.YOVANOVICH: No,we couldn't. There's public access. (Multiple speakers speaking.) COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: --or gated,and that's why this is a problem. MR.YOVANOVICH: It's a public access. It's a road available and open to the public,but it's not maintained by the public. It's maintained by the property owners within Creekside. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So they will slow down if they have to loop around the buildings? MR.YOVANOVICH: Yeah. I mean,the bottom line is, it's 40 seconds to deal with the--during the realignment,and that's still up there. You can tell. You're talking 40 seconds to go from Goodlette-Frank Road to U.S.41 based upon the recirculation plan. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: To me it's traffic calming,but... Page 81 of 88 October 4, 2016 MR.YOVANOVICH: You know,I'll just kind of go into some of the points I wanted to make,if it's okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,no. It's your rebuttal. I wanted to make sure we're finished with all the questions first. And is everybody done with their questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then it's your--you have a 10-minute rebuttal,so... MR.YOVANOVICH: How long? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll start at 10 minutes-- MR.YOVANOVICH: I don't need that long. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --and when you get to an hour,I'll ask you to slow down. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Stan's going to sleep. MR.YOVANOVICH: Regarding traffic calming or closure of what we're a--public thoroughfares, as the public has called it,which is a scary term when you are going to have a business that's going to have that many employees going back and forth--is not unusual. When you look at Collier County,there was the Foxfire community. That used to be how you could--one of the ways to go from Radio Road to Davis. The community got concerned about all the cut-through traffic that was happening, so you closed Foxfire. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Pine Ridge. MR.YOVANOVICH: That's third. Next was Countryside. Another cut-through,and I used to live in that part of town. And,believe me,I used to use both of those ways to go from Radio Road to Davis. They were closed because they became thoroughfares,and they came safety-related issues.It took a little bit longer to find your way to the--Publix at the time was on Davis Boulevard. So it took you a little bit longer to get there,but it's not unprecedented to close cut-through streets. Then you have the Pine Ridge community that I live in,and we closed Carica,which used to connect to Orange Blossom,because people were cutting through,and it was--became a thoroughfare. Same thing with Center Street a little bit further south in Pine Ridge. People used to cut through to get to U.S.41. They closed a portion of Center Street because people were cutting through. And I think what has evolved is this road has become a lot quicker in speed that are(sic)people are using it,and we're basically saying,it's a condition that is unsafe and inconsistent with how we want to develop our campus. You may not agree with how Arthrex wants to develop its campus,but that's how it wants to develop its campus to expand its operations here in Collier County. And you're talking about 64 peak-hour trips that we've assumed that every one of them is going to stop using this road,which we don't think will happen,because who's going to go from the south up Goodlette-Frank Road,go to Immokalee Road,wait at the traffic signal,take a left,maybe get stopped at the traffic signal at Arthrex and Collier Reserve Boulevard,continue onto 41,probably get stopped at that traffic signal--because we've heard testimony that there's backup of traffic there--take a left south to go to Trader Joe's?Not going to happen. That's way more than 40 seconds. You're going to--if you're coming that way,you're either going to Vanderbilt Beach Road,where nobody's complaining about traffic on Vanderbilt Beach,or you're going to continue to come north and cut through on Creekside Boulevard recirculated. So we think people are still going to continue to use that road or find their way there through Vanderbilt Beach Road,which nobody's complaining about handling any additional trips. But we've assumed that everyone used Immokalee Road. There's been no competent transportation testimony contrary to what Norm testified to regarding traffic impacts with this project or your staffs testimony as to the traffic impact,and your staff is recommending approval of the recirculation of Creekside Boulevard. From a height standpoint,the Board of County Commissioners has adopted a height of 112 feet for commercial buildings in the Triangle. The Bayshore Triangle zoned height is 112 feet. So if you want to look at what's been established to date for commercial buildings not on the beach and not east--not west of 41,that height has been established at 112 feet zoned height. We're at 104 feet zoned height. So if you want to look for what's already allowed,we're consistent with that. Page 82 of 88 October 4, 2016 I think that Mr.Depew conceded that what we're proposing is compatible with and consistent with what's already in the area. When he--I asked him those questions,and you heard him say,I'm not saying that what you're proposing is incompatible with what's already in the area. Wayne's testified that it is compatible. Your staff has testified that it is compatible. So the competent substantial evidence is all there that the height we're requesting and the traffic calming that we're requesting are all consistent with your Comprehensive Plan. We've met our burden under the law and under your code,and we request that you approve both the height we're requesting and the traffic calming that we're requesting. Next comes the preserve. Your Comprehensive Plan says,for beneficial uses,which we submit Arthrex and related uses to support Arthrex's mission,which would be the hotel,are beneficial uses,and the impacting of that preserve area is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. That's for the Board to decide whether they think this beneficial use is worth impacting 1.35 acres of preserve in this area. Tim has given you detailed testimony about that preserve. We think that everything we're asking for--actually,we know that everything we're asking for is consistent with your Comprehensive Plan. It's been supported by the expert testimony that we provided,and we request that you recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners of the PUD that we've presented to you with the reduction in height that we've taken into consideration,not be by pressure from our neighbors,but in response to their comments,we went back and made modifications to the project in response to those comments; 122 feet actual height, 104 zoned height,and we stand by those changes and request that you recommend approval of those changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. With that,is there any other questions before we close the public hearing? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes,yes. Rich? MR.YOVANOVICH: Yes,ma'am. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Because we had an extra two weeks,I went back and got the PUD for the Granada and for the Naples Daily News,which that road was important. But at the time they were also going to put a hotel by the Granada Shoppes,and they would reduce their thing because hotel was there. I happened to be on this Planning Commission in 2013 when it was brought here and you added the hotel. And Nicole was right,you were going to put it there,but then you changed your mind. But it was important,and everybody thought it was important to be on the one site that you did put the long-term care on,only because--for people that were in the hospital or people coming to Arthrex. And I have spoke with different people at Arthrex who--they do need a hotel in the area. So--but then it wasn't put there. So now you're just--you just kind of want to say,okay,but we're going to put it over here. We changed our mind. And I'm going,that--I think that--how should I say? The hotel was very important,and it was very important in 2013. Why you didn't put it where it was supposed to be,I have no idea. But there's two places that it could have gone ahead of time. MR.YOVANOVICH: Was that a question? I mean,I don't know if I'm supposed to respond to that or-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well,no. I'm just telling you it was important then,and you said,yeah, that's what we're going to do,and then you didn't do it. MR.YOVANOVICH: We haven't done it yet.There are things--you know,things take time to occur. And the plans are for there to be a hotel.If you ask Arthrex,they'll tell you they used to be able to book rooms three years in advance for people that they know are coming. Now they're down to they can get a one-year commitment from a hotel.That's a problem for them in how they go about doing their business. They need certainty. COMMISSIONER EBERT: We even mentioned it about putting one on 951 and Immokalee Road. It's because more and more people are coming,and sometimes people don't have rooms in their home.We need more hotels. MR.YOVANOVICH: Exactly. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are you finished? COMMISSIONER EBERT: At this point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,no. If I close the public hearing,we need to be done with the-- Page 83 of 88 October 4, 2016 COMMISSIONER EBERT: Close,yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --interaction with the members of the public and the applicant. Okay. With that,we will close the public hearing and go into a discussion. Just for organizational viewpoints,there are some issues that are broadly considered for this project. There are other--three main elements that I think have come to the surface. One of those is the height,another is the preserves,and another is the Creekside Boulevard. I might suggest that we discuss each one separately,take a recommendation--vote for recommendation to the Board on each one separately,but we also look at some of the general issues that can be applied to this PUD to make it better or clean it up. I've made some notes as we've gone along through the last six hours or seven hours. Well, first of all,whatever we do--and I'll lay them all out,and you guys can pick them apart or add,do whatever you want to do,but I'm just going to get it off--get it going for discussion. Whatever we do will be subject to a DCA for transportation,no matter how things come out.They'll also be subject to an easement for a water line that's got to be worked out with the utility department,they'll be subject to concurrence with the post office because they're a property owner currently having access off of Creekside,and they'll be subject to a--I said a utility agreement. That's the water line. We're going to add the rendering as an exhibit just for concept purposes,and the PUD's going to be modified to eliminate the FAR and,instead,add a total square footage for all uses of 1,008,000 square feet except the hotel and the ALF;they'll be utilized as currently written in the PUD. Now,those are the five general statements that pertain to the whole thing,and then we get into the three issues that really are the bulk of the discussion today. The first one is the preservation. There's a deviation request for a preservation. There's a request by--recommendation by staff not to support it. We've heard plenty of testimony on it today. Does this Planning Commission have any comments on that? Mr. Schmitt? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I would recommend disapproval of the proposal. I believe it's a misrepresentation of the LDC. I believe it basically is a precedent-setting decision that would have significant adverse impacts throughout the rest of the county in regards to application of the LDC. Based on that,I would recommend disapproval of that deviation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Ms.Ebert. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I fully agree with you,Mr. Schmitt,and I'm glad you made the motion. So any other discussion? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'll make that into a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,I thought that was a motion. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It was discussion,but I'll make that a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion. Ms.Ebert,do you second that? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I second that motion. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Are we voting on all of these separately? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. We're voting on the three high points separately. That's just to keep it straight,because we may not all be on the same page. Based on the discussion up here,I can tell-- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So that would be recommendation of denial of Deviation No. 3. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Ms.Ebert. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Page 84 of 88 October 4, 2016 COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-0. Okay. So that deviation's denied. The next item up is the height,and the request has been for a zoned height of 104 feet and an actual height of 122 feet. Discussion on that point? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I do have one little question on that,Mark. Normally it's like 10 to 15 feet. This seems higher than that. Is there--see,I like actual between the zone and the other. It's 104,and so if you add the 10 feet,it would be,you know, 114,and they want 122. Why the extra? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I believe it would be--that's the height over parking,and it's-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Oh. So it's going to go over parking? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I believe there will be some parking,and typically it's above the base flood elevation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: FEMA. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Thank you. I did not realize they were going to put parking under there. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's two to three floors of parking,I think they said in the beginning. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And I believe that's correct,though. That was what--typically the difference is the FEMA height,then the height over parking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other discussion? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That brings back lots of years of memories on that. That's--I can't believe all this is just coming back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're not as old as you thought. Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I am. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the discussion is on the height. I would support the height as well.I think from the economic advantages to Arthrex it's a--it's a good thing to make sure they stay here, and if that's what it helps to take them to stay here,then we've got a good product out of it. So I'm in favor of the height as well. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm in favor of the height. I trust Arthrex will construct a building that is compatible with the community,with the architectural standards. I support the--that the rendering be an exhibit,and if they at least comply with the outward appearance of that building,I think it will be very compatible with the design of the buildings in the surrounding area,and I support the height as proposed as adjusted and now proposed of 104 feet, 122 actual. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion for that? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I make that motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Karen. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor,signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-0. The height is supported. Page 85 of 88 October 4, 2016 The next one up is the closing of Creekside Boulevard for the piece that is in question. It's not actually,as Stan pointed out,closing. It's a rerouting of it. Is there discussion on the part of the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well,I support it. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And I cannot support that one. This has become--especially,I think, since Trader Joe's moved in--which they even need a bigger parking lot. But this is a countywide thing. And to say that just kind of reroute it around, if you're coming north from Goodlette,yeah,then it wouldn't be bad,but when you're coming Immokalee Road,it makes a big difference. And so that I cannot support. They can put a pedestrian skywalk in. They can put a light--a pedestrian walk light where it stops when the people cross,and that's what I recommend there. I cannot support closing that. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. Stan,then Joe. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I support--every one of the 160-something letters I got objecting to this project all said how great a company Arthrex is,how good a neighbor they are,and what an asset they are to the community. And I think I can do that--I travel that road quite a bit. I think I can do 40 seconds more of travel just to get them this detour. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: From a design standpoint and from an Arthrex perspective,if I were them,I could make this as difficult as possible to trans--to have traffic go through there by restricting width, by chicane or other type of calming devices almost to the point where I would force the driver to prevent going that direction because it would take longer. I believe what they are proposing to create the campus environment is a positive aspect for the work environment and for what they're proposing,and based on the traffic improvements that they're proposing at the other intersection--I won't go through all those because they're on the record--and that I trust that staff will hold those commitments and make sure that they comply with those commitments,I support the closure of that road. I leave it up to the Board to determine whether they'll vacate,but I support the proposal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that a motion? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That is a motion,yes. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second it. Motion made by Joe Schmitt,seconded by Karen Homiak. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor,signify by saying aye? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those opposed? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. And I'd like to state my reasons for my opposition. I don't believe the applicant provided his case adequately. The parking garage was--acknowledged for the tower's going to be on the north side of that road. There is no plan shown that really effectively used the area where the road was, so I can't understand why the road would be that hard to put a path over it. The traffic counts were taken at a time of year when it would show the least count instead of a practical count. The traffic engineer could not recall any specific study looking at some alternatives that could have possibly been used to leave the road in place. The post office has not yet signed in--signed off on the closing of that road,and there are other PUDs that depend on the road. So the case has just not been made clear.That could change between now and the Board,but for my purposes today,I didn't see enough evidence to that effect,so for that reason I vote no. Page 86 of 88 October 4, 2016 And with that,we've already--we have the five subject matters: The DCA;the water line easement; the PO--post office concurrence on the accessway through Creekside if--and it will be--because it's a majority vote/recommendation,that would be a recommendation then;the rendering as an exhibit;and the change of the square footage,removal of the FAR. Is there a motion to include all those as recommendations,as general recommendations? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe. All in favor,signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-0. Thank you,all. MR.YOVANOVICH: Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes,sir. MR.YOVANOVICH: I'm a--this has been a little bit different kind of voting process,which I'm fine with,but we'd also asked for the deviation for the architectural so that it would be staff review for architectural deviations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think anybody objected to that. MR.YOVANOVICH: I wasn't sure if that was in your general-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything--the only things that we subjected out specifically in my mind were the three items were specifically found that are more controversial. MR.YOVANOVICH: Just wanted to make sure that's the consensus of everybody. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Unless somebody on this board has any concern over those other deviations,nothing else changed at this point. MR.YOVANOVICH: Thank you. MR.KLATZKOW: Before we break on that,can I get clarity what we're talking about? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR.KLATZKOW: So,Richard,the thought process is that--the thought process is that the architectural review done by staff,right? MR.YOVANOVICH: Right. MR.KLATZKOW: That's an administrative decision,correct? MR.YOVANOVICH: Correct. MR.KLATZKOW: So that decision could get challenged and go to the Board of County Commissioners. MR.YOVANOVICH: Correct. MR.KLATZKOW: Okay. MR.YOVANOVICH: That's the current process in the LDC. MR.KLATZKOW: Okay. I'm just--just for clarity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,not really. MR.KLATZKOW: Because I've known people who have been saying-- MR.YOVANOVICH: Well,it is for other buildings except ours,right. Yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: One other thing. Is this going to be heard by the BCC on the 25th? Is this what everyone is planning? Because I'm sure the people here will want to know that. MR.YOVANOVICH: We've no plans to not have it heard on October 25th. Page 87 of 88 October 4,2016 COMMISSIONER EBERT: So if they object,then it is up to them to come to the BCC meeting;is that correct? MR.YOVANOVICH: October 25th,yes,ma'am. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Everyone,that takes us to the end of our meeting. Thank you,all, for your attendance and participation. MR.BELLOWS: Can you repeat the vote for the entire amendment taken in-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Five to oh in favor of the entire amendment. We separated out three items to highlight,and then we took separate votes on those three just to be safe. MR.BELLOWS: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. With that,the next item up on the agenda is motion to adjourn. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Oh,I thought there was something else. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I make a motion to adjourn. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're all out of here. All in favor,signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-0. ******* There being no further business for the good of the County,the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:14 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 U.S.LEGAL SUPPORT,INC.,BY TERRI LEWIS,COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. Page 88 of 88 October 6,2016 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples,Florida,October 6,2016 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 Stan Chrzanowski Diane Ebert Karen Homiak Joe Schmitt ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V.Bellows,Zoning Manager Eric Johnson,Planner Heidi Ashton-Cicko,Managing Assistant County Attorney Tom Eastman,School District Representative Page 1 of 54 October 6, 2016 PROCEEDINGS CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning,everyone.Welcome to the October 6th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If everybody will please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Will the secretary please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. Good morning. Mr. Eastman? MR.EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Chrzanowski? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ms.Ebert's here. Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ms.Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And,Mr. Schmitt? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We have three items on the agenda today. Item 9C is the Annual Update and Inventory Report,or the AUIR. I asked staff if they had any objections to us continuing this until the next meeting,which is October 20th,due to the impacts we've had this week and documentation involving both the Tuesday meeting and today's meeting. They have no problem with that, so I just need a motion from this panel to continue CPSP-2016-1 to the meeting on October 20th. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I make that motion. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor,signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The motion carries. That item will be moved to the 20th. The other addenda to the agenda,it looks like Mr.Anderson has a request,and I'll need concurrence with the Wawa representative today or the party representing them if Mr.Anderson is to succeed. MR.ANDERSON: Thank you. I also am here on the second petition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,are you? Okay. MR.ANDERSON: Yes,thank you. Mr.Chairman,my experts got caught in hurricane traffic coming down from Fort Myers.They're parking now. I was going to ask you if you could take the second item up first. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only--because the agenda was posted,I'm just concerned about anybody that may not have known the order of the agenda and was waiting a bit to show up for the second one. The Wawa gas station location,is anybody here to discuss that item on the agenda? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I see one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One gentleman. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Two. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Two,okay. Well,it looks like they did make it here,so I don't have any Page 2 of 54 October 6, 2016 objection then,as long as the rest of the panel doesn't. Anybody here care about the order? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce,since you are the attorney for both,I think that will work out. So we're not there yet. Give me a minute. MR.ANDERSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the addenda to the agenda,9B will be first;9A will be second. Planning Commission absences. Our next meeting is October 20th. Does anybody know if they can't make it to that meeting? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,it looks like we're good. Approval of minutes. There were none on record. BCC report? Ray? MR.BELLOWS: Yes. For the record,the September 27th BCC meeting,the Board of County Commissioners moved from their summary agenda to the regular agenda Vincent Acres,that was a PUD rezone,and that was approved 5-0 subject to the Planning Commission recommendations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Chairman's report; I don't have anything new to report other than it was a long day on Tuesday. ***There's no consent-agenda items,and we'll move directly into our first item that's been moved to No. 1,which will be 9B. It's PUDZ-PL20150000342. It's the Price Street CPUD located at the southwest corner of U.S.41 and Price Street. It's also known as the Wawa site location. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item,if you intend to speak on this item,please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. We'll start down at Tom's end with disclosures. MR. EASTMAN: None. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Oh,I talked to staff,but that's about it. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes,staff,briefly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I had conversations with staff,at some point. I'm not sure just--I'm just going to say that just in case I did or didn't. I had talked with the applicant's representatives,Mr. Anderson and Alexis,and I think that's about it. Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Just Commissioner Fiala. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I have nothing. Spoke to no one about it,just-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's because they didn't know about you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah,they didn't know I was going to be a Planning Commissioner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have risen. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I have risen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes,you're here. It's good to see you back as always. Okay. Let's move right into the discussion on this one. Bruce,it's yours for presentation. MR.ANDERSON: Thank you,Commissioners. My name is Bruce Anderson from the Cheffy Passidomo Law Firm. And with me here today is Dan Hughes,one of the principals of Metro Price; and I also have with me Alexis Crespo,planner with Waldrop Engineering;and Norm Trebilcock,our transportation engineer. This application is for a six-and-a-half acre property that is already zoned C3 and C4 and agricultural. The property's located at the intersection of U.S.41 and Price Street. This property is next to the activity center at U.S.41 and Collier Boulevard. More than two-thirds of the property is already zoned commercial. Page 3 of 54 October 6, 2016 There are three buildings proposed,one of which would be the upscale Wawa chain convenience store and deli with fuel pumps. My client has worked closely with the closest neighbor to address any questions or concerns that they might have,and that homeowner supports this project. We are in agreement with staff on most matters. There are,however,just a few issues that we have not reached closure on,and they're mainly deviations,and I will ask Alexis Crespo to come up and dive into those. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS.CRESPO: Thank you. Good morning. For the record,Alexis Crespo with Waldrop Engineering representing the applicant. I'm just going to start by introducing the proposed master concept plan and discuss the proposed uses,location of the Wawa convenience store and fuel pumps in relation to the surrounding properties. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you blow that up a little bit so we can follow it better,or is that just as big--oh,I'm sorry. It's a PowerPoint.I didn't know if it was on the Elmo or not. MS.CRESPO: I can put it on the Elmo as well if-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's just we can't read it up here on these screens. And I know we've got a copy,but it's nice to follow you with that screen if we can. Now,if you could zoom in on that,Dan.Keep going. Okay. That gets us about where we can read it all. Thank you. MS.CRESPO: Thank you. The proposed fuel pumps are located closest to U.S.41 with the approximate 6,000-square-foot Wawa food store directly to the south of that. There are not any fuel pumps within 500 feet of the subject property;therefore,we're not subject to those additional review criteria passed through the recent ordinance in 2015. I've highlighted the perimeter buffers in green for ease of review. We are providing the 25-foot enhanced fuel station right-of-way buffer along U.S.41,which includes berms,shrubs,as well as trees. We're also providing the required 15-foot Type B buffer where we abut the bank property to our east in this location. In terms of the other uses on the site,we also have a commercial retail building also oriented towards the U.S.41 frontage that is limited to 7,500 square feet,and we have limited uses in your Exhibit A of the PUD document to prohibit adult entertainment,pawn shops,and tattoo parlors,so that would not be allowed in any of the buildings you see on the master concept plan. The last building I'll point out is the larger,20,000-square-foot proposed commercial retail building. We have tried to orient that internally to the site,move it off of Price Street to the extent possible. We are providing the code required 15-foot right-of-way buffer along that property line,and we've also located our dry detention stormwater management areas in between the right-of-way and the building to further screen the rear of that structure. I'll note that we did proffer on Page 4 of the PUD document to further limit auto repair services and more intensive auto services in that building due to compatibility with the neighborhood. As Bruce noted,we have access from U.S.41 and then a secondary access point from Price Street. We worked closely with your transportation planning staff to get that Price Street access as far away from the U.S.41 intersection as possible in order to mitigate any impacts to that intersection,which is having some difficulty and is the subject of a current study. With that,I'm going to get into the deviations. I might switch back over to my PowerPoint it that's possible. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,that took you a while to put that together. MS.CRESPO: Do you see it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. That's what I'm saying.It's kind of blank. MS.CRESPO: Kind of blank. Not good. Okay.We'll just go ahead and work off-- MR.BELLOWS: How's that? MS.CRESPO: Oh,good. Page 4 of 54 October 6, 2016 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There we go. MS.CRESPO: The first deviation is for a request for a secondary primary facade on the side of the building shown in yellow on your slide.This is in relation solely to the Wawa building.The code requires for this specific parcel,due to the irregular shape and the view sheds from 41 and Price Street,that three of the four sides of the building are primary. Wawa has no issue doing enhanced primary facades on three out of the four sides;they're simply requesting that the secondary facade be the side of that building shown in yellow;whereas,staff would like the secondary facade to be the west side of that building which we feel is very visible from the internal drive aisle of the site and could also be visible from U.S.41. Just to give you a little bit more detail and a zoomed-in look,we've got several intervening landscape buffers as well as a building that's going to prevent any view of the side of this building from Price Street,and that's really the concern in the situation is that the building looks good from all public right-of-ways. So we've got the existing buffer on the Fifth Third Bank parcel that's going to screen views of the side of this building. We've also got their bank building and drive-through facilities that are going to further screen any view of this property looking in from Price Street to the east. And then,lastly,we've have the 15-foot code-required buffer on our property,which I've already discussed,which is going to further provide plant materials to screen the side of the building. So we feel when you couple all these site conditions together,that this is the appropriate side to treat as the secondary facade,and certainly having views from 41,the south of the building and the west would be of benefit to the public. The next deviation is Deviation 2,and it's in relation to this buffer area which is adjacent to a 70-foot-wide drainage canal on the west side of the property. Because the fuel pump property line is within 200 feet of the adjacent residential property,we do trigger the new code-required buffer per the 2015 ordinance. We feel there's some specific site conditions that would merit an alternative buffer that we're proposing through the application. We are proposing plant enhancements in lieu of the 8-foot-tall required wall. I don't know if you can see those dimensions,but the point of this exhibit is to demonstrate that the fuel pumps are 700 feet from the adjacent residence to the west. That property owner is here today. That property owner has submitted a letter of support for our enhanced alternative buffer and has stated in that letter that he prefers not to have the wall. The buffer we're proposing is really double the required plant materials from that 2015 ordinance. That ordinance requires shrubs and three trees per hundred linear feet on either side of the wall. We're proposing four canopy trees as well as six mid-story trees per hundred linear feet in addition to shrubs and ground cover,and we believe that will provide the opacity intended by the code,will screen the uses and,as the neighbor has indicated,they are in support of that request. And we've submitted that letter. I believe it made its way into the packet. I'll just read. I have no objection to the alternative buffer they are proposing and support this project. In fact,I prefer the proposed plantings instead of the masonry wall. The last deviation to touch on is for an internal buffer requirement. This is only triggered because we're proposing internal property line so that the applicant can sell off properties in the future. And what the code would require is a 15-foot-wide buffer strip through the middle of the site. We believe this will prohibit good pedestrian flow. We've worked hard to create good sidewalk connections, crosswalks to the parking areas,and when you put a 15-foot-wide strip of plantings in the middle of the site, we could create situations that really prohibit good pedestrian movement. We are going to meet all the general tree requirements,all the building perimeter planting requirements,the parking island planting requirements. So this will be a green and lush site as intended by the code. We're just simply not looking to install internal buffers within this really unified commercial project. That concludes our direct presentation. We're happy to answer any questions you may have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll start with the Planning Commission's questions. Page 5 of 54 October 6, 2016 Anybody on the Planning Commission have any questions they'd like to ask? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: What justification do you have for adding commercial square footage? MS.CRESPO: We-- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Where's the need? MS.CRESPO: The need to add commercial? We are permitted on the C3 and the C4 to develop those portions of the site with commercial uses. And by adding the agricultural property into the PUD,it will just allow for a unified commercial development and bring that ag piece into the commercial use that really exists along 41 in this area. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: You can build a gas--the fueling--fuel facility,or whatever we call it now-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Facility with fuel pumps. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yeah,facility with fuel pumps. You can do that on the C4 portion. MS.CRESPO: Today we could do that,yes. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: You don't need the rest of it? MS.CRESPO: They're looking to expand the commercial use in this area. There's certainly a demand with all the rooftops coming in. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: We have a lot of empty commercial in East Naples all over. There's no need for it here in this congested area. It's--I don't understand it. It's hard to get into. It's hard to get into that area to begin with. Off of 41,it's just--in season,you've got to start getting over to the right lane of 41 pretty much after the facility with fuel pumps Racetrac with the 16 fuel pumps just before that. You have to get over into that lane to even get into Fresh Market or go to Marco before you hit the light at Price Street. I don't under--this is unnecessary,and I see no justification for-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any--do you have any specific questions you want to ask,or--I understand you made your statement. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I see no justification for the extra square footage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I guess that stems back from--you've got a piece of C3 and a piece of C4. If you were to maximum those two to the uses that were allowed,have you configured or considered what square footage you could fit on those? And is the square footage you're asking for on the one additional ag piece creating a greater square footage that could be there if it was just left--if you just addressed it on the C3 and C4? That might be one way to consider approaching an answer to the question,if you've looked at that at all. MS.CRESPO: We haven't done a full analysis on that. I can say that the C4 and C3 parcels are approximately 4.5 acres. You can roughly do 10,000 square feet of commercial per acre,so the site really could accommodate approximately 45,000 square foot of commercial today. It would leave a remnant ag piece immediately adjacent to it. And by bringing it in,we can,I think,do a better job with buffering and having a unified design on the property through the PUD process. So--and with the site plan we're proposing here,you've got a Wawa station and 27,500 square feet of commercial uses. So I guess to more directly answer your question,I believe you could develop more commercial uses today than we're proposing through this PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's kind of what I was trying to understand-- MS.CRESPO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --in relationship to Karen's questions. In your NIM,was anybody objecting to the commercial use of the property? MS.CRESPO: My recollection of the NIM is there was some questions regarding how the water management would work was really a big focus of the group with the canal adjacent to the property. The most folks were excited about the Wawa,as I think the NIM minutes indicated. And we're--of course,with any commercial coming into a site like this,the buffers are important. So we spent a lot of time working through that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions? Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I have several questions regarding both the staff report and the Page 6 of 54 October 6, 2016 ordinance,because I want to go through the permitted uses. But before we get to that,I do want to hear the staff report. My only question I have right now is why on the--I have to refer to it as your Page 3. I'm looking at the staff report. Why do you refer to it as an auto service station when,in fact,it's a convenience store with fuel pumps? MS.CRESPO: That is a label that should likely change and be--food store would be a more appropriate label. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. That needs to change on the plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's an issue that we addressed yesterday. They were going to actually modify the references to all the structures on that plan. There's a couple others there that need to be changed. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. And it's in the staff report as well,and I'll point it out in the staff report when we go through that,but that is not a service station. It is a convenience store. I'm just sort of surprised it's made it this far with that,what I would call,rather obvious error. I do want to go through the ordinance,but I'm going to wait,if I could,Mr.Chairman,for the staff report. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. You can wait--anytime--we're not going to have staff report until we get done with our questions of the applicant first. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Go ahead.That's all I have of the applicant right now. I do want to reserve the right to ask additional questions,though,when we get through the staff report. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,you're new on the panel. No,you can't ask any additional questions. I mean,since you asked,we'll just put it that way. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: All right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan,did you have anything? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: No,nothing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane,you looked like you were going to say something previously. COMMISSIONER EBERT: The facade,are you telling me that you don't want to--if you could go back,Alexis--are you telling me you will not be able to see that from the street? MS.CRESPO: The east side of the building? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. MS.CRESPO: I would say less than 10 percent of that facade would be in any way visible from Price Street because of the location of the Fifth Third Bank and the two buffers in between the building and the right-of-way. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Do we have anybody here who could answer that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,you can look at the plan. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well,I know,but sometimes-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean,how do you see the backside of--the east side of that building? I mean,what did you think the objective was in regards to your question? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well,I don't know how high--I don't know how high the other banking stuff--if it's a drive-through or what. Okay. MS.CRESPO: That's a photo of the bank from Price Street,and you can see they have-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. MS.CRESPO: Their building goes very close to their southern property line. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. It's better to have a visual like this. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other question? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,Alexis,let's start on--on your master plan,if you could put that back up,there are some things there that need to be addressed. In your standards table you referenced the heights of the building. They're not referenced in the storage. They're just referenced in foot--footage. So could you strike the references to stories and footage and height on this master plan?That's not the appropriate place for it. It's in the development standards table,the PUD. It would be better there. Certainly,in your square footage,it doesn't hurt to leave it,but there's no reason to put that there, Page 7 of 54 October 6, 2016 because if you go to any--say you do--what's that first one? I can't read it,but it looks like, say it's 1,500 feet and you go 1,501,you've got a PUD amendment to deal with. There's no reason to put that on the master plan. And also the reference that Joe made,he's 100 percent right. There's no reason to put an automobile service station reference,because that's not what you're functioning as,really.More of a convenience store with fuel pumps,which is how we commonly refer to it. So I think if those corrections are made,that will help. And then I'll move into the other few things I have that are relative to your discussion. A lot of my questions may be of staff, so let's just see what I've got here. The issues that involves the recommendations by staff,I understand their points on the deviations and now yours. Number 4 that staff brought up in the recommendations says,remove automotive services 5541. That has had a correction issued this morning. Are you familiar with the correction,Alexis? MS.CRESPO: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Did you have any objection to the correction? MS.CRESPO: The only item we'd like to put on the record is Tire Kingdom has a letter of intent to be a tenant in this building closest to U.S.41.We believe that that use will fall under 5531,auto supply store, so we would just like to put that on the record. We wouldn't want that use to be under the 7549 and then have an issue with that. We're certainly comfortable with 4 applying to the southern commercial building closest to Price Street as an alternative. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Maybe that's the simplest way to address it then. Okay. And then the--I noticed the No. 5,staff recommendation No.5,remove Note No.2 in the commercial development standards regarding facility with fuel pumps. If Deviations 2 and 3 are approved,this note will contradict the PUD. And I think I mentioned that note to you. Did you have any problem with that? MS.CRESPO: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm just running through the--and,you know,on your list of uses, I'm not sure why we have to worry too much about a stipulation or a recommendation from staff in regards to--well,I guess now that the number's changed,maybe. Number 60 in your uses,it says,gasoline service stations,5541, except auto service and repairs,and that's not changing,so that's still there. Doesn't--that seems to kind of meet the intent of prohibiting auto repairs.I'll wait till we get to staff to see why we need that further clarification. On your master plan,you also show locations of dumpster enclosure. The one that is up against the buffer along Price Street,is there a way to move that somewhere else? MS.CRESPO: Yes. We did look at that after our meeting yesterday,and we can locate that farther away from Price Street. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a distance you can provide us with so we can stipulate dumpster will be no--dumpster enclosures will be no closer to X number of feet to Price Street? And for the reason,for those in the audience that are here for this one,the dumpster enclosure or dumpster emptying happens usually--unfortunately--I know they work all day long,but they only seem to get to the neighborhood where you don't want them to be at 6 o'clock in the morning, and it's real noisy. So hopefully those trucks and the lifting of the dumpsters don't have to be done as close--a little bit further away from the residential. MS.CRESPO: I think we can get another 10 to 15 feet off the property line. So we could locate it with 40 feet--minimum of 40 feet within the subject property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,if you were to go over to that building along Price Street,the bigger one there,the commercial building,if you would go to the northwest corner,there's an indentation there.Why couldn't it be put somewhere like that,which is considerably farther away,or maybe you even could jointly use the dumpster that's on the fuel facility property. I don't know if even the code allows that,but... MS.CRESPO: I'll have to defer to the engineer on the project for-- MR. SLOAN: Brendon Sloan,Waldrop Engineering,civil engineer on the project. As far as relocating the dumpster to the north a little bit,I mean,I concur with Alexis. We could go Page 8 of 54 October 6, 2016 up to 40 feet as of now without re-site planning it. That's-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,where would you place it in regards to the relationship to Price Street and based on what you just said? What were you thinking? You've got to switch it over,Ray or Dan. MR. SLOAN: So as you can see here,we've shown the dumpster at this location now. We still have a dumpster at this location. This is the current SDP plan set that we are under review for today. If we remove this dumpster here and let this dumpster here-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way,I'm sorry. I knew something was different when you were speaking. You're not using the microphone. Can you grab the walk-around. MR. SLOAN: Our current site plan that is under SDP--can you hear me? Okay. There we go. We currently have the site plan under SDP review.We have shown a dumpster at this location,which has a dry detention area in between it,and then the buffer along Price Street here and the buffer that will be along the residential community to the west,so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,that's a lot further than 40 feet,isn't it? MR. SLOAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have you scaled that? MR. SLOAN: Yes,it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,then why are you asking for 40 feet? MR. SLOAN: Because as it currently stands,we do still show a dumpster at this location for-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. SLOAN: --future users. So as we talked yesterday,maybe we could move it a little further to this location and maybe be even with this dumpster. So I say 40 feet now,maybe 50. I'm just-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the time we get done talking about this today,if you could let Alexis know or come back up,and in the meantime have someone take a look at that. MR. SLOAN: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Either yourself or call your office,and they can call you back. MR. SLOAN: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay? MR. SLOAN: No problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. I've just got a couple more pages to check,Alexis,and then--that's the only questions I have at this time. MS.CRESPO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Anybody else have anything of the applicant before we go to staff report? Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Permitted use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,she's got some more questions. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Do we want to do that now,or do we want to wait for staff report? Because I want to go through the permitted uses as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,the applicant is the one who's requested the permitted uses,not staff. Staffs already recommended approval of them, so we basically should ask that of the applicant if we have any changes that we've got to make. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I have a long list here. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I do as well. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'll wait till she gets there. Are you there? MS.CRESPO: Oh,yes,ma'am. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay. I'd like to suggest or I'd like to see some of these things removed or changed. MS.CRESPO: Okay. Page 9 of 54 October 6, 2016 COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay. And No. 9,animal specialty services,that includes boarding horses and breeding and all those things,I don't see that you'd be doing that there or... MS.CRESPO: I think what would be best is if you-all indicate the uses you'd like removed,and then we can confer with the applicant and come back up and agree or say we may need this one from that list. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay. Number 9 be removed. And on No.27,there will be a few other places, so I'd like to see a prohibited use on the list on page--on the last page where you have tattoo and piercing parlors. Number 4 be added for no communication towers. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I have a question on that as well. I just don't understand why you would ask-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe,we usually let her finish hers,then you can jump in,if you don't mind. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Number 28,to add"on customer's premises only,"and remove No. 31,churches,and remove No. 34,coin-operated amusement devices,and 46,just dry-cleaning plants,and No.49 and 50 and 76,because that's already in No. 33,that's laundry,coin-operated laundries. Number 77,and 80,which is libraries,and 110,which is public or private parks and playgrounds, and 117,religious organizations,and 127. Then I'm back on No.66,just to have the--to remove the SIC Code 8093,so it just reads 8092, 8099. And then on 101 to read just, "employee leasing only"after 7363 so there's no labor pools or manpower pools. And 119,to remove the 8734 code so it just reads 8731, 8733,and No. 120,to add"except gravestones,monuments,and tombstones." And 132,I'm not really understanding what the--why you'd need bands and orchestras in the 7929. And then 135,to remove the Code 0741,because that's veterinary services for livestock. And I guess that's it. MS.CRESPO: Okay. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yeah,but I'd like to see just the--I've got one more. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: At the bottom of prohibited uses where--maybe you could remove the codes for those things,because the adult entertainment and sexual oriented businesses,that's the wrong number,799,and there's a few other numbers that would go with it. So just that overall--same with the communication towers. So if you just removed all the codes,it would just apply. MS.CRESPO: We can do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just a real quick question before--I know Joe's got some issues,but what's wrong with libraries? I mean,libraries are pretty quiet. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Do you really think there's going to be a library there? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I don't think most of the uses they asked for are going to be able to fit there,but I didn't see what's wrong with it if they could figure out a way to do it. A library's probably pretty neat. Neighborhoods usually like them. Do you know why you don't? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No,I just didn't think that it's a possibility that it would even be there anyway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,they can't fit a bowling alley there either. I mean,they've got bowling alley as one of the uses,but they certainly can't fit one. I just--I thought if a library was there,what would it hurt? And the same with the parks or a playground. Are those bad things for the neighborhood? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Private parks or playgrounds? I don't know why-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean,what would--I'm just wondering what they would hurt. I'm not saying you're wrong. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well,there's a lot of traffic there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just trying to understand it. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It's a lot of traffic in there. I don't know why you'd have kids--more kids riding around in a private park. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, 110 of those other uses will have more traffic than a park. I mean, you've got a lot of uses there. And if that's the basis,then we want to strike quite a few of them.I'm just Page 10 of 54 October 6, 2016 wondering why a park would be a concern.But anyway. I mean,I understand-- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I thought it was just supposed to be for commercial. I don't see why you'd put kids in the way of all that gas station and everything. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't think that the gas station was going to have a park in it. I thought they'd use one of the other parcels. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well,it's in the area.Whatever. It doesn't matter. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. No. I just was trying to understand the reasoning, so... Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. I'm going to go through my list. Number 15 --and I know there's some errors in the staff report in regards to 7549,but you said everything will be prohibited except car washes. A car wash is a pretty noisy operation when you're considering the mechanical equipment,the dryers and blowers. I do not believe this is a site suitable for a car wash. Number 26,business services,you list--extensive list of everything that's excluded.What's left--I didn't go through and look and see what's left. Has staff reviewed that? And to assure--when it says business services,miscellaneous,and then you have a large list of exceptions,well,what is remaining? Are we talking simple businesses of accountant services and other type of things? MS.CRESPO: Correct,insurance companies. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay,okay. I also circled 27. I see no space for any type of communication tower,and that would be related to 131 and 132 as well. I mean,you would have to have a lay-down area,a safety perimeter for any type of communication tower. There is absolutely no room on this site for that unless you eliminate one of these major principal buildings. So,eliminate that. Thirty-one,churches. You could leave church as possibility a conditional use,but I don't think it should be a permitted use. Thirty-seven,printing. Are we talking full offset type printing production plants when we talk about 2752? That's a pretty intensive use. I know a small commercial printing shop,but I believe that's covered when you talk about on-site photocopying,which is 102. I know you could do something like that or--but I don't know. What was your intent for 37? MS.CRESPO: To a large extent,this list is the C4 list out of the code,and we did work to remove some of those more intensive C4 uses as part of the process. So this is thrown in there because it's permitted on two-thirds of the site right now.But we'll look at that SIC code while staff is presenting and see if we can't eliminate that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Forty-two,detective guard and armored car service. Forty-three,department stores. What are we talking about there? I mean,are you looking for a large department store in case one of these others are not--you don't sell these other lots? MS.CRESPO: The intent is to have multiple smaller tenants in these buildings,and so it wouldn't--the intent right now is not to do a department store in any of these buildings,though he doesn't have end-users locked in for the entire site. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Number 45,disinfecting and pest control. We're talking about chemicals and storage,storage areas. I don't believe this site is suitable for that. The issue I have is with No.60,gasoline stations except auto service and repair. I do not believe that there should be any auto service repair on this site. You talked about a Tire Kingdom or some other type of tire service. Again,that's--I know that's allowed in C4,but now this is PUD. I just do not believe that this site will then be suitable. If you're looking for businesses and you also want to put in some kind of heavy,intense use like an auto--tire service center. MS.CRESPO: I believe when it notes"except,"it means the same as excluding. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right,I understand.But you are excluding 5541,except for auto service and repair. So you want to allow auto service and repair,the way I read this. MS.CRESPO: Yeah. We're allowing the gasoline fuel station but excepting out the auto Page 11 of 54 October 6, 2016 services-- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But this is not a gasoline service station. It's a convenience store with fuel pumps. I mean,let's call it what it is.It's not a service station. If it's a service station,we're in an entirely different realm of issues here as far as what can be done on site,oil changes and other type of things. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well--but, see,we haven't--we don't have a--our service stations are considered facilities with fuel pumps. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It includes a whole array--anything with a fuel pump,we have a new--we just enacted the definition by the Board about six--what,four months ago,six months ago, something like that. And I'm not--and,Joe,I understand what you're saying,and by the way they've--like, for example,the Racetracs,I believe,are 5541 as well. Is that--Ray,do you recall that? MR.BELLOWS: It's my recollection. We're checking on it right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Mostly what's happened-- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm fine if that's the way we describe it now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. We've modified it;just this year the modification came in. So there's been a new definition,and it does include automobile service stations,but that's when they kick in the higher buffers and standards that we put in place for those with less than 16 pumps. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Excuse me. Joe,I just want to let you know,you're old-fashioned. We're now facilities with fuel pumps. Stan and I had a problem when we changed the name of it also. We no longer have gas stations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the purpose for changing the name was that if you didn't--if it was just gas stations as defined here and you wanted to apply an automobile station waiver,it would end up limiting it to just those items,and it would eliminate the convenience store options and the other things that include fuel pumps. So by going to facilities with fuel pumps,we've broaden the application,further protecting the public to any facility that has fuel pumps. So that's why we did it. Even though you and Stan may have disagreed,that's why we did it. MR.BELLOWS: And for the record,Ray Bellows.That is the reason why. There are many types of businesses now that offer fuel facilities, so we wanted to ensure the distance waiver would apply to all,and that is the SIC code as you have cited. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. I mean,if that's the way Racetrac is defined; I mean, if anybody's been through Texas,Buc-ee's is another huge firm,and Buc-ee's is seven times the size of Wawa. It's unbelievable. They're--but then again-- MR.EASTMAN: I believe part of the change had to do something with the emissions from the air and a heightened concern that was raised on some other projects before,and it was residents that were concerned with these fumes coming over and that's--that was part of discussion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Again,I have no problem with the convenience store and fuel pumps.But when we talk service stations,it's an intensity of use and I--all right. Well,we beat that to death. I think--I already talked about 130 and 131.Again,you're talking about towers. And I think that's it for me from the standpoint of uses. So the only one I think that may be of concern is the car wash. And I looked at this site,if there were going to be a--if you had looked at the car wash,it would be in that most,I guess, southeast corner where you now have this large commercial building. And if that's the intent of a car wash,it's a pretty intense use for a car wash and traffic,and I just don't believe that this is a site for a car wash. MS.CRESPO: And our intent was Line Item 15 was to except out or exclude car washes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MS.CRESPO: So we can clarify that as listing it as prohibited use. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: All right. MS.CRESPO: Wawa does not intend to do that with their facility. Page 12 of 54 October 6,2016 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Just curious about something. Do any firms still use radios with their own little towers,or does everybody use cell phones now? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Used to be they had radios in trucks,and these guys would have the small tower mounted on their building and communicate with their own people. But now with cell phones,you know,when you're banning towers,I assume that's all towers,even the little ones.I don't know if people still use those or not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know either. I'm not in that business. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. Well,I assume if they can't--if they want to,they'll have to come in for some kind of change; otherwise,they use cell phones like normal people. MR.BELLOWS: Yeah. It would require an amendment to the PUD. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Everybody but me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Alexis,so there's no confusion,you've had several comments about restricted uses. I'm going to read the list off.I tried to keep it as complete when both Karen and Joe were talking about them. Remove Use 9 and Use 27. There will be no communication towers. On 28,no customer--on customer premises. No to No. 31,34,37,42,45,46,49, 50. On No. 66,it would be no to Use 8093. Then back to no to No. 76,No. 77,No. 80. On 101 it would be employee leasing only. No to Use No. 110 117,and on 119 it would be no to 8734. And on No. 120,it would except gravestones,tombstones,et cetera. No to No. 127,No. 130, 131,and on 132 it would no to No. 7929. On 135 it will be no to No.0741. And then you would remove the SIC code references to the prohibited uses,so it would stand on the language--the text language. There will be no car washes. And then there's one other thing I wanted to discuss,because anytime you have these kind of uses in neighborhood areas,it becomes problematic.And we're experiencing it at Heritage Bay,we're experiencing it in a lot of different places,and that is outside dining and amplified sound. So even though no one brought up the issue of eating facilities and drinking facilities,it would be extremely problematic most likely if that southern commercial building,or the northern one,started doing what some of the louder outside restaurants are doing in Collier County. They do a lot of outside dining. Then they have their--either live performances or amplified sound with the speakers blaring to the outside diners. That would not work in this location,and so that needs to be addressed. You have to come back and acknowledge these other uses. I'd like you to address that as a way to clean it up. MS.CRESPO: And the concern being the amplified sound specifically? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Outside amplified sound. I mean,the outside dining isn't as much of a concern as the outside amplified sound. At the gas station level,generally they have sound that is not--in fact,the way I think one of your competitors worded it is that the sound at the fuel pumps would not be heard past the pump area. So it would be low volume,let's say,announces or music. They would limit anything but emergency needed communications from the hours of seven--I think it was 7 a.m.to 7 p.m. That's the only hours that you could have general sound,but after that it would be emergency required devices only. Like at a fuel pump,if there was an emergency,you've got to be able to contact the monitor. I looked that over as-- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I think there's no amplified--from the facilities of fuel pumps from 10 p.m.to 7 a.m. I think that's the way it reads. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,that's less restrictive. That's fine. I was just trying to suggest, being in a neighborhood,you might want to make it more,but that's fine. I think that the Racetrac--and the reason it's pretty relevant to me,it's the one on Palm Street and 41,I think they agreed,I think it was seven to seven. But you know,if Karen--it's her area. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well,it's the code. I was just-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No,that's fine. But this is a PUD, so as we are going through amending things,we can suggest different times if it warrants it,so... Page 13 of 54 October 6, 2016 So that's the list. I think you need to work on that a little bit while we're going through other things. And what we could do,since your other part of your representation is Mr.Anderson,and he's going to be here anyway,we could give you more time by working into the Orange Blossom Ranch one,then coming back to you afterwards if that helps. But let's get through everything else first,and then we'll make a decision on that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Mr.Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Again,I'm open to the discussion if there's any objections to any of the ones we proposed,if you want to come back and--we can discuss those, so--before we--certainly before we vote. MS.CRESPO: We'd appreciate that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know,another thing that would make it easier,we have,what,five commercial zoning districts and one industrial,C5 being the most intense. C4 is pretty intense uses.This property is rather small. It's not all initially commercial uses. I don't know if you were suggested or it was discussed within your group,but if you were to look at just the Cl and C2 uses,which the kind of buildings you laid out here would probably warrant that,with the exception I understand you've got a concern over a client for Tire Kingdom,and that might be separately discussed,but the Cl and C2 uses are pretty benign. And that might clean this whole thing up rather quickly. Something to consider in your discussions when you have time today. Okay. MS.CRESPO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else of the applicant while we've-- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Again,if it's Tire--I'm not--I mean,commercial,if it's a tire-changing facility,if it's that type of facility strictly tires and batteries,I mean,we'll talking about that. I just was looking for something if it was more intense where we're talking about engine repair and other type of heavy automotive repair type facilities,and I just don't believe this site is suitable for that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Next we'll move to staff report. Dan? MR. SMITH: Thank you,Chairman Strain. Daniel Smith,principal planner. Zoning services staff recommends Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition PUDZ-PL20150000342 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval with the following conditions: Remove Deviation 1 regarding a deviation from LDC Section 5.05.08 C2,which requires primary facade standards to be applied to all sides of building facades facing a public or private street. Staff believes that even with the additional landscaping,the facade will still be viewed from Price Street; Two,remove Deviation 2 which requires facility with fuel pumps within 250 feet of residential property provide a 30-foot-wide landscape buffer and an architecturally designed masonry wall on top of a three-foot berm. The deviation will allow for an--the deviation will allow for an alternative 15-foot-wide landscape buffer with no masonry wall or berm--and berm. Staff believes the new standards for this use should be applied; Three,approve Deviation 3 conditionally that only a 15-foot Type A buffer with a single row of shrubs 24 inches high at planting and maintained at 36 inches high be required between the internal uses abutting the facilities with fuel pumps; Four,remove automotive services, SIC Code 7549,and repair services, SIC Code 7699,as applied uses in the PUD. Some of these uses may be considered incompatible next to residential uses; Five,remove Note 5 --remove Note 2 in the commercial development standards regarding facilities with fuel pumps. If Deviation 2 and 3 are approved,this note would contradict the PUD.If not approved, this note would be redundant; and, Six,update the Development Standards Table to include building height restrictions shown on the master plan. This ends my staff report. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Questions of staff based on the staff report? Joe,did you still have some you wanted to ask? Page 14 of 54 October 6, 2016 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No,I believe,since Mr. Smith handed out the correction,and we talked basically how we interpret automotive service station,I believe that clarifies the report,because in several places I had"what about SIC Code 5541." Now that I read through it again with the correction that was made to Page 19,I believe that solves--answered my question. So that clarifies it,remove automotive services and repair services; 7549 and 7699 clarifies. I don't know if we want to discuss the issue with the wall versus the buffer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. I mean,everything is up for discussion. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm waiting to hear from any of the residents before making a fmal decision on that. But I would ask since,again,I've been away from this a while,the other Planning Commissioners--I don't know where we are in the county in regards to--I know that was an addition that was added,I believe,when service stations went in. It's now required to have a wall? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. Well,actually the wall was not as,let's say,intense as it is now. About several months ago the Board redid the service station section of the code to increase higher compatibility standards for service stations with less than 16 pumps. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then they were going to come back in at some point,which will probably be the new board now,to consider what kind of standards will be applied to stations with 16 or greater pumps,which this one is 16 pumps,but it's parceled out, so it meets that 250-foot distance on the southern side,and the only side it doesn't is the side where they're asking for the waiver for the wall. And the consideration for that more probably lies with the input from the public than anything else. So I'm hoping to hear their comments on that. Anybody else from the staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that,we'll go to registered public speakers first,Ray. MR.BELLOWS: The first speaker,William Owen,Jr. MR.OWEN: I'm William Owen,and I'm a board member of the community association of Eagle Creek Golf and Country Club. There are approximately about a thousand residents that live in Eagle Creek. And we have property that sets back approximately 50 yards from Price Street. And this-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm trying to understand where your property's located. Is there an aerial that we could put up that the gentleman can kind of show us or point to us? MR.OWEN: Let's see. I suppose-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir,they'll find something.Hopefully there's a--Alexis,do you have an aerial? You did have one up in your PowerPoint. MR.OWEN: We're on the other side of Price Street. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right,yeah. And there's some properties down there. I didn't know they were--Eagle Creek went that far up. That's why I wanted to understand it better from an aerial. MR.OWEN: We have a rear entrance that goes through Talon(phonetic)Street. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're not adjacent,contiguous,or abutting the property? MR.OWEN: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Actually,the property's separated from you by a rather large residential lot? MR.OWEN: There is the so-called llama farm. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now I understand.That's fine. MR.OWEN: Llama farm here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And,sir,you've got to use the mike. I'm sorry. You'll have to always stay by the mike. And I understand where you're at now. MR.OWEN: Okay. You see where I am? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes,sir. MR.OWEN: Actually,many of the questions that we had earlier,the aesthetics issues,it sounds to me like they were properly addressed, so that's a good thing out there. Page 15 of 54 October 6, 2016 The other issue is that we take a look at any light pollution. We have four-story condominium units out there. And let's look at what's being replaced here,which we've had a forested area with no lighting out there,and now we're talking about a larger area out there that should be or will be significantly lit,certainly at night. And I don't know what restrictions or what considerations you can lend us on that,but certainly we want people to be able to feel like they don't have lights coming in through their living room or bedroom windows at night. Another--just a point of--comment. The canal that is being mentioned--that's actually Henderson Creek. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir,you'll need to direct your attention to us. MR.OWEN: I see. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. They can't respond to you,but we can. MR.OWEN: Oh,okay. Well,that's a good thing,then. The canal is actually Henderson Creek. It originates up in Lely,and it migrates down through this property and through Eagle Creek where it snakes around,and then through into the reserve to the south side of Eagle Creek. Any contamination of that would obviously have an effect not only on our community,but on protected lands. That's not to say that there's--there can't be an accommodation for this type of facility, but certainly in terms of any safety or precautions over and beyond that,that that's being followed or enforced in this particular situation. And other than that,the last thing I want to bring up is Price Street--I don't know how many of you-all have driven out there. I would say half the residents of Eagle Creek have had a near-death experience out there just going around the corner and,actually,where this entrancing is working from that parcel. I'm not necessarily saying that we're opposed to anything like that as long as there's been a thorough study of that and that we're not exacerbating a difficult situation already. There is a sharp curve there,and it's not--it's marked with broken yellow lines,but a lot of people coming from Barefoot Williams are barreling along out there,they're turning up there. It's by the backside of Fresh Market,and they veer into the opposing lane. It happens all the time. So with that said,thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,sir. We're going to have staff talk to us a little bit about both the issues you raised,so... Next public speaker,Ray? MR.BELLOWS: Jere Hurt. MR.HUNT: Jere Hunt. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,he's just giving those slips to the young lady here, sir. You can go ahead and speak. MR.HUNT: I'm one of the few here that I own property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you identify--spell your last name for the record,please. MR.HUNT: Jere Hunt,H-u-n-t. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. MR.HUNT: And we're--the site for the development that we're here for is marked in yellow. To the immediate left of that is the canal,and my property,right there--whose finger is that? MR. SMITH: That's mine. MR.HUNT: Get that finger on it. That was magic. Anyway,my property is as close as anybody's to this site,and I have no problem with it. What they're doing I think is fine. I certainly have no complaints. And--one more thing I was trying to think of. I'm at that age where thoughts go out of my head like a shot. Oh,the wall. I would rather not have a wall as a buffer between my property,between the canal and the subject property,because it just--I'd rather see a hedge or shrubbery or something like that. And it's a growing area,I think we're--this last gentleman here,I think we're further away from Eagle Creek. And than he said 150 yards. I think we're more than that. So that's all I have to say. Page 16 of 54 October 6, 2016 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,sir. Ray,are there any more public speakers? MR.BELLOWS: No others have registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any member of the public who has not spoken that would like to speak? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. We'll go back to--first of all,is there any further questions from the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: One question. The house that's on the currently zoned ag property now,is that--that will be razed and become part of the entire site? MS.CRESPO: Yes. They are co-applicants with Metro 41,LLC,and that will be demolished. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So that house will be gone. All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In order to respond to the first speaker,is Transportation prepared to explain the safety precautions with the way this project accesses Price Street? Forty-one's kind of self-explanatory, so it's Price? MR. SAWYER: Good morning, for the record,Mike Sawyer,principal planner for Transportation Planning. We are currently conducting and actually just getting done with the design for what we are terming the triangle study which is primarily a study of Triangle Boulevard as it goes through the Lely development. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you put a site plan on the overhead so that as Mike's talking we can see how it impacts the area that we're actually looking at today. Triangle's across 41,so it's the intersection, I guess,that you're working towards. MR. SAWYER: That should work fine. Again,that's primarily where the study is,but it also includes Price Street up to the intersection that we're looking at for the access for this petition. So the location of this access has been coordinated to this point as much as we can,with the eventual solution that we're going to have for this entire area. We're looking at a number of things as far as improving traffic flow. We're seriously looking at visibility triangles,specifically for this access,keeping in mind that we want to make sure that Price Street still is free-flowing as best we can and also all of the other conflict points,if you will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But,Mike,what we're trying to understand is the benefits or the protections that would help prevent problems with that entrance on Price Street being right on that corner,the corner that the gentleman noted was having problems with traffic and people sliding over the line. For example,why wouldn't the Transportation Department have asked,since this applicant's coming in and wanting accesses,to get some additional right-of-way to take the bend out of Price Street so it's not no sharp and widen it into their property at this location? MR. SAWYER: Actually,we've got--we are getting additional right-of-way currently with what is being proposed right now,and we will also be able to get additional right-of-way if we need to if it's required as part of the study. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But let me back up.We're looking at this entrance here at Price Street at the bend. Are you getting additional right-of-way at that location? MR. SAWYER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Can you show me on this map where it is? Because right now I don't see any additional right-of-way. You can write on Dan's plan. MR. SAWYER: If you look at that area that I just marked,basically we are getting additional right-of-way width to accommodate the turn lanes that are happening in there as well as pulling back the actual entrance itself a little bit further back into the site-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SAWYER: --instead of having that real sharp corner there. We're trying to blunt it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's kind of where I'm trying to head since that was the point that the gentleman made. Now,I see the dotted line that represents the CPUD boundary. The right-of-way line seems to be Page 17 of 54 October 6, 2016 just a little bit--the next line to the right of that line. Where is that right-of-way line moving to based on what you just told us? MR. SMITH: From here to here. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I guess the next question,is it reflected on the current SDP that's been submitted? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,that's where I was going next. If this is--if the staff has gotten the right-of-way but it's not showing up on this plan,then where is it? And why wouldn't the applicant wanted to have provided that as natural clarification anyway? Why wouldn't we have insisted on it? MR.TREBILCOCK: Can I--Norm Trebilcock,for the record,transportation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What kind of traffic-calming devices have they asked you to study here, Norm? MR.TREBILCOCK: They did. Actually,we-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just teasing you.Recollection of Tuesday,huh? MR.TREBILCOCK: I haven't been sworn in. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR.TREBILCOCK: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now,we need--as you heard then,we need some clarification on this overall traffic program. MR.TREBILCOCK: Okay,yes. One thing--actually,at this location,one of the things that was looked at here was a study from Transportation to look at the potential of a roundabout for this location. And so with that in mind,there's additional right-of-way needed for that,and then it addresses what Michael had mentioned as well. So I've got that exhibit that shows that right-of-way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But study and potential whatevers doesn't do us any good. We're trying to discover what is it that's going to be done to improve that corner,and if it hasn't gone far enough, what do we need to do with the--consistent with the approval or lack thereof of this project to insist some improvements get made? MR.TREBILCOCK: Perfect,absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR.TREBILCOCK: The key thing,really,that's occurring on this property,if you look at it,the existing vegetation comes right up to that sharp corner,and with this development what's going to occur is actually you're going to clear up the lines of sight with access point where it is. And that's,you know,part of the reason why it was coordinated where it is. So you'll actually clear up your lines of sight with how it's being proposed. In addition,we're providing what they call the compensating right-of-way for the right turn lane that's going to come into the site,and then in addition we're providing a right-of-way reservation for if the staff in their study of this area determines that a roundabout is the appropriate traffic-calming device or operating device. So we really clear that up,is to the point.And that's consistent with our Site Development Plan. Our Site Development Plan is reflective of this as well. And as part of the site plan review,they'll look to make sure that we have clear lines of sight. And,again,we're really fixing that area up as a result. So I think they'll find the existing conditions will be much improved with what we're doing here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The dark lines that are on both sides of this entrance,are those supposed to represent sidewalks;do you know? It looks like they are. There's a crosswalk. MR.TREBILCOCK: Oh,yes,I'm sorry. I was looking at the wrong exhibit. Sony about that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The landscape buffers that are on both sides of that entry,especially the one on the south side,if you take a 15-foot right-of-way buffer all the way up to the edge of that sidewalk going towards the northeast,wouldn't you just be creating another sight triangle problem? And where is the right-of-way moved as a result of the request by the applicant today in Mike's statements from where it sits today? I mean,I know you're saying we are preparing to ask for things if they do a roundabout and everything like that,but how is this intersection changing as a result of this entrance on this PUD,and what right-of-way have we gained to make it change that way? Page 18 of 54 October 6, 2016 MR.TREBILCOCK: Okay. Let me show you--I have an exhibit that shows a roundabout-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure,that's great. MR.TREBILCOCK: --the additional right-of-way. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Mr. Chair,if there's additional right-of-way-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're not being--the mike's not working,Heidi. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: If there's additional right-of-way requirement-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's still not working,Heidi. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: If there's additional right-of-way required beyond the compensating right-of-way,then the landscape buffer would likely be eliminated at the Site Development Plan stage because of 9.03.07 of the Land Development Code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I mean,that's fine because it seems like the landscaping is causing some of the concerns for the sight triangle with people coming around that corner. So maybe that's what needs to happen. That's kind of where I was heading in making sure that--if we could move it back,that might be a solution,so I'll just explore a little bit. MR.TREBILCOCK: Right. This exhibit here gives you the area in orange. It shows you that additional right-of-way that's anticipated to be needed there in the area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So this PUD--and,again,I can't remember everything that I read at 11 o'clock last night,but this PUD has language in it committing to the issue of the 252 square feet of right-of-way from Wawa? MR.TREBILCOCK: Yes,sir. We had--there's a transportation commitment to provide that right-of-way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR.TREBILCOCK: And in addition--again,in the part of the site plan review where we are providing that buffer,one of the issues would be to make sure that we have clear lines of sight.That's what your staff really looks at to make sure that,you know,we're meeting buffer and landscaping but,more importantly,we're addressing to make sure we have clear lines of sight,to your point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If the intention is to do something like this,why would we want them to build the entrance like it's shown on the PUD anticipating that this happens? Even if it doesn't happen,to build the entrance to accommodate this in the future,whether it happens or not,would still provide a better entrance for sight visibility coming around that corner. MR.TREBILCOCK: Actually,what we're proposing does dovetail right into this here. The only thing in the interim basis,there would be the right turn lane that we have for the project,and that would go away when you build this. But it's actually all been,you know,coordinated with staff,and it would dovetail right in in the future. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any reason this can't be added as a conceptual exhibit? MR.TREBILCOCK: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To the PUD? I mean,do you have any objection to that,or do you think--well,Alexis,that's another question for you,your client,and whoever's analyzing this. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Alexis is gone. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: She went out to speak with her client. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well,Bruce is here,and he's heard that. But we don't need to answer that now. When you come back with the uses,we can discuss that to-- MR.TREBILCOCK: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd like to see something put on the record that shows the intention so that when it happens in the future it's much easier to make it happen rather than say--you know,because we change personnel pretty rapidly in Developmental Services,and new people coming in may not even know this was discussed. MR.TREBILCOCK: Right. And this was provided for the folks that are doing the triangle study, so this was given to them for their analysis. Because the only real issue here,too,is there's some--there's some right-of-way acquisition that's needed that the county doesn't have,so that's the reason why it's a two-step process here. Page 19 of 54 October 6, 2016 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the acquisition the county doesn't have is where? MR.TREBILCOCK: It would be the purple pieces there. It would be to the--if we're kind of--it would be the southwest and the southeast corners there,those little purples areas there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the right for the county to obtain that is included in the language in the Transportation comments in the PUD,correct? MR.TREBILCOCK: Well,I'm sorry. That's offsite. It's not within our property. So that's--it's been--the county has a,you know-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,you're talking about the south purple line? MR.TREBILCOCK: Exactly. Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When you said purple,I-- MR.TREBILCOCK: No,I'm sorry. Anything that we can provide we've provided,and it's taken care of you. And,again,it does help with the overall sightlines and stuff by having that as clear right-of-way as well,to your other point; I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we're on the path to getting this resolved as we move down the road. That's what I wanted to make sure. MR.TREBILCOCK: Yes,sir. Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR.TREBILCOCK: Absolutely;thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions,more, of Transportation? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the other gentleman brought up an issue of site drainage. I see--is someone here who can address the site drainage?It's my understanding--maybe it's the applicant's. You have--primary quality control is all in your dry detention,and at some point you've probably got overflows that at that point,once it's reached that dry detention quality,it will overflow into the canal wherever the discharge position is; is that correct? And it's all pursuant to Southwest Florida Water Management District's--and,Norm,this isn't yours,I know. MR.TREBILCOCK: Exactly,thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. He was already coming up,and I figured I'll talk while he's walking up to save time. MR. SLOAN: Brendan Sloan,Waldrop Engineering,again,civil engineer. You're correct,Mr.Chairman. We will permit this with the Water Management District. We'll get a formal environmental resource permit for drainage discharge into the canal. It will be required water quality treatment end stage storage volumes and calculations on site. We'll meet all the permit criteria that the Water Management District requires. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. MR. SLOAN: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of anybody at this time? Alexis,have you had--oh,Norm. MR.TREBILCOCK: Excuse me. I'm sorry. Just one item that was brought up by one of the comments there was regarding the site lighting,and my firm prepared the site lighting for the Site Development Plan. So I just wanted to let you know there that the lighting does meet the newer code standards in terms of having the full cutoff fixtures and light limitations on the property line, so I just wanted to let you know that. It's not,you know,the intensive glow,that it's meeting the current--the newer standards for lighting for gas stations--or convenience stores with fuel pumps. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Norm, for the benefit of the audience,do you want to explain what a full cutoff fixture is? MR.TREBILCOCK: Yes,will do. A full cutoff,what it means is,under other fixtures,a full cutoff establishes and it holds the light to go down,you know,vertically and not go above like what we call horizontal plane, so that it doesn't glow beyond the site. It puts the light directly where it needs to go. And,in addition,that the--like I said,there's a foot-candle limitation around the property line in addition to that for anything.This light will go down vertically but,obviously,it starts to spread a little bit, Page 20 of 54 October 6, 2016 and that limitation will hold it--hold it as well. Did I explain that okay? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,Karen. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So there'll be no deceleration lane to--off of 41 into that parcel? MR.TREBILCOCK: No. There is a deceleration lane off of 41 for the parcel there. There's an access point proposed. There's actually an existing driveway connection there on the property,and so that would still be there,yes. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: You're going to add the--there's no deceleration lane there now. MR.TREBILCOCK: Oh,on Price Street,right. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: On 41. MR.TREBILCOCK: No. There will be a deceleration lane into the property. There's currently--there's a turn lane there now,and there's a driveway connection there as well. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But that will be just a right-in,right-out,not a full opening? MR.TREBILCOCK: Correct,absolutely,yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Norm,I have a couple. The full cutoff lights that Stan started asking about-- MR.TREBILCOCK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --do you have any problem doing those as directional LEDs? MR.TREBILCOCK: LED is exactly what our design is,yes,sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The height of the poles,do you have any problem limiting them to 15 feet? MR.TREBILCOCK: I--we had it at--I believe the code allows 20 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes,it does. That's why I'm asking you if you have any problem limiting it to 15 feet. I know what the code allows,and I didn't--that just--that just puts them up higher so they can be seen more. The fence or the wall that was going to be there isn't going to be there. The landscaping will be the only thing blocking them. Directional LEDs with full cutoffs at 15 feet would make that lighting stay more on the site just from its visibility,not necessarily from its glare that you can measure at the threshold. It's kind of like our sound ordinance. You all can hear noise,but if it doesn't hit 65 decibels,we don't consider it problematic when it is,and depending on the area,and this is a pretty--it's a pretty quiet area down there. So it's like the sound,the light doesn't need to penetrate any more than it has to. So is that an issue that is a concern? I know what that means to you. MR.TREBILCOCK: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got to put more lights in. MR.TREBILCOCK: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I'm not sure that's a problem. MR.TREBILCOCK: I can touch base if that's okay. I just need--because we hadn't designed it at this point. I just need to touch base with them real quick and make sure,if that's okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MR.TREBILCOCK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to have Alexis possibly come back anyway. Alexis,if you--your choice on how you want to handle all the questions we had. We can hear the next case up and then come back to you or not.It's whatever you prefer. MS.CRESPO: Well,thank you. For the record,Alexis Crespo. I was able to speak with Dan Hughes,who's the applicant,and he was in agreement with striking the majority of uses. There's,like,three that I'd like to discuss,but other than that we can just make it simple and agree to strike the uses that you-all had listed as being prohibited,and then we do have response on the outdoor amplification. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,let's start with the three that you have some questions about that you not necessarily totally agree to completely strike.What are those? Page 21 of 54 October 6, 2016 MS.CRESPO: Twenty-seven is related to the cable pay television services,including communications towers. By striking that,we want to ensure that we could still do a satellite dish that's accessory to a principal use or principal business. There's no intent to do a communication tower as a principal use,but we just want to put on the record that that would be something for--our tenants could have on the building. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I think if we're--I think the question was the communication towers. So if we said 27 except communication towers,that would take it out of the use. Does that work for whoever--I don't know which one of you brought it up,but-- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. I just don't think there's enough room for a communication tower,the type that we're talking,like over on Tower Street or--there's already towers out that way,so... COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: But that was added to the prohibited uses,just communication towers for overall,so it doesn't--you don't have to take the 27 out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,you mean-- MS.CRESPO: That's a good point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,we could just add it--yeah,that would work. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I mean,that's what I asked. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to need to use your mike,Karen. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: That's what I asked,and I believe you-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I made a note. I thought--someone said 27,then no communication towers,so that's how I wrote it down,but it doesn't matter to me what way it goes in. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Oh,I meant under prohibited uses to exclude-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: --no communication towers. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: You want no cell towers,guide,or monopole? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Right. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: But little appertinent-- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well,satellite dishes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Satellite dishes. MR. SMITH: Chairman Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. SMITH: A suggestion. Because I had talked to Alexis previously. It might be easier as opposed to just putting the SIC codes,just adding the use that they would allow and leave the list that we have,and whatever use they're looking at,just add that to it. It may be a better solution,because if you add the SIC code,there's a lot of things that--you'll have to go through them again to see what you like or you don't like,and that's kind of what the problem is. So if Alexis would just-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You mean you want to eliminate all the references to SIC codes in the-- MR. SMITH: No,no,just on that--in particular uses that she's talking about,maybe just add the use-- MR.BELLOWS: To include. MR. SMITH: --to include,yes. That might be an easier way to do it if they're looking for cable TV or whatever. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think both of you are okay just by adding,under the prohibited uses,no communication towers,right? MR. SMITH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Stan,did you have a cleanup on that language? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,if that works,that gets us there pretty simply. MS.CRESPO: Great. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS.CRESPO: On churches,we're looking for a recommendation that we could potentially have a church within a multi-tenant structure limited to no more than 5,000 square feet. Page 22 of 54 October 6, 2016 COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: That's exactly what I'm trying to avoid. MS.CRESPO: Oh. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: We have a lot of storefront churches in East Naples,and we don't need any more. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And churches have gone from facilities that quietly practice their religious beliefs to rock bands and booming noises and all kinds of disruptive sounds. So they're not like the churches--just like gas stations aren't gas station anymore. So I think that's a well thought-out concern. MS.CRESPO: Okay. I got the nod that we will remove that then. We wanted to verify that by removing 46,dry-cleaning plants,that that would not preclude a dry-cleaning business. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that a different SIC? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: That's--on No. 59 you have dry-cleaners. MR. SMITH: Correct. MS.CRESPO: Thank you. So we can remove 46 then? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It would allow for the front-door service,but not the large dry-cleaning plant. MS.CRESPO: Industrial style,yeah,that's fine,thank you. And then the last item we just want to clarify would be with the Tire Kingdom use. We feel more comfortable being able to keep in the Item 15,automotive services,excluding car washes. We could potentially add to that"limited to one automotive service use within the building closest to U.S.41,"so its location would be very limited.We just want to make sure we don't have an issue down the road if we remove that and rely on the auto-supply-store use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What--we're on--that would be No. 13? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Fifteen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fifteen. MS.CRESPO: Fifteen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Automotive services except car washes. Why don't we just say if you are intending to put a new tire sales and whatever that SIC code is for that,why don't we just list that SIC code saying new tire sales only or something to that effect so that we understand what you're trying to do there and that-- MR. SMITH: That will work. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's why--again,between the staff report,again,on Page 10, that's where we have some confusion,because it's allowed under both SIC codes,but 5541,then staff says, these uses aren't compatible,automotive and marine repair,tire repair,auto--oil service,and minor repair and car washes. I mean,that was under 5541. But if you do it under 7549,again,you're talking about automotive services. I'm confused because-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it wouldn't be 75 --what is the SIC--I haven't got my SIC book with me. What is the SIC-- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's basically what I'm asking. What SIC code are we looking at? I don't have mine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't know we-- MR. SMITH: 7549,I think,is what you're talking about. MS.CRESPO: If the installation of tires that occurs at a Tire Kingdom creates that use to be a 7549 instead of 5531 -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: 5541,or is it-31? MR. SMITH: 5541;no,it's 5541. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 5531 is tire dealers automotive. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Retail. Is that what you are? MS.CRESPO: That is our question to staff. MR. SMITH: I don't think it is,because I think the Tire Kingdom,under--I thought they did other Page 23 of 54 October 6, 2016 repairs that was--I really didn't have a problem with the tire sales. It was the repair portion of it that tends to generate the noise. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,there's two--there's tire automobile dealers/retail,which is 5531, then there's tire dealers/automotive which,to me,is the same thing,but they're listed twice. Retail,5531 again. You believe they're under what number,Dan? MR. SMITH: It was 7549. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Or is it--but,Dan,you had 5541 in the report,too. MR. SMITH: I changed that because that was the-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 7541 does not list anything to do with tires. Automotive emission testing, diagnostic centers--7549,emission testing, garages,do it yourself,inspection services,lubricating service, road service,rust-- MR. SMITH: It might have been the other one then. It was one of them I looked at. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well'-- MR. SMITH: I'll have to-- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So in the staff report, for clarity,everywhere where you have 5541, it should be 5531,if I'm looking at Page 10-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 5531 is-- MR. SMITH: Could have been,yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm just saying for the record,because this becomes part of the public record-- MR. SMITH: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: --and these errors need to be corrected. MR. SMITH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under 5531,it's tire dealers and tire battery accessory dealers and retail. So 5531 would get you the tire facility that you're looking for. MR. SMITH: Correct. MS.CRESPO: Excellent. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Alexis,just for clarity now,you stated it would be the site closest to 41; it wouldn't be the building-- MS.CRESPO: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm fine with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that would be--No. 5531 is what number on your list? I want to make sure. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It would be 13. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Thirteen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So No. 13 would be restricted to the building along U.S.41. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It would be far more appropriate than the building in the southeast portion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think that gets to the concerns you had about the ones you may not now. What you didn't address are some of the other things. So let's talk about the--first of all,no car washes. I'm assuming that's--you're in agreement with that. MS.CRESPO: Correct. No car wash. That will be added to the prohibited uses on Page 4,as well as communication towers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What about the outside amplified sound and dining? MS.CRESPO: In the two commercial buildings we can add either a commitment or add to Exhibit A no amplified outdoor sound associated with the--any outdoor dining. Wawa does have a small patio where they have light music that's comparable to what is played inside the station or the food store. And so we'd like the ability to have that music on their patio from 7 a.m.to 10 p.m. and then it be prohibited--any music associated with that area or the pumps be prohibited from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So if we say no outside dining or amplified sound on nonfuel Page 24 of 54 October 6, 2016 facility parcels,and on the fuel facility parcel the amplified sound and outdoor dining sound will be allowed 7 a.m.to 10 p.m.but prohibited otherwise. MS.CRESPO: We would like the ability to do outdoor dining without amplified music in the commercial buildings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So just no amplified sound. MS.CRESPO: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So now outside amplified sound on the nonfuel facility parcels; is that right? MS.CRESPO: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then on fuel--on the fuel facility parcels,the sound be allowed 7 a.m. to 10 p.m.only and prohibited after that? MS.CRESPO: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What about the height of the lights? MS.CRESPO: They're asking about the height of the lights. MR.TREBILCOCK: Thank you. Again,Norm Trebilcock,for the record. And what I'll do is I'll put an exhibit up that may be helpful for us to look at this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR.TREBILCOCK: What we're proposing is sometimes we'll do this on projects where you interface with residential is,say,within 50 feet of the property line go with a 50-foot-- 15-foot mounting height on the lights. And so what I was going to suggest here is along the west property line and the south property line, along Price Street,within 50 feet of that,have 15-foot mounting height,and then elsewhere it would be to the standard per the code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,that makes it better. MR.TREBILCOCK: Okay,thank you. And,also,I just wanted to follow up on the right-of-way exhibit. We're okay having that as an exhibit like you had mentioned as well,so I can-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would be as conceptual,but-- MR.TREBILCOCK: Yes;yes,sir,yeah. Because it's really based on their fmal study,but we're comfortable with that. And it's specified,too,in the PUD. I double-checked with Mike,and it's called out there as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,thank you. MR.TREBILCOCK: You're welcome. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Does that show the entrance from 41? MR.TREBILCOCK: This does not,no,no. It shows in the--it should show on the PUD master plan there our 41 access point. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well,I see the access point,but I don't see a deceleration lane. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got use the mike if you--there you go. MR.TREBILCOCK: You can see--perfect. Right there,this sliver along here,that's a right turn lane,right there. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: That sliver? MR.TREBILCOCK: You see that? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No. MR.TREBILCOCK: I'm sorry. Right here--do you see this right here? This is the right turn lane. I'll put it on there. Right there. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: That's not Price Street.That's 41. MR.TREBILCOCK: Right. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Into the property.There's no deceleration lane there. It's just right off-- MR.TREBILCOCK: No,no there is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He just pointed at it. See where the arrows are? That starts your deceleration lane,then it goes all the way down to Price Street,so it goes right past that entrance. So you Page 25 of 54 October 6, 2016 decel into that lane,and you pick up their entrance,and you go past it and pick up Price Street. I think that's what he's trying to say. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay. Well,there isn't one there now. MR.TREBILCOCK: No. There is a dedicated right turn lane there. There is now. There is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I went down there yesterday. MR.TREBILCOCK: Yeah,there is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It just looks like it's another lane on 41 it's so long. MR.TREBILCOCK: Right,it's so long,absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It goes all the way back past their entrance. MR.TREBILCOCK: Yeah. And there's a physical driveway connection to the property today,and so there's a right turn lane. It may appear to be--like right now it appears to be a continuous right turn lane. And between the county and the DOT,they're looking at the appropriate treatment for that,you know,how to,you know,gore(sic)it or island or something like that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I just want to correct.Norm,we're done. I'm just making sure. The comment he made to Mr. Smith about 5541 on Page 10 again,I believe that should be 5541,not 5531,as I--because it is an automotive service. But I want to get clarity on the other prohibited uses or at least what staff has said,and that had to do with automotive marine repair and oil services and minor repair. Where do those fall under? You wrote the report,and you're saying those are not compatible. MR. SMITH: Correct. Those are the uses that I thought would possibly be incompatible next to residential,that's a correct statement. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Within that SIC code. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Was that with--but the report says not within 250 feet of Price Street,staff believes that--of course,you went on. And although staff can support some of the uses under 5541 and 7699 category,the following uses may be determined a detriment considering these uses sometimes have obnoxious(sic)noise and fumes,and you list them. MR. SMITH: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Does the applicant agree with these? Because I have difficulty, again,looking at her list versus your recommendation in the staff report. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you listening,Alexis?Joe just asked you a question. MS.CRESPO: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe you'll have to ask it again,Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: In the staff report,Alexis,Page 10--and we were batting around whether it was 5541 or 5531. I believe the 5541 in the staff report is,in fact,correct. And then there's a list, gasoline service stations,and then it lists the uses that they do not believe are compatible. Now,we've already talked about tire repair,so we're good with that,but what about automotive and marine repair and oil services and minor repair? We're talking--we've already discussed car washes, so that's not an issue. So the oil services,is there still an intent for some kind of minor oil change Jiffy Lube or some other type of service? MS.CRESPO: Tire Kingdom does offer oil changes-- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MS.CRESPO: --so as long as we can have that one user in the building closest to 41 -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I just want to make that clear then. Okay,fine. That's clear, because if we just tire--because they do oil service. What about marine repair? MS.CRESPO: (Shakes head.) COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And this is going to be-- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Sony to beat that horse to death. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's okay. This is going to take longer than I had anticipated. I was Page 26 of 54 October 6, 2016 hoping to wrap it up before break. I think we're going to be better off giving the court reporter a break. She already looks like she's got-- UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Could I ask a question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to wait. We're going to take a break,first. We'll be back at 10:55. Thank you. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If everybody will please take their seats. And,Alexis,I think we left off discussing some cleanup items with you or Norm. I think it was one of you. I still have questions of you,Alexis,so don't worry. You're not going to get out of it that easy. The one thing you haven't answered yet is the dumpster locations. I know you thought I'd forget, but--I might;the computer won't. MS.CRESPO: Brendan Sloan will-- MR. SLOAN: Hello,Brendan Sloan,Waldrop Engineering,civil engineer,again. In discussion with the applicant, 80 feet from the Price Street right-of-way,we're okay with that separation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. It looks like we've cleaned up everything that I can see that I--I'm just looking at it all right now,and I think we've got all the questions that I had made a note of that weren't answered. Does anybody else on the Planning Commission have any other issues? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nope. Okay. Thank you,Alexis. We've had staff report. We've had a public discussion. I'm assuming there's a rebuttal. Do you need a rebuttal,Mr.Anderson? MR.ANDERSON: No. We have had a request from one of the Planning Commissioners to have a representative of Wawa come up and explain the history of the company,very brief. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What has that got to do with the LDC? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I just asked if he would,as a courtesy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would rather not spend time on things outside of the Land Development Code if we don't need to. What does the Board want--did you--it's your district,Karen. Did you have a need to know what Wawa does or history of the Wawa? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Sell gas. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We've got another case we've got to get to,and I'd rather not--if it's Ms. Ebert,please,would one of you get together with her after the meeting and explain to her what Wawa does. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I already looked it up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well,if you already looked it up,then why do we need to do that? Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Sometimes it's just nice to be nice. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have plenty of time to be nice within the confines of the Land Development Code. With that,we'll close the public hearing and we'll go into discussion and then motion. I don't know what the preference-- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'd like to see the-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Staff reports. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: --not see the wall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We went through already. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: We did? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was when you were sleeping over there. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I thought--I thought I was going to get something from Page 27 of 54 October 6, 2016 water,but no,okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,you didn't ask for anything. We had Dan and then-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Never mind. Never mind. I already talked to Jerry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm sorry. Karen,did you have something else? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yeah. I'd like to--I don't want to see the wall going away or a deviation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,then we can vote on it accordingly. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I think it's--I mean,there's plantings on the other side of it,so I don't see why--it's going to be there for a long time. It's going to be a lot of noise. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The party that is affected by it and the neighborhood at the NIM didn't want the wall. They wanted vegetation instead. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: That was just one man. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,he's the only guy that's affected by it. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well,the noise is going to carry. It's not just to his property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well,let's--okay. So anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got a list of things that we need to decide on how we want to incorporate them or not into a stipulation. And I'll--the first one was the Deviation 1,which is secondary facade. They asked for a deviation for that. I mean,I don't know if there's any--I don't see any issues with it,but somebody else might. The Deviation No.2 was the west buffer requesting enhance the buffer with the material and not have the wall consistent with the letter that was received in the NIM. I mean,if--I don't have a problem with it;I know that Karen does. So we probably will vote on that one separately. Deviation 3,remove the internal buffers between the two buildings. That certainly seems to make sense. I don't know if--and as I go along,if you guys object,just say something. Remove the references to the stories and the height that are on the master plan because it's in the Development Standards Table. Remove the automotive service station reference and note that it's a convenience store with fuel pumps or however,but it's not an automobile service station as we tend to know them. Apply the Staff Note No.4 to the building at Price Street only,and that's the one with the restrictions. The dumpster locations--I mean,that's the one--the restrictions would have--would apply to the one along Price Street,but not the one on 41. The dumpster locations will be a minimum of 80 feet from the Price Street right-of-way. We're going to change the staff restriction on auto repair,and I'll read that as we move into the next one. That had--we're going to--we're going to use auto repair at 7549; was that the number we decided on? Dan? MR. SMITH: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Auto repair,the restrictive one is 7549? MR. SMITH: Correct,7549 is the--yep,that's the restricted one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was the request. Okay.And then 7699. So that--Item No.4,we are accepting as a recommendation,but it will be restricted to the Price Street building,not the building on 41. Then the following change is to the overall uses allowed in the project. Remove Use 9;remove Use 13 along U.S.41 only;remove Use 27;remove 28 for on-customer premises only;remove 31,34,37,42,45, 46,49, 50,66--and 66 meaning no No. 8093. The rest of it's okay--76,77, 80, 101 for employee leasing only, 110, 117, 119 for no 8734; 120,except no gravestones,tombstones,et cetera; 127, 130, 131, 132 for no 7929; 135 for no 0741;remove the SIC code references on the prohibited uses;prohibit car washes and communication towers. There will be no outside amplified sound on non-fuel facility parcels,and on the fuel facility parcel, the outside amplified sound will be allowed from 7 a.m.to 10 p.m.only. It's prohibited after that. We'll restrict the parking lots to a maximum height of 15 --parking lot lighting to a maximum height Page 28 of 54 October 6, 2016 of 15 feet within--when within 50 feet of the property line on the west and south,and we're going to add the exhibit for the additional right-of-way conceptual plan that was discussed here at this meeting to the PUD. That's the notes I made. And I think the only one that any of us have any disagreement on is the Deviation No.2 on the west buffer, so what I'd like to do is we can discuss that or vote on that separately and then go to the rest of it. Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I just would like to talk about the design standards deviation in the plan that is provided in our packet and that shows the east elevation. That is the intent of the final design that included the deviation;is that correct? MS.CRESPO: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And how do you see that changing if,in fact,you did not have the deviation? You would have to put--create that as a similar facade to the other--to the front--with full windows of some sort or some other type of design? MR. SMITH: If I may,I have--Peter,our architect,can answer. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MS.CRESPO: The real issue is it wouldn't be--we couldn't have our loading. The secondary facade allows you to have your loading area on that side of the building,and so it would force us to put our loading on the west side of the building which is oriented more towards U.S.41. So that would be the ultimate effect of that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah,if I remember the architectural standards,it would--and I'll wait for Peter to discuss it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They were updated radically. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Radically. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it's not even incorporated into MUNI code yet. MR. SHAWINSKY: For the record,Peter Shawinsky,architect with development review. I'd just like to address this for clarification for the Board,if I may. In a PUD the code states that a building is to have four primary facades. One is allowed to be secondary,and that's typically to internal of the site. This particular facade does face Price Street,and that was the reason for our objection. The facade,as you know,is this one right here. And the exhibit,which I believe you may have in your packet-- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. MR. SHAWINSKY: --is this facade. The SDP,when it was submitted for review,it was under the previous LDC. And a primary facade requires two design elements. Those design elements are covered entry and tower element. This particular facade,when we review it,has those two elements with the exception of the glazing requirement for those elements. So if they were to increase the glazing on this facade--or the code also allows planted trellises to take the place of glazing. If planted trellises were added to this facade,this particular facade would meet the primary standards of the code. In speaking to the view of that particular facade,if I may, currently here's the site. As the gentleman earlier mentioned,it's heavily vegetated. Our concern is that once this site has been cleared,you're going to have views from this intersection as well as all along Price Street. And in talking about the possible rotary on Price Street,that further opens that part of the parcel to view of that facade. Another view,looking at the current front of the property from that intersection,the general location of the building is going to be right here. Moving on down Price Street,again,this is a view just as you turn onto Price Street. There's your bank building. This is the area for the fuel pumps and the building beyond that. So it was our opinion that the building is close to meeting the current primary standards as it is now. The proposed site,from looking at the plantings around the building,this facade here is void of any foundation plantings,building foundation plantings. I cannot 100 percent speak to that section of the code. But if additional plantings were required Page 29 of 54 October 6, 2016 there,the addition of the trellis,that would bring that elevation to primary facade standards. In one other picture I'd like to share with you,Wawa does have a very nice building. All their buildings are identical. This particular facility is in Fort Myers in a similar situation.This facade here is the one in question on Price Street. I cannot speak to the landscaping or the buffering requirements to Lee County,but you can see based on the size of the building and the orientation,it is visual. And one last,if I may,this particular facility is also in Fort Myers. It's on Colonial Boulevard. It's approximately the same distance back looking at the facility. Again,I cannot speak to the landscaping requirements,but this facade right here,with that little notch that you see,is the access to the roof,and that's the facade in question. So the determination that that facade cannot be seen and would not be considered a primary facade is the reason for our decision. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Thank you. That was a lot more detail than I really asked for,but that was a good review. My only concern is,why--and I guess that would have to be the applicant. Why do we have an ice storage located on that side of the building?I don't understand what the purpose of that is other than it's an ice storage. Is that for shop--for folks who are buying large quantities of ice,and that's where it's going to be stored? MS.CRESPO: I believe that's for the employees--employees of the food store to get supplies. So it's not for the public to access. Scott Gerald is here with Wawa,and he can speak to some of the issues with those features and having loading area on that side of the building. MR.GERALD: So the exterior ice storage is only for storage of ice. No retail use. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No retail. MR.GERALD: So the vendor delivers directly into that box,and then ice is sold out of our freezers inside,but there's simply not enough freezer space to store the ice inside,so... COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Again,I have no problem with the request for the deviation. I think it would be screened well enough by the bank building. I would just--I think it may be appropriate to just add a little bit more planting or whatever just to cover some of that what I would call the--well,at least the ice storage and the ladder and such to maybe just some kind of plantings around there. But other than that,I have no problem with that. I think it's going to be blocked by the existing bank site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,that's not what the deviation is suggesting. So either we except the deviation or we look at what you're proposing,one or the other. Because what you're proposing would be contrary to the deviation. So I don't know which way you want to go,but... COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm fine with the deviation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I just have a comment. I mean,the idea of having primary facades around every business side is really detrimental to the business viewpoint of things.You've got to have some part of building more utilitarian than every fluffy facade. So I don't know how or why the code insists on it. I mean,I know it does. Somehow that's just not common sense,and you've got to have access to buildings. Not all the time will they be able to meet their primary facade standards. And in this particular case,I think they've done a good job in trying to do it the best they could. So with that,if there's no other questions or comments,we need a motion. If there's still-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes,sir. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I just want some clarification from Jerry Kurtz that he's satisfied with the canal bank treatment that they're going to use. And you can just say from back there"yes." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No,he can't. He's got to be on record. And we need to ask these kind of things prior to closing the public hearing,so we definitely-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I missed that. I'm sorry. I was asleep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No problem. MR.KURTZ: Good morning,Jerry Kurtz,for the record, Stormwater Planning manager. Page 30 of 54 October 6, 2016 The--we're looking at the canal bank treatment,and there's a couple options. Both will be fine and adequate;there should be no issues with either option being discussed. So we're fine. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Good,thanks. MR.KURTZ: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other questions? Then we will close the public hearing again,and we will--we had discussion and issues were read off. I want to ask--before we take the vote I read off about 12 or so different stipulations.The three--I don't know--I haven't heard any objections to them except for Deviation 3,which I think we've resolved. Deviation--or Deviation 1,which I thought--I think we resolved,which is the secondary facade. The Deviation 2,is there still an objection to that one? Because if there is,we'll have to separately vote on it. I don't want to lump it together with the whole project. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I do have an objection.I think it's part of our new code,and I think it should be there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So with that,let's start with the vote on Deviation No.2 first,and then we'll vote on the rest of it as part of the PUD. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So Deviation 2 is the wall? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Deviation 2 is the west buffer facing the residential parcel off--across the canal. And the applicant is asking for a deviation not to put a wall in. He is going to add the enhancements to the landscaping in lieu of that. So with that in mind,does anybody have any further discussion on Deviation No.2? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes,because the gentleman was here that faces that and he didn't want it. We've made exception before when the person that is affected--he has left now. But the person affected has agreed to the buffer zone. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: This is going to be there for a long time. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And I support the deviation as well. I think the deviation with the enhanced--the buffer and with the distance between the residential community plus the fact that it borders the Henderson Creek,I'm fine with the deviation as requested. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. All those in favor of Deviation No.2,signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 4-1. So Deviation No.2 was supported by the majority as one opposition,so when you go to the board,you'll have to deal with it now. As far as the overall PUD,the rest of the elements that were read on record previously,Deviation 1, Deviation 3,and all the other limitations and use references and all that,is there any further discussion on those? (No response.) COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No. I make a motion to approve Deviations 1 and 3 and to include the list as presented by the chair in regards to the amendments and adjustments to the ordinance as discussed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Second. I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Diane.Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor,signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. Page 31 of 54 October 6, 2016 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-0. So that cleans that one up. We'll see you at the Board. Good luck at the board level. MR. SMITH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay. We are going to take a lunch break depending on where we are with this one. If we look close--to finish it,maybe we'll decide to just take a regular break and work through lunch.But in the meantime,we'll move on to the next item up for today. ***9A is the next item up. It's PUDA-PL20160000787. It's the Orange Blossom Ranch Planned Unit Development. It's on the north side of Oil Well Road. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item,please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission. We'll start on the end with Tom. MR.EASTMAN: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I talked to staff,and I don't think I talked to anybody else. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've talked with staff.I've also talked with the applicant a couple times on the phone and once in a meeting yesterday,various representatives of the applicant as well. Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Nothing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that,we'll need a presentation by whoever would like to make the presentation. MR.ANDERSON: Good morning,Mr.Chairman,Commissioners. My name is Bruce Anderson from the Cheffy Passidomo Law Firm. And this PUD amendment is to explicitly recognize and authorize an activity that has occurred on this property under a prior owner,and that is scraping down the property solely for the purpose of residential development and having the dirt that was scraped hauled offsite and sold to others. This operation,the scraping down,is limited to a four-year period after it commences. And there is also a modification of a landscape buffer that is proposed. And I will ask--I was remiss.I failed to introduce Carl Barraco and Steve Coleman from Barraco Engineering. And I'll turn this over to Steve Coleman to go into some more detail. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nothing against Mr.Coleman,but it was Mr.Barraco who delayed us all this morning,correct? MR.COLEMAN: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Couldn't let you get away with that. MR.ANDERSON: That's why he's not testifying. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Based on that,do we make a motion-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would fit right in. MR.COLEMAN: Good morning. For the record, Steven Coleman,Barraco&Associates representing the applicant. Just to give everybody an idea of our project location,the PUD is off of Oil Well Road. It covers both the north and south side. It is east of the Palmetto Ridge High School and west of the Golden Gate Page 32 of 54 October 6, 2016 Canal. The proposed master plan really has been--it's not really a change to what the existing master plan was. There were some updates that we did to reflect current conditions on the project as well as approvals that we've received from Collier County. And,actually,let me use your monitor here. So the updates are to these areas here,which are existing single-family residence, same as this over here,and the lake configurations have also been updated to reflect the approvals that we have currently through Collier County on the PPL approvals. The first change that we're proposing is not really a change. It's more of a clarification to the landscape buffers. The previous plan had Type B landscape buffers surrounding the entire perimeter,and through coordination with staff it was discovered that the reason why those Type Bs were shown was because there was a multifamily use associated with the PUD. So we really clarified the buffers to be just a 15-foot buffer,and whether it's going to be single-family or multifamily use that's going to be adjacent to the perimeter,the Land Development Code will control. So,for example,the buffers that are along the existing portions of the PUD,those have been updated to reflect what was currently--or what was previously approved and what is installed as part of the first phase of Orange Blossom. The additional perimeter buffers are noted around,and they're just called buffer types,and Note 5 is included to specify the type of landscape buffer material will be determined at the time of Site Development Plan or plat review on the LDC at the time of such application. The next item as part of the amendment is the removal of the excess soil from the site. There is approximately 1.3 million cubic yards of soil removal that will need to occur from the site,and the reason for that is twofold: One,the existing development had previously been authorized to remove material from the site. So in order for the newer parts of the development to comply--not comply,but to really aesthetically look the same,we're going to have to do the same thing on this site. There's about two feet of overburden on the site that will have to be scraped as well as the excavation of the water management lakes. The haul site,or the haul access to and from the site will be from the southwest--will be from the southwest corner of the north parcel. There is an existing stabilized access road that is utilized--was utilized as part of the previous orange groves operation,and it's also a construction access for Collier County to maintain their canal. And then on the south side of Oil Well Road,it's essentially a few hundred feet north of where the north side would be. So both access points are away from the existing residential development.That was one item that got brought up at the NIM meeting was where are the trucks going to be accessing the site. So we did clarify that it will be away from the existing residents and also will not utilize the main entrances to each project. The next item is the work area on the--the working drawing worked out really well. We were able to show a crosshatch of the areas that are to be scraped and also the lake areas that will be dug. As I previously said,there's plus-or-minus two feet of overburden on the site that has to be removed and also the lake excavation for water management criteria. The hauling activities will be limited Monday through Saturday,7 a.m.to 5 p.m. We do have truck limits during peak hours. I believe it's 11 trucks during the peak hour. And the time frame that we have is--I believe it's two years for the north side,two years for the south side with those two years starting when each respective phase or parcel removes the first bit of material from the site. And with that,I will answer any questions that you have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Questions of the Planning Commission? Looks like I'll start it out then. What is the--well,what is the depth you're digging these lakes to? MR.COLEMAN: The water management permit has the approval to go to 20,and I believe our excavation permits have the ability to go to 20.The majority of these lakes cannot physically be dug to 20 lakes--or 20-foot deep,though. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Could you--there's a couple details you had concerning a typical Page 33 of 54 it October 6, 2016 perimeter berm. Can you take a--do you have that somewhere you can put on the overhead,or do you have a slide for it or something? Ray,could you switch--oh,okay. Someone will do it. Over on the right--left side of that page,I think you have a couple--actually,you have it as a--well,there they are,but you have it as a separate sheet in the staff report. It's on Page 21 of the staff report,but we can see it here. See the control elevation lower left side? That's at 13 feet? Yep. MR.COLEMAN: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See the bottom of the lake; it's at one foot. So that's 12 feet,right? MR.COLEMAN: Yes,it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. See where it says typical lake cross-section,design depth, maximum allow--maximum allowable bottom elevation five feet. So that means you can go to eight feet. But the diagram's contradictory so it says one foot. So you can go 12 feet total. How do you get to 20 feet regardless of what South Florida wants when you have a PUD that restricts you to 12 feet? MR.COLEMAN: That could be a typographical error. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No,it's not. It's repeated a couple of times. That's why I'm wondering--and you repeated it in the new documents that you gave us that are attached to the staff report. So why are you--why is it--why are you guys--well,first of all,you dug a lot of material and took it off this inconsistent with the PUD. MR.ANDERSON: We did not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes,you did. And now you've got a control elevation of 13 feet on the lake bottom that tells you you've got about 12-foot of depth. But you're telling me you're digging to 20 feet. How do you get there? MR.COLEMAN: Like I said,we can look at it,but I'm fairly confident that the original PUD had lake depths going to 20 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,can you show them to me? I'm just going by the diagram I'm looking at here. If you're trying to see a clear copy of that,I went to the records department and got a clear copy,and it says exactly the same thing the other one said. MR.COLEMAN: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I'm just trying to understand--yes,you acknowledge you had other permits that allowed you to go deeper. Why is the PUD being violated in that regard then? MR.COLEMAN: To be honest with you,I'm not sure the PUD got violated. I was always under the impression that it was at 20 feet,and I thought we had PUD documents that showed that. But if we need to amend our documents to go to 20 feet,we can certainly do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's--I don't know what to tell you. I just know that if the PUD says 20 feet,you should--I mean,this dimension here,I don't know why you would dig deeper and get a permit from Collier County at a deeper depth. Is there any county personnel here who would have any knowledge of this? Matt,you're in charge of the engineering department. MR.COLEMAN: There is a nutrient-loading criteria that we have to meet as well that is dependent on lake-depth volume. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I'm more concerned about being consistent with the PUD. I already know that we haven't been in other regards,and I'd like to understand why this one doesn't seem to have been met. And maybe there's an explanation.I just would like it. MR.McLEAN: Matt McLean for the record. I'm not certain,Mark. I haven't analyzed all of that information directly. A lot of these permits we're talking about were permitted and approved back in 2005 and'6 prior to my time at the county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And,Matt,the other thing I noticed in the staff report is that the buffers on the PUD had required Type B buffers,but one of the staff comments says that we've been allowing by plat Type A buffers,which is--how did we do that when the PUD says Type B? Do you know? I Page 34 of 54 October 6, 2016 mean,that's before your time,but these things I would have expected answers to today,and I don't know if I'm going to get them or not. If you don't know them,I don't know who might. But we've got two consistent errors here. MR.McLEAN: Again,Mark,you know,I don't have an answer for you on those two particular questions. It was prior to my time here at the county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is it something you'll be able to research and figure out? MR.McLEAN: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. I don't know what to do about this change in depth because,first of all,I understand you are blasting out there. MR.COLEMAN: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have any soil borings to show me why you're blasting? MR.COLEMAN: Not on me,we do not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know what layer you're hitting,the depth of the layer is that you're blasting through? MR.COLEMAN: The rock,it's sporadic throughout the site,but on average it's about 10 feet below the existing grade of the site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Existing grade being 14? MR.COLEMAN: The existing grade being around 16 or 17. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you've got--you've got borings--and it's not a confining layer? It's just rock? MR.COLEMAN: I do not know that off the top of my head what it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You're prohibited from going through a confining layer by Section 2.5 of the PUD,I believe. So if you don't know that,then that poses another problem. But let me get to that section of the PUD and check it out. MR.BARRACO: Mr.Chairman-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR.BARRACO: --Carl Barraco,if you'd like for me to answer the confining layer-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MR.BARRACO: --I'd be happy to do that.It's rock,but it's fractured rock. It's not a confining layer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I was looking for. There was a reference to--not penetrating a confining layer somewhere in your documents,I just don't know where offhand. I'm a bit concerned,and maybe it's a question of the County Attorney's Office. If the PUD has the details showing a depth but we've got testimony showing that they've got permits to go to a deeper depth, what's supposed to control? MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Well,the PUD should be reconciled to reflect their request to go to 20. That should be part of the request. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And is that something that would have to be advertised? MS.ASHTON-CICKO: We didn't include the depths in the advertising, so I would say no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Somebody else have a question? Oh,Tom? MR.EASTMAN: Thank you,Mr.Chairman. With respect to the traffic coming off of this site and its potential impact on the school district,we have a very busy time for arrival and dismissal.And I was just wondering if you'd be willing to coordinate those times so that you're not in conflict with that traffic. And then also with respect to the blasting,I know of no complaints if you've been doing blasting,but there's the potential for conflict with students learning at the high school site and blasting going on next door. And,again,that would merely mean coordination of the timing as to when those activities take place. So are you willing to work with the school district to discuss the timing of those activities,both the traffic and the blasting? MR.COLEMAN: Yes,I believe we are. To answer your question regarding the blasting,blasting has been ongoing for several months now. It occurs towards the end of the day,usually between 2:45 and 3:00,and I believe high schools might have let Page 35 of 54 October 6, 2016 out by those times. So to answer your question on the timing of the blasting, it's usually between 2:45 and 3:00 o'clock every day. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah,because they're not allowed to leave the stuff in the hole overnight,and they start drilling in the morning,they fill the holes during the day,and they blast them at night. MR.COLEMAN: Correct. And there is a blasting buffer zone around the school as well,so we're not allowed to blast I believe it's within a thousand feet of the school. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is someone from staff knowledgeable enough to tell me what the minimum depth that's needed for a lake in Collier County? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Could I say something? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: In the Water Management District criteria they recommend that a portion or substantial portion of your lake be deeper than 12 feet. It's always been a point of contention,because there were factions in the county that liked shallow lakes,but the district wanted a portion of the--a large portion of the lake deeper than 12 feet up to 20 feet. So when we were doing this,20 feet was a generally-accepted depth,and if you wanted to go deeper than that,you had to prove that you weren't going to cause any damage. That's why you have these sand mines like the one we looked at. They go 80 feet deep. Willow Run goes 50 feet deep.All these lakes out here at Orange Blossom are blasted in--the lakes to the west of you are all blasted into rock. There--like Carl said,there are no--confining layers--the rock around here is so fractured,it's one of the jokes about sea level rise. If you built a wall along the coast,it wouldn't matter because the sea would just come in under the wall and up through the ground. So the rock here is so fractured that there's a tie between the surface water table and a succession of groundwater tables that are below.They're all--you have a term called an aquiclude which--an aquitard retards flow between the aquifers,and an aquiclude prevents flow between the aquifers. Well,a true aquiclude would be like a clay layer where nothing penetrates,but the stuff around here, it's all fractured rock,and stuff penetrates between the layers. When the rain falls,it goes down and keeps going down through the semi-confining layers. So,you know,I'm not all that concerned about them penetrating anything. I wouldn't be all that concerned about them going 20 feet,30 feet,whatever. But,you know,the deeper you go,you start running into problems with the code about lake banks,slopes,so--and it gets a little harder to bring the material up. I'm just curious about something. You said you had two feet of overburden that you're pulling out, and one square mile 1-foot deep is a million cubic yards. And I'm looking at a map that shows roughly a square mile,and--you know,between all the area you say has to be scalped,whatever,cleared. And at 2-foot deep,to me that would be like two million cubic yards right off the top. So is--and then you've got the lakes on top of that. Have you done your numbers correctly? MR. COLEMAN: Yes. It's a plus or minus 2-foot. It could be two feet over the roads. It could be one foot over the lots. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Oh,okay. MR.COLEMAN: It's--the elevations vary. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. So it's a maximum of a 2-foot,but it might be down to zero in some places. MR.COLEMAN: It could be,and there are some areas that require fill. It was an existing orange grove. There's ag ditches. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah,that's right.Jerry and I were looking at the LiDAR, and it shows a lot of furrows up and down. MR.COLEMAN: Correct. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: So you might be 2-foot max and half a foot at the bottom. Okay.That's starting to make sense now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me address your first statements. I am not concerned about the depth Page 36 of 54 October 6, 2016 from the perspective that you spoke. I am concerned about the depth in relationship to what was approved by the PUD,and that's all. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now,if they want to go deeper,that's fine. I need to see the boring logs and other things to understand why it's necessary to go deeper,but I am concerned that the PUD had a certain statement in it. It was approved that way back when it was first approved. It was--not only that, it was refreshed when they rewrote it and just resubmitted it with this document,and now they're saying they're not doing that. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. You're approaching from legal point of view,and I'm telling you from the engineering point of view I don't have a lot of concern with this,but if the legal point of view has been violated,then that's a problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And who knows--and,you know, Stan,from my history,there isn't--I rarely would ever have dug a lake that shallow. I would have dug it deeper. But the point is,if this was a PUD that I had been involved in,I wouldn't have allowed that detail to be there. And the fact that they have--and not only that,they rewrote it on a new submittal. I'm just wondering why,then,are they telling us they're going to 20 feet? It's not consistent,and it's bothersome,and that's my piece. And the reason it's bothersome-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And it's a legal part,so I'm staying out of that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,it piles--it dovetails into another issue. You're asking for what was stated to be scraping off the property necessary for bringing it down to whatever level you want to take it but, yet,you're digging these lakes deeper than are needed. Where are you digging more material if you're not using it on site? The original intent of this PUD was clear. You were allowed to take material from these lakes and move it across Oil Well Road to the south side and fill your site normally with what's called development lakes. They weren't considered commercial lakes. You are now asking for a commercial excavation,which is a different threshold. But why are we asking for it when it's not needed to clear the depth needed for minimum depth on these lakes? I mean,I'm just--I don't understand.You're creating excess material purposely for what?To sell? I mean,is that what you're doing? Then let's just get that on the record. MR.COLEMAN: The depth issue is a nutrient-loading question. And I think Carl can speak more to the engineering sides of the nutrient loading and the depths of the lakes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'll need staff to verify that our minimum lake depth,then,is insufficient to meet nutrient loading. And if that's the case,then we've got a problem with our code. So either we're right or you're right,and I'm curious to get to the bottom of it. MR.BARRACO: Mr.Chairman,may I address?Carl Barraco,for the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah,of course. MR.BARRACO: There is--the resonance time of water entering a management lake is related to nutrient removal. That is not to say that a 12-foot lake can--you can achieve minimum nutrient-loading removal with 12 feet. You may or not be. It's on a case-by-case basis. What I can tell you is--so that your code may be just fine. There may be instances where you can meet nutrient loading with a 12-foot lake,and particularly if you add other management practices such as dry retention. But the other thing that I can tell you is that in general,when you have deeper lakes,when you can achieve that,you have a longer resonance time,and you have better nutrient removal. And I think we can all agree,with the water-quality issues we're seeing in Southwest Florida,that even if we can achieve a nutrient loading above and beyond the minimum required,that that benefits us all,and that goes back to TMDLs and trying to balance the nutrients that are leaving our communities. So the answer is,in general,when we can increase the depth to a certain point and increase resonance time in water management systems,there is a direct benefit to everyone. The other part of that answer is,it is not always necessary to go deeper to achieve the minimum required nutrient loading. And I hope that answered your question. Page 37 of 54 October 6, 2016 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,it does and it doesn't. I think,like Stan,you're missing the point of my question. The PUD says you can go from down to one.You're going down to 20,which is a negative something. That's not what the PUD allows. You're not asking for that to be changed in the PUD, so that poses a dilemma for me. And if I was a reviewer in this county,I would certainly consider that as a concern in my review of these plans that you submit for your excavation. I'm not sure why it wasn't done previously. Matt will probably take a look at it,and we'll get an answer. MR.BARRACO: And I think I can give you that answer from my perspective,anyway. As Matt said,he wasn't involved with the initial construction within this PUD,and we were not involved with that; however,when the previous engineer and the previous developer began construction,I think that's when that typical lake depth maximum of 20 feet may have been started. We probably just picked that up since it's been approved before in this PUD. So that may not be the answer you want to hear,but I think,in reality,that's probably what happened. Somehow when this first started,before my time,before Steve's time,before Matt's time,the 20 feet was approved,and they started constructing that way.We simply kept using those same construction permits,and that's where we are today. So I don't disagree that it appears there's a difference between the 12-foot in the PUD and what's been done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think what I'm trying to say is we're in a point where you've come in to clean up,what,the--one of the mistakes we found,which is the landscaping buffers. You're asking for an excavation permit which involves these cross-sections. If they're not being done correctly or they haven't been,like this plan shows,why don't we just clean it all up at one time? I don't see the need for anybody to go forward with errors on these documents. They need to be fixed. And,yes,we talked yesterday,honestly--and after you left,in our discussion,I stayed up until 11 or 12 o'clock rereading everything based on the comments you made yesterday,and some of these things starting ringing home because of our discussion,because prior to that we had to focus on Arthrex. And so I really didn't get a lot of time with this till last night; otherwise,I would have given you a heads-up earlier. MR.BARRACO: And I appreciate that. I don't know if a way to clean that up is just simply through the process we're in now,clarify that 20-foot depth based upon-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know either,and we'll get--there's some other issues that in my reading I've highlighted I want to walk through and understand better. We have a gentleman on the panel now who has also been involved in a lot of excavations and nutrient loading and other things,and we've got Stan,former county engineer. So between everybody on here,maybe we can fmd a solution of it, so... MR.BARRACO: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well,Mark,I would agree. I think we have to correct these exhibits before this--either we do it now or they come back. I mean,that's-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,and I--my concern is the intent and purpose versus what was stated. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well,I agree as well.I really did not catch that in my review. I kind of don't understand now why we're taking two feet of overburden off,why we're now excavating. It has the ring of more of a commercial mining operation than it does a land development operation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's what I was trying to understand. And normally when we get into something of that magnitude,there's got to be justification for it. For example,I didn't see--I looked hard for soil borings. I found nothing. I know you told me there's rock there,but that doesn't tell me why we're going to this depth if you've got a rock layer and it's six feet thick,and you're breaking through it,and when you pull the rock out,you have a deeper depth just because it's one big mass of rock,that would help to understand why we've got to go to 20 feet. But if it's going to 20 feet just to create a monetary source for the developer,that's not what--this is supposed to be a development excavation,not a commercial excavation. That's why it was questioned as a--on how it was to be excavated by the original Board of County Commissioners when it first got approved and Jim Mudd at the time,too. MR.BARRACO: For the record,Carl Barraco. I understand,and I agree,and it is our intent to go through this process to deliver a community--to finish this community as it was started. The two feet is required to scrape to get those finished floors down and the roads down to similar elevations that were constructed. Page 38 of 54 October 6, 2016 The lake depth from--varying from 12 to 20 is--the sole purpose of that is to provide a water management system to serve the community.There is no intent to over-excavate to generate a revenue source. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well,let's move through this and see what we've got. By the time we get done with it,we'll see what we've got to do with it. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr.Anderson went in the hallway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Bruce had another--he had to leave. I know he's got an appointment he's got to take care of,so... I'm going to move on--oh,in your--in the narrative under the zoning services review--and I just want the applicant to tell me if this is true--the drawing shows that excavation would occur only in the areas designated R/G; is that correct? MR.COLEMAN: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then why are you adding it to a use to the general area and not the R/G area? MR.COLEMAN: That would be a better question for Mr.Anderson. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,he just left. MR.COLEMAN: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR.COLEMAN: I didn't rewrite the uses.Bruce did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well,maybe staff can answer that question,then. Because in the RIG--or the general area,which applies to everywhere on this site,you've added,basically,this use,but you've stated and it clearly seems to be what your intention is,that it's supposed to be in the R/G area because you're scraping off overburden. So why don't--that use get added--moved to the R/G area and take it out of the general area? I don't understand why that--we even got it there to begin with. MR.JOHNSON: Mr.Chair,Eric Johnson,principal planner,zoning. It's my understanding that the excavation activities would only occur in the--I guess the R/G,and that's probably where it should be in the PUD document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then we'll--one of the things we would do is move that,then,to the--to that area. I'll move down my list of questions until I-- MR.JOHNSON: Mr.Chair? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR.JOHNSON: Sorry to interrupt. Eric Johnson,again. The existing PUD document, Section 3 is residential/golf,R/G,so the--any proposed uses such as excavation should occur under 3.4 A,as in alpha. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,that's what I was suggesting,yes. MR.JOHNSON: Okay. Very good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't disagree with you.That's where it should move to,so... On your master plan,and in a statement made in the beginning of the meeting,you indicated that the buffers are really supposed to be consistent with the Land Development Code,even though the--even though the PUD had more intense buffers or buffers built on possibly a multifamily use.There's a new footnote added. And if you could blow those up,it might be helpful. Not a footnote. It's those notes in the lower right-hand corner of the master plan. Number 5,the type of landscape buffer material will be determined at the time of site development plan or plat review based on the LDC at the time of site application. That is a totally unneeded note. You've got to do that anyway,so we don't normally add those notes because it's redundant to what the law already requires. But even a step further,the problem to make you change this came about because the master plan had a more restrictive buffer on it than the LDC required,although it was apparently ignored in the past at some point. If we're now saying we're going to default to the LDC,we do not want to put the buffers on the master plan because then the master plan becomes more dominant than the LDC for any changes,and why Page 39 of 54 October 6, 2016 mess with it? If you're going to go by what the LDC says,why don't we just take them off the master plan completely? Eric? MR.JOHNSON: Mr.Chair,allow me to explain.The applicant was motivated to put that note in there per staff recommendation,because the PUD currently allows for both single-family uses as well as multifamily uses. If the project is a multifamily use,then a Type B landscape buffer would be required,and that would be 15 feet wide. The Type A landscape buffer is only 10 feet wide,and that would be required in areas where single-family would abut single-family. It's my understanding,and the applicant can confirm today,that they were voluntarily going to have a 15-foot-wide buffer regardless. So if they were going to have a single-family abut single-family,instead of having a 10-foot-wide Type A buffer,they would voluntarily put in a 15-foot Type A buffer,and-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well,then,basically we would default to the LDC except where there's a Type A buffer,and it will be 15 feet. MR.COLEMAN: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well,that might be a little easier,because what I was concerned about is if we don't--if we put the Type A on here and we don't clean the language up so that if it's not single-family and it's multifamily,it has to be a different buffer,why don't we just simply say either all the buffers will be 15 feet wide in the type allocated by the code for the uses in place,or if we use a Type A buffer,it will still be 15 feet wide. It's just a little cleaner way to look at it. That particular note on No.5 should not be there because it's going to default to that anyway,which takes us to Note No.6 and No.4. Number 4 says potable water well locations are shown conceptually and are subject to the PUD Section 6.4. Then on No.6 we kind of say a little bit more than that,and I'm suggesting eliminate 6,just say,are subject to PUD Section 6.4 and are represented by Nos. 1 through 5 on the plan,and then we don't have anything that refers to the 2004 PUD approval or anything else. It's by whatever the PUD has in it. Any problems with that? MR.COLEMAN: We have no objection to that. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah. I just had concerns because on the master plan they had the numbers 1,2,3,4,and 5,and I didn't know what those were,so I asked them to identify what those were. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you mind if we just add it to 4 like I suggested so that it's cleaner? MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah,that's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well,then that works. I'm going through my various notes to try to finish this up. Recommendation to staff,is there any objection from your side on that recommendation of the haul road access location? MR.COLEMAN: No objection. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. In the added use you talk about the 11 trucks per hour leaving the site during a.m.and peak(sic)hours. That's not what your traffic report says. Let me pull that up. I know your traffic engineer's not here. Okay. In your traffic report--and I think it's on--and I'll tell you the page here in just a minute. On Page 1 --well,it's my Page 137,it's your Traffic Generation Computation. Total material to be removed, and it's 1.3 million cubic yards. Four-year life span;that's 325,000 cubic yards per year,50 weeks per year. That's 6,500 cubic yards per week; six days per week,that's 1,083 cubic yards per day; 10 cubic yards per truck--which the trucks are usually bigger than that,but 10 cubic yards per truck is 108 trucks per day one way; 10 hours per day; 11 trucks per hour one way. It doesn't say peak hour in that analysis. I mean--so why are you concerned about limiting 11 trucks per hour only during the peak hour? I had thought,through our conversation yesterday--by the way,you insinuated,I thought--was that when you said,we're going to limit it to 11 trucks during the peak hour,I thought that was the limitation. That's the standard. So what is it you were going to do for peak hour to make the traffic congestion any less problematic than it is any other time the mine's in operation? Because that seemed to be the intent of what you said to me Page 40 of 54 October 6, 2016 yesterday. MR.BARRACO: Again,for the record,Carl Barraco. The traffic analysis does come to that conclusion. We were just trying to put a absolute maximum on for a.m./p.m.peak hours. In other words,there's nothing to say that in the morning there may be eight trucks leaving and then 15 trucks leaving the next hour. So we were just trying to provide some comfort to say that,we will guarantee that a.m.and p.m.peak hours it will not exceed 11. In any other hour it may. It may be lower,it may be higher. And on the average, it would probably be 11. But we wanted to provide a guarantee that during the peak hours,it would not exceed 11. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know what the a.m. and p.m.peak hours are? MR.BARRACO: I do not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because I don't know what they are. MR.BARRACO: Oh,you mean what do they mean? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No,I mean,is it from five to six,five to seven,six to seven,seven to eight? What hours are they? MR.BARRACO: I don't know specifically in this area. We did have that--again,that discussion at the neighborhood informational meeting,but they can be quantified. We did tell the--those present at the neighborhood informational meeting that,in general,Monday through Fridays it is a set and established hour in the morning and in the evening,and generally on Saturdays it is a different hour. We did not discuss exactly what those hours are in this particular case,but we do know that that could be quantified by the transportation engineer and would be quantified through--I assume through the excavation permit we would establish the exact p.m. --a.m. and p.m.peak hours for both weekdays and weekends. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But for the benefit of the public and those of us that aren't traffic engineers and,obviously,I think now you're not,I'm not,and I don't know if anybody on this panel is. Can we get the exact hours that you're suggesting you would limit your trucks to 11 trucks per hour and at the same time address the issue that Tom brought up with coordination with the school. Has anybody looked at those hours? So we know if the school's got an issue from three to five and then we have peak hours from five to seven,there may be a need from this panel to suggest you limit your trucks from three to seven to 11 trucks per hour,or whatever seems to be the need for the time. So we're not there with that yet,and I think that's going to have to be addressed. MR.BARRACO: Let me suggest that,again,I assumed that those peak hours would be exactly determined through the next permit process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,you've got language in the PUD. That's the problem. And if it's in the PUD,it should be understandable,and it's not just by referring to peak hours. And 16 years on this board,I still don't know--I couldn't tell you what the peak hours are. MR.BARRACO: Well-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that means the public's sure not going to know. MR.BARRACO: I am a civil engineer. I am not specialized in traffic,but I do understand transportation engineering,and I can tell you that in this particular case,the a.m.peak hour is probably going to be between 7:30 and 9:30. The p.m.peak hour is generally between 3:30 and 5:30.We know that for weekday traffic. I think we each see that every day driving around. And Saturdays it's typically a little later in the morning. I'm sure there's a way we can address that,because I know those numbers exist. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,they do. They were based--that's how the traffic engineer bases his calculations on the--so I just thought we'd be able to get those,so... MR.BARRACO: I'm fairly certain that they are already determined in the transportation analysis that Mr.Treesh(sic)--so we could probably take some time and look at it or-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,we're going to have probably lunchtime,the way this is going. MR.BARRACO: Then I could probably do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're not going to finish quickly today, so... It is lunchtime,and we usually take an hour for lunch,and I think that's probably beneficial at this Page 41 of 54 October 6, 2016 point,and we resume at 1 o'clock with further questioning. Is that okay with the rest of the panel? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's break for lunch. Be back at one. Thank you. (A luncheon recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,everybody. Welcome back from our lunch. And we were--left off trying to understand some of the conditions that Mr.Barraco and Mr. Coleman were telling us about for this PUD. So we'll just continue along those lines. And I had started asking questions right from the different language of the PUD,and I'll just move forward from there. We'll get back to anything that's hanging when I read the list of things that we still have outstanding. One of the things I noticed when the use was added--and I know we're moving it to the R/G section, but at the end,the last sentence says,this use shall terminate upon the date that the county grants preliminary acceptance to the subdivision improvements for the final phase of the residential development. And I would suggest we need to add,"but no longer than four years after the approval of this ordinance,"because that's what you told the public at the NIM meeting. And that's on--and,Eric,that's on Page 3 of the ordinance that's attached to the staff report,so... MR.JOHNSON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On the exhibits that were taken off of the master plan and added as a separate page--I think it's exhibit--it's part of--it's the second page of Exhibit A. It's there that we have the issue on the depth that we need to repair,but the one on top is still a little different too,and I mentioned this one to you guys yesterday,and I reverified it last night.The width of the berm on this plan is four feet. On the other plan it was two feet. I don't care,but make them consistent. So I don't know why you'd want to just leave it two feet or just--wherever it occurs,just make it the same. MR.COLEMAN: Understood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I tried to,during the lunchtime,eliminate a few other things,so I will hopefully have less questions,not more. In your application for rezone--and I don't understand why you did this,but it's on Page 14 of the application. And I'm not asking you to bring it up. I'll just tell you what it says. First of all,you applied for a zone and it says,permitted uses,principal uses,no changes. Accessory uses,no changes. Conditional uses,no changes. What did you submit for a rezone for? I mean,what was--why wouldn't you have--your application be consistent with what you applied for? MR.COLEMAN: It was our understanding that the use was allowed in the PUD,and we were providing additional information to get the record clear for the offsite removal of the material. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,so that's what Mr.Anderson meant when he jumped up. Okay,okay. And that would be a fun debate. He's not here,so I refrain from that. But I did review all the minutes,all the record from the Commissioners,Mr.Arnold,who represented the applicant at the time,and Manager Mudd, so I'm pretty comfortable with what I read in the minutes,so,we can--I don't know,hopefully there will be no need to debate it. But,regardless,if we have to,we certainly can be ready for it. We talked about that. Whatever depth we get to under your section in your PUD,there's a lake excavation section. I'd like that depth to be reflected in that section.That way it's consistent then,and we don't have any more of this inconsistency. MR.COLEMAN: Understood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the next issue I'm trying to understand is--well,the scraping off of this material is not changing the control elevation of the lake,but it's changing the storage capacity of the lake;is it not? (No verbal response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well,the reason I want to address that is is because all the members of the PUD on a pro rata share,which would be you guys,Brian Paul,and Collier County,have a right to share in the use of the CF parcel,which is the 90-acre lake that the county owns by warranty deed for Page 42 of 54 October 6, 2016 stormwater management,and I want to make sure--and I'll need staff to verify this after the discussion's done--that the changes you're asking for are not going to change the capacity that you would have been allowed to use for that lake that we are proposing to modify,that CF lake. And I don't know who's best on your team to address it,and then I need staff to verify from their perspective. MR.COLEMAN: Yeah. I'll let Mr.Barraco answer that question. MR.BARRACO: Good afternoon,again. For the record,Carl Barraco. The changes we're requesting today will in no way change the characteristics of the surface water management system,and it will remain consistent with the Southwest Florida Water Management District environmental resource permit that was issued approximately--well,over 10 years ago. So this will not affect the water management system. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When this issue first came up,there was a concern about the volume that was going to be deferred to this lake. It was in that very early meeting in--remember the one in,I think,the County Manager's Office where Bruce was there,I was there,Nick was there,you guys were there. It was the very first one. And we talked about that item. So it seemed to be a concern then,but I haven't heard it rise again or come up again. In fact,we talked about the possibility of using the canals as additional storage capacity,and there was some berm there that was supposedly going to--could be removed and create more capacity. What was all that concern about if--and has that been--why is that gone away now? MR.BARRACO: If there was a concern,I can tell you I never understood it. I think--I'll tell you what I think some other people may have thought,and that is if the county park,the adjacent park goes forward,and if they fill part of the lake,they would be changing and reducing the storage volume in the lake. Through this process,we've had discussions with county staff and with consultants working for the county on the park project,and they did an analysis showing--which resulted in,as I understand it,if they filled a portion of the lake for the park and they excavated that berm separating the existing canal,the volume that they would lose by filling the lake would be offset and gained back through the removal of the berm and connecting the volume of that canal into the lake. That is,in my mind,a totally separate issue.But I'll repeat what I said earlier;the application in front of you,in my professional opinion,has absolutely no affect on the surface water management system and is consistent with the environmental resource permit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yesterday you and I touched base on this, so I'm going to bring it up again. The county owns that 90-acre lake in the legal description that describes that lake. The county intends to expand some recreational facilities into,on top of,around that lake. That means there's a--there's a title policy that would be involved certainly with any structures that are put there. And if we fill the lake in and it's got an underlying right of people to use it for stormwater,that makes it real hard to have a building on top of what could be used for stormwater. So I'm trying to think ahead in regards to help that the county could attain and to assure that nothing's going to interfere with us based on making sure everything functions as it's supposed to. Would you have any objection to adding some kind of either agreement or stipulation on your part--and I'd have to turn to the County Attorney's Office to understand the function of this--that wouldn't object to the county's alteration of that lake subject to it not changing any of the parameters that affect your side of the project? MR.BARRACO: Sure. And as we discussed yesterday,in my opinion as a professional engineer, the county owns that underlying land.They can do whatever they'd like to do with the land that they own so long as they do not reduce the level of service already provided in the existing environmental resource permit. So if they keep that as the floor,they can maintain that,or they can improve those characteristics. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And,Heidi,I didn't get a chance to talk to you since yesterday about it because we had a late meeting. If we're proactive in this,it might solve a problem if we go to fill that lake in than trying to go to all the people that have rights to use that lake. Is that an advantage to have that kind of issue addressed now,or is it rather--is it better from your perspective not to? MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Well,there are a number of people that have the ability to use that lake-- Page 43 of 54 October 6, 2016 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Three. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: --aside from the developer. Oh,it's just three? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's them,us,and Brian Paul. They're the only three owners of that PUD that I'm aware of. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: I think to raise the issue and have your issues answered today,that they can possibility resolve the issue in dealing with,you know,the parks department if they decide they want to fill it in. I would imagine at some point they'd have to enter into some sort of an agreement. So it could probably be addressed there. You just want to make sure that,from what I'm hearing from you,that it doesn't impact-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,if we're going to agree to alterations that they're doing on their site on the premise it's not going to impact this lake that they have a right to use,I would want to make sure that we,then,have a similar arrangement so that if we want to modify that lake and it doesn't change the rights to the effect that they have,they'll agree to that. I don't want anybody holding anybody hostage as we go down the road on this thing. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah. I would--you could address it that they'll continue to use the same storage capacity that they used,you know,since the PUD was created. You could tie it to that,that they're not going to increase it beyond what the capacity was when the PUD was created. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay. Are you vacating any easements in regards to this property in conjunction with this PUD? MR.COLEMAN: Not in conjunction with the PUD.There is a vacation process that is underway associated with the plan and plat approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just what easements are you vacating? MR.COLEMAN: There are some FP&L easements that run through the property that serve some well locations for irrigation. There is a drainage easement to Collier County that runs along the west side that is the drainage for Oil Well Road. And the purpose of that is now that the water management system will be functioning,there's no reason to have--basically,right now there's a canal that cuts through the middle of the property that Oil Well Road drains into the water management system for Orange Blossom Ranch. Once the water management system is constructed,that canal will be removed,and the outfall for Oil Well Road will essentially just go into our lake system. So there's a-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the easement wouldn't expire until such time that the other system's in place? MR.COLEMAN: Correct. There's talks through the application process that the easements will not vacate until the plat is recorded,which sets up the additional easements for the county. And the area that I'm talking about is here. There's an existing easement that runs through here,and then it also crosses through here into this,what is an existing lake right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR.COLEMAN: Once this water management system's done,this easement will be basically rewritten as part of the plat,and then this easement through here will be vacated,and then the county will have easement rights over top of the drainage easements as part of the plat. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And when we get through staff report,I'm going to ask the Transportation Department and the Water Management Department,to the extent that they're here,to respond to confirm that everything in that nature is okay. MR.COLEMAN: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And other than some questions for staff,I think that's all I've got right now,so... Anybody else have any questions at this time?Oh,I have one of Tom Eastman. Tom,you had mentioned some time frames involving the school.Mike Sawyer has looked up the time frames for the traffic, what is that prime time or whatever we call it. Prime time,peak hour. And,Mike,if you could tell us those peak hours,and then maybe if Tom Eastman would confirm that those hours need to be expanded or contracted based on his needs,then we're good. Page 44 of 54 October 6, 2016 MR. SAWYER: Yeah. Again,for the record,Mike Sawyer,Transportation Planning. The peak hour is determined according to our ITE,Institute of Transportation Engineers,to be between seven and nine in the morning and then four to six at night. Principally,you generally look at the middle of that so,basically,give or take around 8 o'clock in the morning and then 5 o'clock at night. MR.EASTMAN: With respect to the start date for the--or starting time for the high school,rather, it's 7:10 a.m.,and the dismissal or the ending time would be 2:05. And the school district really doesn't have a problem with this operation so long as it doesn't adversely impact that arrival and dismissal. And it's something that we can work with the developer on. We've done this in the past as far as changing times and the trucks and things of that nature.But it seems like we're in closer proximity for the peak hours for the morning than we are for the afternoon. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well--and I think what we're going to have to do is expand the limitations from just the peak hours but also to the school hours so that both are covered,because the NIM clearly defined the peak hours as going to be limited. And with your additional hours,that will have to be part of a stipulation to get it in line. MR.EASTMAN: That's very much appreciated,Mr.Chair. We do have a lot of pedestrians and students that use that that will be walking around,and the pedestrians and the students and the trucks are definitely a conflict. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tom,the morning,if it starts--if the school gets out(sic)at 7:10,so does seven to nine still work? MR.EASTMAN: Well,the school starts at 7:10, so we probably have people arriving at the site,I'd say,by a quarter to seven or so. I'm sure there are people earlier,but the majority of the traffic,I'm sure,is 6:45 until that start time of 7:10. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And what about the afternoon? So if it's two--did you say it was 2:10 they get out? MR.EASTMAN: 2:05 is the dismissal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 2:05. So people would start coming in--or how would the best time frames work there? MR.EASTMAN: For dismissal,it's pretty--it's cleaner than arrival. At the arrival you have--you have more varied time frame of when people would arrive at the school. Some at the last minute,some early. With the dismissal,it's usually about 15 or 20 minutes,and the entire campus will clear. So by 2:30,absolutely,we're done with our heavy traffic needs at that site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're saying 2:00 to 2:30? MR.EASTMAN: That would be very good to cover the dismissal,yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So maybe--I mean,these are complicated times to track. Maybe we just simply limit it to 11 trucks per hour except for the following hours,and then just indicate from nine to two is your wide-open period,and the rest of it's limited to 11 trucks per hour. MR. SAWYER: Simple is usually better. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that work for you guys?It gives you--it takes more into effect than the peak hour,but then I think we can make an argument that your traffic report was written for 11 per hour period,so... MR.BARRACO: Actually,no. As I said,the 11 was an average based upon those numbers. If the--if there was a great need for the fill at a particular time,then those trips could be accelerated significantly, so that's why these are important. And,by the way,at lunch we did check,and we do concur with those peak hours,and we used the same source. Right now,proposed,no trucks could leave the site prior to 7 o'clock in the morning anyway,so we've got earlier than seven. What I was thinking is that between 7:00 and 8:00 in the morning and between 2:00 and 2:30 at dismissal,and then in the afternoon peak hour between 5:00 and 6:00,that those would be limited,if that works. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I'd need to fmd out from Mike why he gave us ranges of two hours instead of one. If two hours is the area that's the worst,then we need to consider that. I mean,just so you Page 45 of 54 October 6, 2016 know,this request for a PUD is up to stipulations. So while we may not agree,it still could end up that way, and the Board would have to make a decision on it. Mike. MR. SAWYER: Yeah. The reason that you've got,basically,two-hour window is because you've got different times depending on where your traffic is moving from;how close it is to that source. So the further out you get from,for lack of a better term,the center of town,the further--you're going to--your trips are going to start earlier. If you're closer to town,your trips are going to start later. That's why you've got that two-hour window that we actually look at when it comes to ITE. And,again,these are average nationally.We're--they're specific to Florida,but it's all based on national trends. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question. MR. SAWYER: And,yes,that's complicated. I apologize. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,it's typical traffic stuff. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question. If it's very important in the morning with the kids getting to school,could the trucks,then,rather than start at 7:00,just start at 7:30,and then we eliminate that? MR. SAWYER: That would be up to the applicant,but that would be a possible solution. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. MR.BARRACO: For the record,if you're suggesting that in order to address the a.m.peak hour, that we just change the start time,I think that's great. I'm concerned that we didn't say that at the neighborhood information meeting,but I think it works. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,at the neighborhood information meeting,what you did say was more intense than what she's suggesting,so we can always go in that direction. What we can't do is make it worse. MR.BARRACO: So if you're suggesting,then,that maybe the a.m.is covered simply by starting at 7:30-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: I think that would help Tom. I think that would take care of his problem. MR.EASTMAN: Yes. MR.BARRACO: So there is no restriction in the morning is what I'm understanding,other than starting later than we anticipated. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Correct. MR.BARRACO: And then certainly the school would be protected if we limit between 2:00 and 2:30,if that's acceptable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Afternoon--Mike,is the afternoon times any different? Since they are for the school,I was wondering if they are for the way you look at traffic. MR. SAWYER: Normally we look at p.m.peak as being more critical than a.m.peak. I would prefer to have a limitation around that 4:00 to 6:00 period at night,quite honestly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we'd be looking at--your hours of operation would be from 7:30 to 5:00,and your peak hour limitation would be from 2:00 to 2:30 and 4:00 to 6:00. MR.BARRACO: Yes,with a start time of 7:30. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR.BARRACO: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think that gets us to a better situation for the school and for everything we've talked about. MR.BARRACO: Mr. Chairman,could you repeat that for me,please,so we make sure we write it down properly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's not a good idea. Your hours of operation will be from 7:30 a.m.to 5:00 p.m.Monday through Saturday,and your peak hour trip restriction would be from 2:00 to 2:30 in the afternoon,and then from 4:00 to 6:00 in the late afternoon,early evening. MR.COLEMAN: So it would be 4:00 to 5:00? Page 46 of 54 October 6, 2016 MR.BARRACO: Yeah. The discussion we were having is our original proposed time was 7:00 to 5:00,so that 5:00 to 6:00-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,yeah,the five won't matter because you're only 4:00 to 5:00. MR.BARRACO: That's great. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,just--in fact,I'll make that 4:00 to 5:00. That's a good point. MR.JOHNSON: Mr.Chair? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR.JOHNSON: May I ask a question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You mean--oh,I understand. You want the job of standing out there counting the trucks,until this is over with,the next four years. MR.JOHNSON: Do I understand correctly that from 2:00 to 2:30,then,it would be restricted to 11,and then from 4:00 to 5:00 it would be restricted to 11? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,not really;2:00 to 2:30 would be five and a half MR.JOHNSON: Am I on camera? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you get a half truck out there, let me know. But we'd be looking at five to six trucks,say six trucks at that point,and then in the evening that one last hour--it would be 11 trucks over that last hour. That's what I think we're talking about. MR.JOHNSON: Very good. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because the other peak hours now are moved off the operating time,and it makes it a lot simpler. COMMISSIONER EBERT: We just start at 7:30,and they've agreed to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR.JOHNSON: May I ask just a wild question?Is that the same for Saturday,as well when school is not in session? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a good question. MR.EASTMAN: There's need for Saturday restrictions from the school's perspective. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: What about athletic events and-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,why don't we just say no restrictions on Saturday-- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No restrictions,okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --on Saturdays,because even peak hour is modified on Saturdays. People don't drive to work and drive home at the same time every day. So it would be 2:00 to 2:30 and 4:00 to 5:00 with no restrictions on Saturdays. MR.COLEMAN: Yeah. And if there's special events going on at the high school,we'll--the developer will be willing to coordinate anything that goes on with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. One other thing. I noticed that in the staff report--and I heard Bruce in the beginning--you're going to be excavating 1.3 million cubic yards? MR.COLEMAN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because the staff report was written a little flexible. It says anticipated approximately. Now,I'm used to hearing people say,well,you know, 5 million is approximately 1.3. It's not. So I would want to suggest that that needs to be a cap and--I mean,it's the same kind of thing with the trucks. Who's going to stand out there and monitor it,but it's a cap that should be in place. If there's ever problems,it would give us an opportunity to try to figure it out,so... COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes,sir. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Usually earthwork is,you know,what, 10, 15 percent. So if you're going to cap 1.2 or 3,I'd cap it at 1.5. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I figure they already calculated that by the way they did their 1.3, so... One point three. What'd you suggest? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: One point five.Earthwork is notoriously inaccurate. Page 47 of 54 October 6, 2016 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that's the only--that's the last of the questions I have of the applicant. We can move to staff report,then we'll need water management discussion and then traffic,the traffic department's discussion,so... MR.JOHNSON: Sure. Again,Eric Johnson,principal planner. Staff reviewed the proposed use and the changes to the master plan. Also,I wanted to point out that in the staff report,the narrative for the landscaping,the applicant submitted an updated working master plan subsequent to when the narrative--the landscape narrative was made, so it doesn't necessarily jive. But the working master plan,the notes that we had previously discussed about the Note No.5 and the 15-foot-wide buffer, see Note No.5,that's consistent with the master plan that's in the ordinance. And I wanted to clarify that the working master plan is not going to be an exhibit of the ordinance,just for everybody's edification. So,notwithstanding,staff is recommending approval of the project with the condition that the haul operation access location on the north side of Oil Well Road shall be located from the temporary construction access to the public roadway access location when construction of the public roadway is complete. The public roadway and access location shall be included as part of the excavation permit request. That's all I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any questions of this staff member before we go to others? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Eric,I've got a couple. In your PUD findings,No.4,the internal/external compatibility of the proposed uses,which conditions may include restrictions on location improvements, restrictions on design and buffering and screening requirements. You say that the new use is temporary in nature and commonly associated with land development in Collier County. We don't do that much commercial excavation permits hauling off site,so I'm not sure it's commonly associated. I mean,I think excavation is,but I don't think the commercial haul-off is,because we restrict everybody to 20,000 yards unless their PUD allows them to go more. So that may be a little misleading by reading it. I'm just kind of cautioning you when you write that in the future. In No. 5 you talk about the platting process already allowed the landscape buffers,and I'm not--it's probably not going to be relevant after today,but I would hope that if staff--when Matt's taking a look at it, we can figure out how that happened and maybe put something in place so it stays consistent with the PUD until the PUD's changed. On No. 13,it's under--it's on Page 12,and it's under the rezone findings. In this one,the--it's whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with the existing zoning, and you talk about the property can be used in accordance and go on with the commercial excavation permit. It requires a commercial excavation permit in accordance with the Code of Laws. As such,it is the opinion of the staff that this excavation ought to be listed as a principal use. It's required to be,isn't it? I mean,aren't they--they can't--they can't take any more fill offsite without this commercial use being in place,right? MR.BELLOWS: For the record,Ray Bellows. I think that came about when the application came in as an excavation permit. That's not under the list of permitted uses. That was under another section of the PUD for excavation. So if they're going to list it as hauling off more than the code allows,then it's a commercial excavation then. I think that's where that phrase came from. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just wanted to make sure--everything I researched,it seemed like it was necessary, so I just wanted to confirm that. And that's the extent I have. Thank you,Eric. MR.JOHNSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else doesn't(sic)have anything? Transportation? MR. SAWYER: Again,for the record,Mike Sawyer,Transportation Planning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike,you heard the discussion about the drainage easement for Oil Well Page 48 of 54 October 6, 2016 Road and the process in which it's going to be flipped over to a plat. Does your department have any problem with that? MR. SAWYER: No,we don't. We regularly review those,and we also regularly meet with our transportation people and are actually now meeting with our stormwater people also on a weekly basis to go over petitions as they're coming in as well as site plans and plats. So we're trying to coordinate these things as much as we can. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that easement doesn't cause any problems with you guys for your drainage for Oil Well Road? MR. SAWYER: We will make sure it does not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And then the last question,is someone here from water management? Jerry? MR.KURTZ: Jerry Kurtz,for the record,with county Stormwater Management. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jerry,I want to make sure that the county's lake isn't going to be negatively impacted by any of the changes that they're proposing. Have you reviewed all of the issues that they've got coming up? And from your perspective,are there any issues there that are going to cause the county concerns in regards to the use of that lake? MR.KURTZ: No,there's really not. In fact, some scenarios have already been evaluated; filling the lake up to half. Should the park plan ultimately be chosen to do that,there's enough capacity. The advantage is we have that big T canal,big bulk canal. Some of that can be utilized should we need to use that for some of the volume. So there's a lot of flexibility. And we've looked at several scenarios already, so there's really no concerns as we move forward with this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,that's--go ahead,Tom. MR.EASTMAN: Jerry,you're familiar with the school district's drainage at the high school site, correct? MR.KURTZ: Yes,I am. MR.EASTMAN: And it's my understanding that the school site's outfall is to that canal that would be on the east side of the school property. MR.KURTZ: Yes. MR.EASTMAN: And that's--it's a strange one. It's kind of a--it's approved under the permit, but it goes into that what is the agricultural canal,and then it's pumped to another one,and then generally it finds its way to the bulk canal and that T. Will our drainage be affected by the drainage changes proposed? MR.KURTZ: Yes,I'd say in a positive way.The agricultural usage of the T canal which,until the ag operation ceased,there was some extra manipulation with some piping and some pumping that was permitted. Now that the ag operation has ceased,a lot of that stuff can be removed,and you can have more of a direct outfall path through the T canal and out to the Golden Gate Main Canal. So happy to say that now with this land use change your outfall will actually be improved and be more efficient to let the water leave the high school area. MR.EASTMAN: Thanks. That's great news,and I really appreciate your analysis. MR.KURTZ: You're welcome. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nope. Jerry,thank you. MR.KURTZ: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we've got to the end of this. Is there anything,Carl,you want to add,discuss? MR.BARRACO: Yes,if I may,Carl Barraco. Earlier in our discussions there was some confusion between some wording that Bruce provided and the area that we're actually talking about,and I was able to discuss that with Mr.Anderson. And it is the intent,however we want to clarify this,that the excavation removal we're talking about is only relative to the crosshatched area on the exhibits that have been provided. I think maybe in some Page 49 of 54 October 6, 2016 wording he included some other general area,but I want to be very clear in that the removal is strictly limited to the area that's crosshatched on the exhibit that we reviewed earlier. That's the first thing I wanted to mention. The second thing is--and we discussed this a little bit. This is not a mining for profit. This approval is extremely important--the timing of this is important to my client because he's trying to build a subdivision,and he wants to--he can't do that until we remove this fill. So the reason I'm saying that is I think we do have a chance this afternoon to clear up the record with regard to the lake depth to a maximum of 20 feet; however,if that is in any way going to slow the approval of this down,we're fine with clarifying that 12 feet is the maximum. I don't think that's in the best interest of the county,but it is in the best interest of my client to just be able to proceed with his development. So I wanted to offer that.If that's the only fix, then we would be agreeable to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now,when you discussed this with Bruce,you didn't get him all upset,did you? MR.BARRACO: No. I didn't discuss that part,actually. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He was a little sensitive when he left. I didn't want him getting too upset over anything. MR.BARRACO: No. I just asked him what he meant in his wording and if his intent was relevant to the crosshatching,and he acknowledged it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any other questions,concerns? COMMISSIONER EBERT: So how deep would you like to go? MR.BARRACO: Twenty feet is the maximum. And if you--when we did our analysis,the majority of the lakes can't even go that deep because of the geometry. They're just not that wide. Again, that extra depth gives that stormwater more time in the lakes to free up the nitrogen and phosphorus. So 20 feet is the absolute maximum,but not all the lakes would even get that deep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And 20 feet is not unusual,so,I mean-- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So when this moves forward,you will update Exhibit A? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to stipulate a bunch of stuff. MR.BARRACO: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I usually make notes as we move along,and then just as we're about to go into discussion,I'll read all the notes,and we can decide if we like them or not,and that way everybody's comments are collating into one spot. Anything else, sir? MR.BARRACO: No,thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've had enough for today,huh? Let's move into--we'll close the--well,first of all,Ray,there's no people here,so I'm assuming there's no public speakers. MR.BELLOWS: No one has registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No offense to staff. It's not that I don't consider you people. I know you're not public speakers. But if you're getting tired of sitting back there and want to talk,just come up on. With that,then we will close the public meeting--we'll close this public hearing and entertain a motion. Before we do,I'll read off a series of stipulations that we should consider,and they are the following: The hours will be--hours of operation of the excavation will be limited from 7:30 a.m.to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. The maximum time frame will be--as the use indicates,it will terminate upon the date the county grants preliminary acceptance of the subdivision improvements for the final phase of the residential development but no longer than four years after the approval of this ordinance. Number 3,limit the depth of the excavation to 20 feet,and that issue will be corrected both on the master plan and as a new sentence in Section 2.5 of the PUD. The landscape buffer easements will be noted as minimum of 15 feet wide,but all other details of what they are,whether it's A,B,C,or D,will be subject to the LDC. The staff recommendation is acceptable. Page 50 of 54 October 6, 2016 The traffic limitations for the following hours will be limited to 11 trucks per hour: That will be from 2:00 to 2:30 in the afternoons Monday through Friday and 4:00 to 5:00 p.m.Monday through Friday. Maximum allowed volume of excavation will be 1.5 million yards. The use of the--this added use will be added to the R/G section of the PUD and removed from the general section of the PUD. The master plan will have strikethrough on--we'll remove Notes 5 and 6 and reword Note 4 to reflect the numeric references for the utility wellsites in number--in that No.4. And the--well,the depth at 20 feet--the depth will be 20 feet from control. And the applicant has acknowledged that they will agree to use the lake--that if the county modifies the lake,they have no objection to its modification so long as the storage capacity remains the same as when the PUD was created. Those are the notes I've got. Anybody have anything that needs to be discussed or added? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well,that's going to be easy. Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'll move to approve PUDA-PL20160000787,Orange Blossom Ranch PUD,with the stipulations and additions that Mark just stated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And I second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded--made by Stan; seconded by Joe. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor,signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-0. Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have one thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,after the motion? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well,here's the thing. I would like them to come back with all the changes so we don't approve everything right now. I'd like them to bring the changes back,that we review it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you want--and that's called consent,and we do-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --consent by another motion of the board. So you've asked to have a motion made for them to come back on consent. Before we do that,the opportunity for them to come back would have to be the next meeting in October. MR.JOHNSON: October 20th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But they have to make the board meeting on? MR.JOHNSON: They are scheduled--they want the October 25th BCC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If they come back with a consent on the 20th,assuming it's accepted,you guys would have to pre-load it into the new program prior to the acceptance of the consent by the Planning Commission. I'm comfortable with that because any changes should be very minor,and they could be tweaked on the fly at the Board. But I would have to see how that--because we've got a new agenda system,and I'm not sure how it works anymore. MR.JOHNSON: We have the Accela system. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Page 51 of 54 October 6, 2016 MR.JOHNSON: I want to defer to Mike. MR.BOSI: Mike Bosi,Planning and Zoning Director. The agenda will already have been published that Wednesday before the Planning Commission meeting. So we would have to upload an executive summary that didn't have the conclusion of the summary--or the consent hearing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But you could publish what is submitted,assuming it's meeting all of our criteria. If we have something that doesn't meet the criteria in review as a consent item on the 20th, you could always make sure--it wouldn't stay,then,on summary. It would have to be brought forward to the Board and explain any discrepancies between what was submitted on the agenda and what happened after the Board reviewed it--the Planning Commission reviewed it,I mean.Is that something that could be done? MR.BOSI: Oh,it most certainly can be done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So if this is to come back on consent,that would probably be the best way to make it happen;that way they stay on track for the 25th. If they coordinate well with the Zoning Department,Eric,in getting all these corrections made as we've discussed,it should be no problem,and you would stay on whatever maybe summary or whatever else is there. If you don't,then there's probably a good chance you won't end up on summary just for the fact your consent didn't qualify as carefully as it should have. So with that,we know we can meet the schedule. So Diane's request in that regard is to request they come back on consent. I think with all the changes,it's probably a good idea. Does anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion to have this come back on consent on the 20th of October? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I make a motion to bring this back on consent on the 20th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? Anybody? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I would second but,frankly,I think the staff would follow through with all the changes,but if that's the procedure,I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well,now it's discussion. Since I am in the office every day and I have the list of things that need to be corrected,I certainly can review this when it comes in and save the trouble of having to come back for another public meeting. I'm not sure if anything that I didn't catch would need to be--would be something you might see,but I think I'll see everything that at least you would. COMMISSIONER EBERT: No,that's not--but it was so many changes. That's the only reason. Normally we do consent right away,but this was a long list,and I believe that was my biggest concern,that something doesn't slip by. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know the one we had before this? It was even longer. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yeah. I was wondering why that one didn't come back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was a longer list. I'm comfortable with the fact that I'll get a chance to take a second look at it-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --to make sure all of our thoughts are there. Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: My experience in the past,we've made these kind of changes many years ago back in the old days. We would just make those changes and send them forward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's why we had to have consent. COMMISSIONER EBERT: That's why we had consent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's why we started consent. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Stevie Tomatoes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Did they miss any? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Oh,Joe. Okay. Well,I think now the consensus is we don't need the consent. Will the motion maker and the second withdraw their request? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes,I will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe,you withdraw your second? Joe? Page 52 of 54 October 6, 2016 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I withdraw my second,yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that,that's the last item on the agenda. Thank you,all,for attending. I'm sure it was enlightening and fun. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And we got to hear from Tom. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's no new business listed. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Wait,wait,wait.I had an item of new business. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: It seems like--in an age when Google Earth is,like, everywhere,it seems like we ought to be able to pull Google Earth up on these screens through something at the county when we need to do something like look at whether there's a turn lane somewhere or look at what the neighboring property looks like. Is there any chance that somebody could get that computer system access to the Internet so you can pull up Google Earth on those screens during a meeting? MR.BOSI: Most certainly. I mean,we probably would utilize the County Appraiser's website as the source we would utilize,but-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah,but Google Earth has 3D views that are just incredible anymore,and the Appraiser's website is a little tougher to get around in. I use them both at home, and I much prefer Google Earth. But even the Appraiser's website,you know;it's definitely more recent. It's within a year. MR.BOSI: I could access the Appraiser's website today,and we probably should have pulled that up and make that available for the discussion purposes. I will have to coordinate with IT to see if they could have Google Earth installed within this laptop or the podium computer,and that should take care of it. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Anybody else think that's handy? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I think it's handy. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes,I do. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well,if not Google Earth,less demanding from the computer standpoint is just Google Maps,which is pretty accurate as well. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. Google Earth,though,now has a 3D building feature for Collier County that's just--shows you what's there. MR.BOSI: We will--the Zoning Services Division will make a request of H to have Google Earth installed-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Thank you. MR.BOSI: --so we could enrich and provide for a better visual environment for the discussion purposes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if you could,could you put on some training exercises in YouTube for the various--like,understanding traffic consultants and things like that and-- MR.BOSI: That's a little more difficult.Our access to YouTube through the county web system is limited,so--but we will have to see what kind of movement we can make within that. As long as the--as long as it's only going to have a de minimis impact upon productivity,we should probably be allowed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the peak hour,right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Peak hour,peak period. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Less than 1 percent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,Mike. MR.JOHNSON: Is that Monday through Friday? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other new or old business? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And there's no members of the public left to speak, so is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I make a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. Page 53 of 54 October 6, 2016 COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor,signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're out of here. Thank you. There being no further business for the good of the County,the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 1:45 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 U.S.LEGAL SUPPORT,INC., BY TERRI LEWIS,COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. Page 54 of 54 AGENDA ITEM 9-A ctimT County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DANIEL JAMES SMITH,AICP -ZONING DIVISION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: NOVEMBER 3,2016 SUBJECT: PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REZONE(PUDZ) -PL20120001515; COURTHOUSE SHADOWS APPLICANT/OWNER KRG Courthouse Shadows LLC 30 S. Meridian St. Suite 100, Indianapolis, IN 46204 AGENTS D. Wayne Arnold, AICP Richard D. Yovanovich,Esquire Q. Grady Minor and Associates,P.A. Coleman, Yovanovich&Koester,P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey,Bonita Springs, FL 34134 4001 Tamiami Trail N., Suite 300,Naples, FL 34103 REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant is asking the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) to make a recommendation on the adoption of an Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance Number 92-08, the Courthouse Shadows Planned Unit Development, by increasing the maximum square footage of the shopping center and outparcels by 18,000 square feet for a total of 165,000 gross square feet of floor area; by amending Ordinance Number 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 .35+/- acres of land zoned Commercial Intermediate District in the Mixed Use Subdistrict of the Gateway Triangle Mixed Use District Overlay (C-3-GTMUD-MXD) to the Courthouse Shadows PUD; by adding a Membership Warehouse Club with associated liquor store use and ancillary Facility with Fuel Pumps as a permitted use; by revising the development standards; by amending the Master Plan; and adding deviations. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The property is located on the south side of U.S. 41 and opposite Airport-Pulling Road in Sections 11, 12 and 13, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 20.35+/-acres (See location map on page 2). PL20120001515;Courthouse Shadows PUDZ November 3,2016 CCPC Page 1 of 21 - - -rist:-0 - Ill ' - : 111111111111WW0,,.‘ ,,,,,,,i,r - ,,;, Ati. , .... ,.. 11-2 !log. . „,:1- IP PIINEMINIIPIIirt irilliirrft:1721!": 111°P ����`000ao�Li ir-7 ' runsIQ r '�.il . . . ' '-'IF'VI" Ill ill'I-- M.111!MI illE x.� 71 IM �ii •s� Z ,1111111E1 - �� 4 � a:inC1az71ai •: t ;r. �il� Km 1 T111111111011410110111110.9�lf` i I'�o ffffoc�::.'. CII.i rsn PI�Il�M°e .� lle_ .ate. onoENS =1IF311111 inn 4 Mill CM MN I LIM MI In � wzintrrILI ateJMI len G 1 .wy'. rl y��� � a i1"G�� MAIN PI ■ 00 �� N 5 I TM a w+ p i' 17%1 I' lig^ --:1 4118 1 Tr: ia. I 4y ,:-._ eg (1--1 1 CS k / S I gg t a�€ a � 6t i I a � P?l c x a RI Z ■f id ` h O_ I.f.4 S ItI _I Dry/ i.. ��� SI - dWY WIItJluDIM/ c. l I i $ \ir/I 21 ViM 11111111/111111M1111111111 ..:( a IA *r"`' 1 a �1- 111 a a i13' 11 .A _ -, ANO _ _ ___• 'A, ---i, ,,, .iUl11-4ttii, _„mg mi ...„m,.,.....i..l.,! .'. I li.P..-s_. xti_ofOx.vel - �Lj�;‘,1 • .dam Ilf f^: '�. PL20120001515;Courthouse Shadows PUDZ November 3,2016 CCPC Page 2 of 21 e , I i ( \ I , Ira; J4 iiLL �, 0. 31 -7 g -,, -v, •, K a C 11 j o Vii > w O O O y Illt z I • O O & ''''0'Y' 13� .. O .1�`,4 il 111, Q 94 O p Q 1 i 1 r- C? elliL Iiii ,: , c- '', ' ,,,, i EL' el PI 1 II a/sffrlik \`,4 '' \-,S -4.4° 11 al 11 a I:, k ,,, • ,, , ,,, , ,, , ,,,,,, N ., ig 41 1 i I Et ' O /' ''i�. i o �� 'LL /,`.O._ /; 4,4," —I -t Oma. p / ,i;''' 0 qs11 10" b kri rp�r ,� {Rjl by • o ti N ! .. g§ o �j m� 1 0$5 "11/ Si g F Ir. A ZSR o ,09 COURTHOUSE SHADOWS MASTER PLAN PL20120001515;Courthouse Shadows PUDZ November 3,2016 CCPC Page 3 of 21 PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The Property was originally rezoned in 1985 from Residential Multi-family and Commercial zoning district to Planned Unit Development (PUD) per Ordinance 85-11. The ordinance approved the development of a mixed use commercial center with a hotel. The ordinance was repealed with the adoption of Ordinance 92-8, which rezoned the project from PUD to PUD wherein the name Courthouse Shadows was associated with the project. That approval removed the hotel use. The applicant is requesting approval to rezone an existing PUD and to add additional 0.28 acres of property adjacent to the northwest PUD boundary(see aerial on page 6). The applicant is also requesting to add an additional use of Membership Warehouse with associated liquor and to increase the maximum commercial square footage from 147,000 square feet to 165,000 square feet. The applicant is intending on changing the intent of the PUD, from a"shopping center"to general uses comparable and permitted in an Activity Center. The property is located within Activity Center #16 and the proposed uses are consistent with the commercial uses permitted in the Activity Center. The PUD Master Plan is proposing a membership only"Facility with Fuel Pumps" as an ancillary use to the Membership Warehouse. Because a "Facility with Fuel Pumps" currently exists within the PUD (Chevron)on an adjacent parcel,a distance deviation is required. The applicant is also asking for the following deviations: L Deviation#1 seeks relief from Section 4.05.06.B of the LDC, which requires three loading spaces for the first 50,000 square feet of each retail store,warehouse,wholesale establishment, industrial activity, terminal, market, restaurant, funeral home, laundry, dry cleaning establishment, or similar use which has an aggregate floor area of 20,000 square feet but not over 50,000 square feet plus one additional off-street loading space for each additional 25,000 square feet over 50,000 square feet or major fraction thereof which would require seven loading spaces to instead allow a total of five loading spaces measuring 10 feet x 20 feet (200 square feet). This deviation applies to the location shown on the Master Plan. 2. Deviation#2 seeks relief from Section 4.06.02, Table 2.4 of the LDC, which allows a shared 15-foot landscape buffer to be provided between platted commercial building lots with each abutting property contributing 7.5 feet, to permit a single 8-foot wide average internal landscape buffer between separately platted tracts as shown on the Conceptual Master Plan with each property contributing 4 feet. This deviation applies to the Outlot parcels as shown on the Master Plan. 3. Deviation#3 seeks relief from Section 4.06.02.D1 and D2 of the LDC, which requires the stormwater management system to not exceed 50 percent of the square footage of any required side,rear, or front yard landscape buffer and also have a minimum of a 5 feet wide level planted area,to allow the water management system to encroach 100%into the perimeter landscaping buffer. PL20120001515;Courthouse Shadows PUDZ November 3,2016 CCPC Page 4 of 21 4. Deviation#4 seeks relief from Section 4.06.03.B of the LDC,which requires all rows of parking spaces shall contain no more than ten parking spaces uninterrupted by a required landscaping island,to allow up to 19 parking spaces uninterrupted by a required landscape island. 5. Deviation#5 seeks relief from Section's 5.03.02.H and 5.05.05.D.2 of the LDC,which requires a wall or fence to be 6 feet away from the property line when a non-residential development lies contiguous to or opposite a residentially zoned district,to allow the wall or fence to be on or adjacent to the property line. 6. Deviation #6 seeks relief from Section 5.05.05.B, which requires separation from adjacent facilities with fuel pumps to a minimum distance of 500 feet and from residential to be separated by 250 feet to allow a distance less than 500 feet for the fuel facility separation and less than 250 feet separation from residential. 7. Deviation #7 seeks relief from Section 5.06.04.F.3 regarding directory signs to allow the existing directory signs with fewer than 8 tenant panels and at the existing height of 25 feet to remain. 8. Deviation#8 seeks relief from Section 5.05.08.D.4 of the LDC, Variation in Massing, which requires buildings 40,000 square feet or larger in gross building area,a maximum length,or uninterrupted curve of any facade, at any point, must be 150 linear feet. Projections and recesses must have a minimum depth of ten feet within 150 linear feet limitation, to allow variations as shown on Architectural Deviations Exhibit A-11. • 9. Deviation#9 seeks relief from Section 4.06.02.C.4 of the LDC, which requires a perimeter landscape buffer for properties within Activity Centers to be a minimum of 20 feet in width,to permit a minimum width of 15 feet with an average width of 20 feet as shown on the Buffer Exhibit for the 0.28 acre parcel located at the intersection of Peters Avenue and U.S. 41 East. The buffer may include traffic control devices and utilities. 10. Deviation#10 seeks relief from Section 5.05.05.D.2 of the LDC,which establishes landscape standards for facilities with fuel pumps where they are within 250 feet of residential districts, to permit an alternative landscape buffer consistent with the proposed Deviation#10 Cross Section Exhibit. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING(Subject property highlighted in yellow on page 6) North: Tamiami Trail East(U.S. 41),existing and vacant commercial with a zoning designation of C-3 GTMUD-MXD, Collier Government Complex. West: Peters Avenue, single family homes with zoning designation of RMF-6 BMUD-Rl South: Collie Court, single family homes with a zoning designation of RSF-4 BMUD-RI, canal, single family homes with a zoning designation of RSF-4, existing commercial with a zoning designation of C-3. East: Tamiami Trail East(U.S. 41),Collier Government Complex,Commercial(Walmart)with zoning designation of C-5. PL20120001515;Courthouse Shadows PUDZ November 3,2016 CCPC Page 5 of 21 I. .: P'U 4 rOLLER ^ 4 = pT COM"-'O4PT _r 6Ana>k�gl I sk� w t a s / I F`C ,I mil _ tp i d a I y a 1 . e�,y; ° , . C 3 property to �i z art v be added to PUD ;;1 '- '*`- �p R i 4:1 14' ;. 14 ti,,,,,:,.,, , a � ^ k l Existing Chevron �,�. $ rnl�etnrokr ra �-,�,-a ies .nC "°W*:RT i j, `!r, ! !!Ib $` 1 •:ypqN� . r. � p01 1 1 t s'cfq .i. $- '',"-ice ji<. I21 4 _• • CI IHf14)5 ` 1116111144 y .Y ., s , ' a _ f L. x ..,, . - _ ._ of ,06 e: i I ICV e sanal, F Gli lj?)x a T .anewt 17 RMF<6-F,VEE: 1, - SI BtIUI j _ ! G . . y 155 \ A J ,��` Aerial Photo/PUD Boundary (subject site depiction is approximate) GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY: The subject property is located within the Urban designated area (Urban— Urban Commercial District, Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict — Activity Center #16), within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay (B/GTRO), and is in the Coastal High Hazard Area, all as identified on the countywide Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). The concept of Mixed Use Activity Centers "is designed to concentrate almost all new commercial zoning in locations where traffic impacts can readily be accommodated, to avoid strip and disorganized patterns of commercial development, and to create focal points within the community." Based upon staff's analysis, the proposed PUD may be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan(See "Consistency Review Memorandum"attachment). Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental Planning staff found this project to be consistent with the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME). Native vegetation required to be retained for the PUD was identified on the Site Development Plan (SDP) for the SDP amendment for the OfficeMax at Courthouse Shadows (SDP-98-75). The native vegetation shown to be retained on the SDP represents the minimum native vegetation retention (preserve) requirement for the PUD pursuant to CCME Policy 6.1.1. PL20120001515;Courthouse Shadows PUDZ November 3,2016 CCPC Page 6 of 21 Environmental Review: Environmental Planning staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD Document to address environmental concerns. This 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 as identified in Chapter 2, Article VIII, Division 23, Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances. The Courthouse Shadows PUD was originally approved by Ordinance No. 85-11, with native vegetation subsequently identified for retention on the Site Development Plan (SDP) amendment for the Office Max at Courthouse Shadows (SDP-98-75). The area of retained native vegetation on the SDP, excluding that portion within the drainage easement recorded in OR Book 1339 Page 1670, represents the minimum native vegetation retention(preserve)requirement for the PUD. There is also a drainage easement on site along Haldeman Creek, which was previously granted to the Florida Department of Transportation in 1953 (Deed Book 28 Page 193). Although vegetated with native vegetation, vegetation within the FDOT drainage easement is exempt from County native vegetation retention requirements pursuant to LDC Section 3.05.07 B.2.c and CCME Policy 6.1.1 (11). The easement allows the FDOT to clear vegetation and excavate within the easement for construction and maintenance of outfall and drainage ditches. Although vegetation within the easement can be cleared pursuant to the drainage easement, aerials available on the Property Appraiser website show vegetation within the easement has not been cleared since 1975, the year of the oldest aerial on the Property Appraiser website. At the time this staff report was written, environmental data for the petition had not been provided by the applicant. Nor has the acreage of native vegetation required to be retained for the PUD, as shown on the amendment to the SDP for the OfficeMax at Courthouse Shadows, been identified and included in the PUD Document. Previously, the applicant indicated the need to satisfy the County's on-site preserve requirement off-site, to accommodate additional stormwater retention. Since the preserve required for the site is less than one acre, off-site retention of native vegetation is allowed pursuant to LDC section 3.05.07 H.1.f. A stipulation addressing options for on and off-site retention of native vegetation for the PUD has been included in this staff report. The applicant has requested to move forward with the petition and address,as a recommendation of approval,the stipulation at the public hearing. Transportation Element: In evaluating this project, staff reviewed the applicant's Traffic Impact Statement 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 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 ofpermissible 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 PL20120001515;Courthouse Shadows PUDZ November 3,2016 CCPC Page 7 of 21 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 PUD Amendment on the subject property was reviewed based on the then applicable 2015 AUIR Inventory Report. The TIS submitted in the application indicates that the proposed development will generate approximately 662 total net new PM peak hour trips, on the adjacent roadway links, as follows: Roadway Link 2015 AUIR Current Peak 2015 Remaining Existing LOS Hour Peak Capacity Direction Service Volume/Peak Direction Airport-Pulling Tamiami Trail C 2,700/South 1,084 Road(CR 31) East to Goodlette-Davis Boulevard(6 lane divided) Tamiami Trail Davis Boulevard C 2,900/East 1,153 East(U.S. 41) to Airport- Pulling Road(6 lane divided) Tamiami Trail Airport-Pulling D 2,900/East 311 East(U.S. 41) Road to Rattlesnake Hammock Road (6 lane divided) Based on the 2015 AUIR, the adjacent roadway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed new trips for the amended project within the 5-year planning period. Therefore, the subject rezoning can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan. Staff notes that the proposed development is located within the South 41 Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA) which allows exemptions from concurrency requirements as long as impacts to the transportation system are mitigated consistent with GMP Policy PL20120001515;Courthouse Shadows PUDZ November 3,2016 CCPC Page 8 of 21 5.4. The proposed development is not requesting this exemption and not proposing TCEA mitigation measures at this time. ANALYSIS: Staff has completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition including the criteria upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in Land Development Code (LDC) Subsection 10.02.13.B.5, Planning Commission Recommendation (commonly referred to as the "PUD Findings"), and Subsection 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 these same criteria as the basis for their recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC), who in turn use the criteria to support their action on the rezoning or amendment request. An evaluation relative to these subsections is discussed below, under the heading "Zoning Services Analysis."In addition, staff offers the following analyses: Environmental Review: Staff recommends approval subject to: -Include a commitment for a preserve and acreage of the preserve in the environmental commitments section of the PUD Document (PUD Section 3.7). Label "Preserve" on the PUD Master Plan (LDC Section 3.05.07 H.l.a) and include the acreage of the preserve on the PUD Master Plan. If the preserve required is to be satisfied offsite, indicate so in the environmental commitments section of the PUD Document and identify in the commitment,the acreage of preserve required to be satisfied offsite. The landscape plan and clearing plan for the Site Development Plan (SDP) amendment for the Office Max at Courthouse Shadows (SDP-98-75) shows existing native vegetation in the SW portion of the shopping center to be retained. This area, excluding that portion within the drainage easement recorded in OR Book 1339 Page 1670, is the minimum native vegetation retention(preserve) requirement for the PUD pursuant to GMP Conservation and Coastal Management Element(CCME)Policy 6.1.1. Stormwater Review: Staff recommends approval subject to: -For purposes of stormwater management, the proposed project shall be treated as a new development project; therefore, comply with the existing offsite allowable discharge rates and retention/detention criteria, as the date of this PUD Rezone approval. -Revise Master Plan,relocating labels for Deviation's#3 and#5 outside of drainage easement. Landscape Review: Staff recommends approval subject to: -Adding Deviation #4 Exhibit to the PUD Document. This is a limited area of the existing Buffalo Wild Wing's parking lot. This Exhibit shall be part of the PUD Document. -The County's Landscape Maintenance Manager approving the landscape plan for Deviation #9. Underground utilities may not allow for landscaping in these proposed areas. PL20120001515;Courthouse Shadows PUDZ November 3,2016 CCPC Page 9 of 21 Y Transportation Review: Staff recommends approval subject to: - The proposed new-revised parking island layout shown on the Master Plan is conceptual and is not part of this zoning petition approval. Review and approval of any proposed site changes including but not limited to access entries,parking islands,and drive aisles shall be done at time of site development order(SDP/SDPA). -To address the proposed re-development project and existing roadway conditions on Peters Avenue, add the following developer commitment: The owner, its successors, or assigns shall pay for the design and construction of a five-foot sidewalk along Peters Avenue up to the sum of$50,000.00 which shall represent its payment in-lieu consistent with LDC Section 6.06.02 for the entire site.Owner shall make payment to County within 30 days of approval of the PUD. -The development is limited to the 662 total net new PM peak hour trips utilized in the TIS dated March 18,2016. Zoning Services Review: FLUE Policy 5.4 requires new land uses to be compatible with, and complementary to,the surrounding land uses. In reviewing the appropriateness of the requested uses and intensity on the subject site, the compatibility analysis included a review of the subject proposal comparing it to surrounding or nearby properties as to allow use intensities and densities, development standards (building heights, setbacks, landscape buffers, etc.), building mass, building location and orientation, architectural features, amount and type of open space, and location. Staff is of the opinion that the design standards and uses are compatible with surrounding uses. Staff has reviewed the PUD Document and Master Plan and recommends approval. Deviation Discussion: The petitioner is seeking ten deviations, The petitioner has provided justification in support of the deviations. Deviations are a normal derivative of the PUD zoning process following the purpose and intent of the PUD zoning district as set forth in LDC Section 2.03.06 which says in part: It is further the purpose and intent of these PUD regulations to encourage ingenuity, innovation and imagination in the planning, design, and development or redevelopment of relatively large tracts of land under unified ownership or control. PUDs . . . . may depart from the strict application of setback height, and minimum lot requirements of conventional zoning districts while maintaining minimum standards by which flexibility may be accomplished, and while protecting the public interest. . . Staff has analyzed the deviation requests and has provided the analyses and recommendations below. Deviation #1: Deviation#1 seeks relief from Section 4.05.06.B of the LDC, which requires three loading spaces for the first 50,000 square feet of each retail store, warehouse, wholesale establishment, industrial activity,terminal,market,restaurant,funeral home,laundry,dry cleaning establishment,or similar use which has an aggregate floor area of 20,000 square feet but not over 50,000 square feet plus one additional off- street loading space for each additional 25,000 square feet over 50,000 square feet or major fraction thereof • which would require seven loading spaces to instead allow a total of five loading spaces measuring 10 feet x 20 feet(200 square feet).This deviation applies to the location shown on the Master Plan. PL20120001515;Courthouse Shadows PUDZ November 3,2016 CCPC Page 10 of 21 Justification: The Sam's Club proposed currently has a square footage of approximately 143,000 square feet. According to Code for this size of a store, a total of seven loading docks would be required. Sam's Club currently shows a total of five loading docks (12 feet wide by 90 feet long). Based on business knowledge and historical information, this number of loading docks is more than adequate to operate the business. Sam's Club operates their own vehicle fleet and controls the timing of all truck deliveries. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff concurs with the justification and recommends approval. Deviation#2: Deviation#2 seeks relief from Section 4.06.02,Table 2.4 of the LDC,which allows a shared 15-foot landscape buffer to be provided between platted commercial building lots with each abutting property contributing 7.5 feet, to permit a single 8-foot wide average internal landscape buffer between separately platted tracts as shown on the Conceptual Master Plan with each property contributing 4 feet.This deviation applies to the Outlot parcels as shown on the Master Plan. Justification: The existing conditions are such that the landscape buffers do not exist between the parent tracts and outparcels. The redevelopment plan for this PUD is to provide the buffers on the opposite side of the drive aisle from the outparcels. This area provides an average of at least an eight feet wide planting area and is even greater in some areas, which is an adequate width to permit landscape plantings. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff concurs with the justification and recommends approval. The exhibit shows intent of Code can be met with the alternative plan submitted as an exhibit. Deviation 3: Deviation #3 seeks relief from Section 4.06.02.D1 and D2 of the LDC, which requires the stormwater management system to not exceed 50 percent of the square footage of any required side,rear, or front yard landscape buffer and also have a minimum of a five feet wide level planted area, to allow the water management system to encroach 100%into the perimeter landscaping buffer. Justification: The existing stormwater management systems are within the required yard buffers and the redevelopment of this PUD requires additional stormwater management system. The stormwater management areas will have a planting shelf along the perimeter to support the required landscaping within the buffers as depicted on the attached exhibits. This will also permit existing mature buffers varying in width, which do not consistently meet the 20 feet wide minimum for activity centers adjacent to roadways. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff concurs with the justification and recommends approval. The exhibit shows the in intent of Code can be met with the alternative plan submitted as an exhibit. '. Deviation #4: Deviation #4 seeks relief from Section 4.06.03.8 of the LDC, which requires all rows of parking spaces shall contain no more than ten parking spaces uninterrupted by a required landscaping island, to allow up to 19 parking spaces uninterrupted by a required landscape island. PL20120001515;Courthouse Shadows PUDZ November 3,2016 CCPC Page 11 of 21 } Justification: There are existing areas in the shopping center in the northern part of the site that is not being redeveloped at this time where there are currently more than ten parking spaces in a row without a landscaping island. The development is requesting to leave those areas as is if there are no impacts planned. All new parking areas will provide landscape islands per the current LDC requirements. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff concurs with the justification and recommends approval. The exhibit shows a limited area for this deviation which is currently Buffalo Wild Wings. Deviation#5: Deviation#5 seeks relief from Section 5.03.02.H and 5.05.05.D.2 of the LDC,which requires a wall or fence to be six feet away from the property line when a non-residential development lies contiguous to or opposite a residentially zoned district, to allow the wall or fence to be on or adjacent to the property line. Justification: The required fence or wall already exists in many places along the existing property line with established landscaping and buffering. The redevelopment proposes to leave those areas that are established so as not to disturb the existing buffer and supplement areas as needed with additional landscape material so as maximize the water management system area and landscaping buffers on the site. The placement of the fence on the property line will also allow security and safety for nearby residents by creating a bather from the projects surface water management system. This is depicted on the attached exhibit. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff concurs with the justification and recommends approval. The exhibit shows additional landscaping being added to a currently vegetated area. Deviation #6: Deviation #6 seeks relief from Section 5.05.05.B, which requires separation from adjacent facilities with fuel pumps to a minimum distance of 500 feet and from residential to be separated by 250 feet to allow a distance less than 500 feet for the fuel facility separation and less than 250 feet separation from residential. Justification: The proposed Sam's Fuel Station canopy is located approximately 293 feet away from the existing Chevron Fuel Station canopy located along the project frontage. The gas station for this development is an accessory use to the main membership warehouse use of the redevelopment and is not open to the public without a membership. This location is the least intrusive for the public and ideal for access by customers and fuel tank delivery trucks. The gas station use could be developed elsewhere on the site in such a way to meet the separation requirement on the site; however, that will put it immediately at the Airport-Pulling and Tamiami Trail intersection and further away from the main building. No reduction from residential is necessary if the applicant can measure the separation from the fuel canopy as the fuel canopy to the nearest residential property line is approximately 300 feet. This deviation is justified because the property is separated from the nearby residential use by an existing canal and mature landscape buffer. The applicant also proposes to install a 6-foot high wall, which will result in a total wall height of approximately 10 feet above grade of the nearby residential lots. The applicant proposes to deviate from the requirement to center the proposed wall by locating the screen wall in the area closest to the project parking and to have the required landscaping located at the property line and adjacent to the wall as shown on Deviation #6 exhibit. This requested buffer meets the intent of the LDC required buffer. The active parts of the fueling facility are the fueling stations. There is no convenience store associated with the fueling facility. PL20120001515;Courthouse Shadows PUDZ November 3,2016 CCPC Page 12 of 21 1 Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff concurs with the justification and recommends approval. The exhibit shows the intent of Code can be met with the alternative plan submitted as an exhibit. Deviation #7: Deviation #7 seeks relief from Section 5.06.04.F.3 regarding directory signs to allow the existing directory signs with fewer than 8 tenant panels and at the existing height of 25'to remain. Justification: The redevelopment proposes to update the existing pole signs to be monument signs that are consistent with the architecture for the redeveloped site. Although fewer than 8 tenants are anticipated to occupy the site if the warehouse club use is constructed, the signage structures exist and it would be more cost effective to retrofit the existing sign structure, rather than to remove and replace. A base will be constructed on the signs and landscaping will be installed consistent with the code. Please see the included exhibits for reference. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff concurs with the justification and recommends approval. The exhibit shows a more attractive sign. Deviation #8: Deviation #8 seeks relief from Section 5.05.08.D.4 of the LDC, Variation in Massing, which requires buildings 40,000 square feet or larger in gross building area, a maximum length, or uninterrupted curve of any facade, at any point, must be 150 linear feet. Projections and recesses must have a minimum depth of ten feet within 150 linear feet limitation, to allow variations as shown on Architectural Deviations Exhibit A-11. Justification: The proposed building massing, articulation, and materials are appropriate for the style and scale of the building type, and the context of existing buildings in the area. The overall massing, building elements (i.e., canopies, pitched roof, overhangs, etc.), and upgraded building materials such as stone are concentrated near the entrance and kept at a pedestrian level so that customers can experience these architectural features. Likewise,landscaping including foundation plantings are incorporated on all sides of the building to enhance and further break up the articulation of each facade, Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff concurs with the justification and recommends approval. Deviation #9: Deviation #9 seeks relief from Section 4.06.02.C.4 of the LDC, which requires a perimeter landscape buffer for properties within Activity Centers to be a minimum of 20 feet in width, to permit a minimum width of 15 feet with an average width of 20 feet as shown on the Buffer Exhibit for the 0.28 acre parcel located at the intersection of Peters Avenue and U.S. 41 East. The buffer may include traffic control devices and utilities. Justification: The existing project perimeter buffer for the developed portion of the project varies from approximately 13 feet in width to 20 feet, The deviation will permit the property owner to install a buffer more consistent with that immediately adjacent to the 0.28± acre parcel being added to the PUD. Please see Deviation#9 Buffer Exhibit. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff concurs with the justification and recommends approval subject to the buffers not containing any State or County traffic devices and/or utilities. It is unknown at this time what utilities are affected if landscaping is proposed in the areas depicted in the Exhibit. PL20120001515;Courthouse Shadows PUDZ November 3,2016 CCPC Page 13 of 21 Deviation#14: Deviation#10 seeks relief from Section 5.05.05.D.2 of the LDC,which establishes landscape standards for facilities with fuel pumps where they are within 250 feet of residential districts, to permit an alternative landscape buffer consistent with the proposed Deviation#10 Cross Section Exhibit. Justification: The applicant is offering an alternative buffer between the facility with fuel pumps and the nearby residential use. The proposed buffer will be approximately 44 feet wide and consist of two landscape buffer areas and solid wall. The proposed seven-foot solid wall is at an elevation that will achieve the same height otherwise required by code. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff concurs with the justification and recommends approval of this deviation. The exhibit shows intent of Code can be met with the alternative plan submitted as an exhibit. FINDINGS OF FACT: LDC Subsection 10.02.08.F states, "When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and recommendations to the planning commission to the Board of County Commissioners...shall show that the planning commission has studied and considered proposed change in relation to the following when applicable." Additionally, Section 10.02.13 of the Collier County LDC requires the Planning Commission to make findings as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the additional criteria as also noted below. (Staff's responses to these criteria are provided in bold,non-italicized font): PUD Findings: LDC Subsection 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." 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. Staff has reviewed the proposed amendment and believes the uses are compatible with the development approved in the area. The commitments made by the applicant and staffs recommended with stipulations and conditions should provide adequate assurances that the proposed change should not adversely affect living conditions in the area. 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. Additionally, the development will be required to gain platting and/or site development approval. Both processes will ensure that appropriate stipulations for the provision of and continuing operation and maintenance of infrastructure will be provided by the developer. PL20120001515;Courthouse Shadows PUDZ November 3,2016 CCPC Page 14 of 21 3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Growth Management Plan(GMP). Staff has reviewed this petition and has offered an analysis of the relevant goals, objectives, and policies of the GMP within the GMP discussion and the zoning analysis of this staff report. Based on those staff analyses, Planning and Zoning staff is of the opinion that this petition may be found consistent with the Future Land Use Element. 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. Staff believes that the proposed uses and associated deviations, with conditions of staff, will provide compatibility,both internal and external of the PUD. 5.The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The amount of usable open space meets code and serves the development. 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. The roadway infrastructure 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 (SDP or Plat), at which time new TIS will be required to demonstrate turning movements for all site access points. Finally, the project's development must comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals, including but not limited to any plats and/or site development plans, are sought. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. 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 CPUD Ordinance, which includes provisions to address public safety. 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. The petitioner is seeking approval of ten deviations to allow design flexibility in compliance with the purpose and intent of the Planned Unit Development Districts. This criterion requires an evaluation of the extent to which development standards and deviations proposed for this PUD depart from development standards that would be required for the most similar conventional zoning district. Staff has provided an analysis of the deviations in the Deviation Discussion portion of this staff report, and is recommending approval with conditions of all deviations proposed. PL20120001515;Courthouse Shadows PUDZ November 3,2016 CCPC Page 15 of 21 II 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 Growth Management Consistency Review provides an in-depth review of the proposed amendment. Staff is of the opinion that the project as proposed is consistent with GMP FLUE Policy 5.4 requiring the project to be compatible with adjacent neighborhood development. Comprehensive Planning staff finds the proposed PUD Application consistent with the Future Land Use Element(FLUE). The petition can be deemed consistent with the CCME and the Transportation Element. Therefore, staff recommends that this petition be deemed consistent with the GMP. 2. The existing land use pattern. Staff has described the existing land use pattern in the "Surrounding Land Use and Zoning" portion of this report. Staff believes the proposed PUD is appropriate given the development restrictions included in the PUD Ordinance and the conditions and stipulations proposed by staff. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. The proposed PUD with conditions and stipulations would not create an isolated zoning district. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. Staff is of the opinion that the district boundaries are logically drawn given the current property ownership boundaries. 5.Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning necessary. The proposed amendment is not necessary,per se; but it is being requested in compliance with the LDC provisions to seek such an amendment to allow the owner the opportunity to develop the land with uses other than what the existing zoning district would allow. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed PUD,with the commitments made by the applicant and the stipulation and conditions offered by staff,has been deemed consistent with the County's land use policies and LDC that are reflected by the Future Land Use Element(FLUE) of the GMP. PL20120001515;Courthouse Shadows PUDZ November 3,2016 CCPC Page 16 of 21 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. 8.Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. Stormwater BMPs, flow paths, treatment, and storage from this project will be address through Environmental Resource Permitting with SFWMD and County staff will evaluate all required stormwater calculation, site plans, and documentation during the development review process. Additionally, the proposed project shall be treated as a redevelopment project; therefore, comply with the existing, as the date of this PUD amendment approval, off-site allowable discharge rates and retention/detention criteria. 9.Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. If this PUD petition is approved,any subsequent development would need to comply with the applicable LDC standards for development or as outlined in the PUD Document. The setbacks and project buffers will help ensure that light and air to adjacent areas will not be substantially reduced. 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 conditions. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. The proposed zoning change should not be a deterrent to the improvement of adjacent properties. 12.Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare. If the proposed development complies with the Growth Management Plan through the proposed PUD, 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 PUD 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 subject property could be developed within the parameters of the existing zoning designations; however, the petitioner is seeking this amendment in compliance with LDC provisions for such action. PL20120001515;Courthouse Shadows PUDZ November 3,2016 CCPC Page 17 of 21 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. The GMP is a policy statement which has evaluated the scale, density, and intensity of land uses deemed to be acceptable throughout the urban-designated areas of the Collier County. Staff is of the opinion that the PUD development standards and commitments with conditions and stipulations will ensure that the project is not out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood and County. 15.Whether it's 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 proposed GMPA and the LDC, and staff does not review other sites in conjunction with a specific petition. The proposed amendment is consistent with the GMP as it is proposed to be amended as discussed in other portions of the staff report. 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. This project will undergo extensive evaluation relative to all federal, state, and local development regulations during the site development plan or platting approval 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. This petition has been reviewed by County staff who are responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP as part of the amendment process and County staff has concluded that no Level of Service will be adversely impacted. 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. PL20120001515;Courthouse Shadows PUDZ November 3,2016 CCPC Page 18 of 21 1 NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING: The applicant's agents conducted a duly noticed NIM on July 13, 2016, at the Collier County Government Center.Please see the attached NIM summary provided by the agent. The applicant's agents also conducted a presentation in front of the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Community Development Local Authority on September 13 (See Attachment 5). COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney's Office reviewed the staff report for this petition on October 19,2016. • PL20120001515;Courthouse Shadows PUDZ November 3,2016 CCPC Page 19 of 21 3 RECOMMENDATION: Zoning Services staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission forward PETITION PUDZ-PL20120001515 to the BCC with a recommendation of approval with the following conditions: is 1. Add Deviation #4 Exhibit to the PUD Document. This is a limited area of the existing Buffalo Wild Wings parking lot. This exhibit shall be part of the PUD Document. 2.Deviation#9 approved subject to the buffers not containing any State or County utilities or traffic control devices. 3. Include a commitment for a preserve and acreage of the preserve in the environmental commitments section of the PUD Document (PUD Section 3.7). Label "Preserve" on the PUD Master Plan (LDC Section 3.05.07 H.1.a) and include the acreage of the preserve on the PUD Master Plan. If the preserve required is to be satisfied offsite, indicate so in the environmental commitments section of the PUD Document and identify in the commitment,the acreage of preserve required to be satisfied offsite. 4. The proposed new-revised parking island layout shown on the Master Plan is conceptual and is not part of this zoning petition approval. Review and approval of any proposed site changes including but not limited to access entries,parking islands,and drive aisles shall be done at time of site development order(SDP/SDPA). 5. To address the proposed re-development project and existing roadway conditions on Peters Avenue add the following developer commitment: The owner, its successors, or assigns shall pay for the design and construction of a five-foot sidewalk along Peters Avenue up to the sum of$50,000.00,which shall represent its payment in-lieu consistent with LDC Section 6.06.02 for the entire site. Owner shall make payment to County within 30 days of approval of the PUD. 6. The development is limited to the 662 total net new PM peak hour trips utilized in the TIS dated March 18,2016. 7. For purposes of stormwater management, the proposed project shall be treated as a new development project; therefore, comply with the existing offsite allowable discharge rates and retention/detention criteria, as the date of this PUD rezone approval. 8. Revise Master Plan,relocating labels for Deviation's#3 and#5 outside of drainage easement. Attachments: Attachment 1: PUD Ordinance Attachment 2: Applicant's Backup Material Attachment 3: GMP Consistency Review Attachment 4: E-Mails Attachment 5: Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Community Development Local Authority Board Minutes PL20120001515;Courthouse Shadows PUDZ November 3,2016 CCPC Page 20 of 21 PREPARED BY: / /( he, DANIEL JAMES"SMITH,AICP DATE PRINCIPAL PLANNER ZONING DIVISION REVIEWED BY: /0/ 3 /tc RAYM•. +] V. ELLOWS,ZONING MANAGER ATE ZONIN I v IVISION '19"7/-7 / )-- MIKE )-MIKE BOSI,AICP, DIRECTOR DATE ZONING DIVISION APPROVED BY: 4001- � _ r lo —4.2.0 -16 JAMES FRENCH,DEPUTY DEPARTMENT HEAD DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT 10/Z. A49 DAVID S. WILKISON,P.E. DEPARTMENT HEAD DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT ORDINANCE NO. 16- AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 92-08, THE COURTHOUSE SHADOWS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT BY INCREASING THE MAXIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE SHOPPING CENTER AND OUTPARCELS BY 18,000 SQUARE FEET FOR A TOTAL OF 165,000 GROSS SQUARE FEET OF FLOOR AREA; BY AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 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 .35+/- ACRES OF LAND ZONED COMMERCIAL INTERMEDIATE DISTRICT IN THE MIXED USE SUBDISTRICT OF THE GATEWAY TRIANGLE MIXED USE DISTRICT OVERLAY (C-3- GTMUD-MXD) TO THE COURTHOUSE SHADOWS PUD; BY ADDING A MEMBERSHIP WAREHOUSE CLUB WITH ASSOCIATED LIQUOR STORE USE AND ANCILLARY FACILITY WITH FUEL PUMPS AS A PERMITTED USE; BY REVISING THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS; BY AMENDING THE MASTER PLAN AND ADDING DEVIATIONS. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF US 41 AND OPPOSITE AIRPORT PULLING ROAD IN SECTIONS 11, 12 AND 13, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA CONSISTING OF 20.35+/-ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. [PUDZA-PL201200015151 WHEREAS,KRG COURTHOUSE SHADOWS, LLC represented by D. Wayne Arnold, <. AICP of Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire of Coleman, Yovanovich& Koester, P.A.,petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to amend the PUD and change the zoning classification of the additional herein described real property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,that: Words struok-thfeug+are deleted;words underlined are added [12-CPS-01190] 174 Courthouse Shadows PUD Page 1 of 8 PUDZA-PL20120001515 10/14/16 Attachment 1 SECTION ONE: ZONING CLASSIFICATION The zoning classification of approximately .35 acres of the herein described real property located in Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida is changed from a Commercial Intermediate District in the Mixed Use Subdistrict of the Gateway Triangle Mixed Use District Overlay (C-3-GTMUD-MXD) to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning district and when combined with the existing Courthouse Shadows PUD provides for a 20.35+/- acre project in accordance with Ordinance No. 92-8, as amended by this Ordinance. The appropriate zoning atlas map or maps, as described in Ordinance Number 04-41, as amended,the Collier County Land Development Code,is/are hereby amended accordingly. SECTION TWO: AMENDMENT TO TABLE OF CONTENTS OF THE PUD DOCUMENT OF ORDNANCE NO. 92-8 The Table of Contents of the PUD document attached to Ordinance Number 92-8,PUD is hereby amended as follows: TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE ii STATEMENT OF INTENT iii SECTION I PROPERTY OWNERSHIP&DESCRIPTION 1-1 SECTION II GENERAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS 2-1 SECTION III GENERAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS 3-1 EXHIBIT--"A"MASTER PLAN EXHIBIT—"B"LEGAL DESCRIPTION EXHIBIT—"C"DEVIATIONS FROM LDC REQUIREMENTS EXHIBIT—"D" BUILDING SIGNAGE Words struck-thretgh are deleted;words underlined are added [12-CPS-01190] 174 Courthouse Shadows PUD Page 2 of 8 PUDZA-PL20120001515 10/14/16 SECTION THREE: AMENDMENT TO THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF THE STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE OF THE PUD DOCUMENT OF ORDINANCE NO. 92-8 The first paragraph of the Statement of Compliance of the PUD Document, attached as Exhibit"A"to Ordinance No. 92-8, is hereby amended as follows: The purpose of this Section is to express the interest of Collier De=elopment Corporation KRG Courthouse Shadows,LLC to develop 20.0820.3±acres of land located in Sections 11, 12 and 13, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. SECTION FOUR: AMENDMENT TO THE STATEMENT OF INTENT OF THE PUD DOCUMENT OF ORDINANCE NO. 92-8 The Statement of Intent of the PUD Document, attached as Exhibit"A"to Ordinance No. 92-8, is hereby amended as follows: The purpose of this Section is to express the intent of Collier Development Corporation to commence development of a commercial activity center planned unit of development. It is the intent of Collier Development Corporation to continue the development of architecturally unified commercial establishments built on the project site and on the concept of planned arrangement and unified management control. The unified development approval under the PUD district designation will ensure that the shopping eenterproject is aesthetically pleasing and functionally efficient. It will allow an efficient pattern of internal circulation to be established, and limited points of vehicular ingress and egress. These functional and aesthetic advantages, which cannot be provided in the conventional strip commercial development configurations, have been maximized and shall be sustained in the approval of this planned unit of development. This planned unit of development shall be limited to specific commercial uses which are compatible with uses permitted within activity centers:.-: - - . . •. --•- =- . . . . ... _ It is the interest of Collier Development Corporation to continue development in accordance with the regulations of this Planned Unit of Development. It is the purpose of this document to set forth the complete plan, regulations and conditions of development along with other information required in accordance with the PUD ordinance. It is further the intent of Collier Development Corporation to commence development once all necessary permits and approvals have been granted. Words stmsk through are deleted;words underlined are added [12-CPS-01190] 174 Courthouse Shadows PUD Page 3 of 8 PUDZA-PL20120001515 10/14/16 { SECTION FIVE: AMENDMENT TO SECTION 1.2 OF THE PUD DOCUMENT OF ORDINANCE NO. 92-8 = Section 1.2 of the PUD Document, attached as Exhibit "A" to Ordinance No. 92-8, is x hereby amended as follows: i The subject property is currently under the control of i _. .. . . ., .. . _ ., .' , , .. - - •, eKRG Courthouse Shadows, LLC, 30 S. Meridian St., Suite 1100, Indianapolis,IN 46204. 2 1 SECTION SIX: AMENDMENT TO SECTION 1.3 OF THE PUD DOCUMENT OF ORDINANCE NO. 92-8 TO ADD ACREAGE i Section 1.3 of the PUD Document, attached as "Exhibit A" to Ordinance No. 92-8, is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced by: See Exhibit B, Legal Description, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 1 SECTION SEVEN: AMENDMENT TO SECTION 2.1 OF THE PUD DOCUMENT OF ORDINANCE NO. 92-8 i Section 2.1 of the PUD Document, attached as Exhibit "A" to Ordinance No. 92-8, is i hereby amended as follows: The purpose of this Section is to set forth the regulations for development of the proposed 20820.3± acre Planned Unit Development identified on the Master Plan. t SECTION EIGHT: AMENDMENT TO SECTION 2.3 OF THE PUD DOCUMENT OF ORDINANCE NO. 92-8 Section 2.3 of the PUD Document, attached as Exhibit "A" to Ordinance No. 92-8, is hereby amended as follows: 2.3. USES PERMITTED ! No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land or water e used, in whole or in part, for other than the following: f F i Words streak e are deleted;words underlined are added - {12-CPS-01190] 174 Courthouse Shadows PUD Page 4 of 8 PUDZA-PL20120001515 10/14/16 1 A. Principal Uses: 1. Antique Shops 2. Appliance stores 3. Art studios 4. Art supplies 5. Automobile parts stores 6. Automobile service stations 7. Bakery shops(including baking incidental to retail or wholesale sales) 8. Banks(branch or main office)and financial institutions 9. Barber and beauty shops 10.Bath supply stores 11.Blueprint shops 12.Bicycle sales and services 13. Book stores 14. Carpet and floor covering sales (including storage and installation) 15. Child care centers 16. Cocktail lounges,commercial recreation(indoor) 17.Clothing stores 18. Commercial schools 19. Confectionery and candy stores 20.Delicatessen; drive-in restaurants,drug stores; dry cleaning shops;dry goods stores and department stores. 21. Electric supply stores 22. Fish stores; florist shops; food markets(including facilities with fuel pumps); furniture stores;furrier shops and fast food restaurants. 23. Gift shops, gourmet shops 24.Hardware stores;health food stores;hobby supply stores;home for the aged 25. Ice cream stores; ice sales;interior decorating showrooms 26. Jewelry stores 27.Laundries, leather goods, and luggage stores;locksmiths and liquor stores 28. Meat market;medical office or clinic for human care;millinery shops;motion picture theater;music stores 29. Membership warehouse club with associated liquor store use and ancillary facility with fuel pumps. The facility with fuel pumps may not be open to the general public and shall be for only members of the membership warehouse club. 2930. Office(retail or professional); office supply stores 3031.Paint and wallpaper stores;pet shops,pet supply stores;photographic equipment stores;post office 3432. Radio and television sales and service; small appliance stores; shoe sales and repairs;restaurants 3-233. Souvenir stores; stationery stores; shopping centers; supermarkets subject to site development plan approval. 3334. Tailor shops;tobacco shops; toy shops;tropical fish stores 3435.Variety stores; veterinary offices and clinics(no outside kenneling) Words saran are deleted;words underlined are added [12-CPS-01190] 174 Courthouse Shadows PUD Page 5 of 8 PUDZA-PL20120001515 10/14/16 3-536. Watch and precision instrument sales and repair 3637. Any other commercial use of professional service normally allowed in C-3 Zoning District - ... . . - - !' = as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals ("BZA") or the Hearing Examiner. SECTION NINE: AMENDMENT TO SECTION 2.4 OF THE PUD DOCUMENT OF ORDINANCE NO. 92-8 Section 2.4 of the PUD Document, attached as Exhibit "A" to Ordinance No. 92-8, is hereby amended as follows: 2.4 MINIMUM YARD REQUIREMENTS ********************************** F. Minimum internal setback from the additional 0.28± acre FDOT surplus parcel shall be zero (0) feet. SECTION TEN: AMENDMENT TO SECTION 2.8 OF THE PUD DOCUMENT OF ORDINANCE NO. 92-8 Section 2.8 of the PUD Document, attached as Exhibit "A" to Ordinance No. 92-8, is hereby amended as follows: 2.8 SIGNS - r A. Individual Business Signs: Wall, marquee, or hanging sings below the canopy of the rim retail building, with an area not more than twenty percent (20%) of the total square footage of the front wall or facade area under the canopy, of 250 square feet per rental unit, consistent with the locations shown on Exhibit D - Building Signage. SECTION ELEVEN: AMENDMENT TO SECTION 3.2A OF THE PUD DOCUMENT OF ORDINANCE NO. 92-8 Section 3.2A of the PUD Document, attached as Exhibit "A" to Ordinance No. 92-8, is hereby amended as follows: Words struck Neagh are deleted;wards underlined are added [12-CPS-01190) 174 Courthouse Shadows PUD Page 6 of 8 PUDZA-PL20120001515 10/14/16 A. The PUD Master Plan is an illustrative preliminary development plan as prepared by Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc. Drawing No. 91-223 and amended by Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A., Exhibit "A" Master Plan. The maximum square footage of the shopping center and outparcels shall not exceed a total of-1.411-000165,000 square feet. SECTION TWELVE: AMENDMENT TO THE PUD DOCUMENT OF ORDINANCE NO. 92-8 TO REVISE EXHIBIT"A"MASTER PLAN Exhibit "A" Master Plan of the PUD Document, attached as Exhibit "A" to Ordinance No. 92-8, is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with Exhibit "A", Master Plan, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION THIRTEEN: AMENDMENT TO THE PUD DOCUMENT OF ORDINANCE NO. 92-8 TO ADD EXHIBIT"C",DEVIATIONS The PUD Document, attached as Exhibit "C" to Ordinance No. 92-8, is hereby amended to add the following: See Exhibit"C",Deviations, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION FOURTEEN: 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 Words strut gh are deleted;words underlined are added [12-CPS-01190] 174 Courthouse Shadows PUD Page 7 of 8 PUDZA-PL20120001515 10/14/16 1 Approved as to form and legality: it Heidi Ashton-Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney Attachments: Exhibit A—Master Plan Exhibit B -Legal Description Exhibit C—Deviations including Buffer Exhibit Exhibit D —Building Signage a Words struck through are deleted;words underlined are added [12-CPS-01190] 174 Courthouse Shadows PUD Page 8 of 8 PUDZA-PL20120001515 10/14/15 1 r M 1\ CT t pv.411 All . i `♦ $ J `♦ a t .' " a 4 w '90\ 1zw u n II 3 Q w ,. \ ¢d _ \. w prp v 4 " \ LL O 2 " c y % N �' 0 \ (W7Jw DW w 2 Q • 13U Wu- a -2 d i —) w 0 r a ° O O & O' 711t. 5 _ 2 ' a . DO D D ; a °4 sg 1i 40., Is ••• •,,t. ` '„ I Q & 4- ,_, r° O a "�' c 5 M \i> 6= co 1 2§? N C 3 pJ 1 4''./ O ❑ % — a e s Iig� .i ❑ Jir /'$/ rxl� Nw 1. ��JJ H K 200 o f O 1 vr6; �{ w�W 2U= .0 g i�,. O /,' 4 �' iii NO9Lag u1 is ry IW ♦ _ �n`� GM' ¢ I-IDFOf r(w/] p e 10 1� 20 OW;I5� 0 i �( Q 'uL w W W 71 1. 1 V n S. y���°/ 1. z douLLo�pZ� c`�i o ` / 64.1/7 . / io 7QW •OigwwH Leg "g\ ,I�61% \/ W R}'i i 4.„EzcLth • oc `\ h h, 2 �oaD;W ix COQ - ow. zde rea.Z ws o ILLoN. o = i Y C / _m30 _.� o loWU U Z Z: w xzac>A2zzN ti ' 0 - 0.yHQ4O - 52o azw `a —77 U orI /� z.= r 0 si 0 U . k I Courthouse Shadows PUD Exhibit B Legal Description • BEING A PORTION OF LAND LYING IN SECTIONS 11, 12, & 13, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST COWER COUNTY, FLORIDA. BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGIN AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE PLAT OF COURTHOUSE SHADOWS AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 29 PAGES 40-41 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE RUN ALONG SAID PLAT FOR THE FOLLOWING NINE(9)COURSES AND DISTANCES: 1.THENCE S 89°01' 07" W,A DISTANCE OF 838.57 FEET; 2.THENCE N 00° 15' 36" W,A DISTANCE OF 276.13 FEET; 3. THENCE N 89°59' 12"W,A DISTANCE OF 331.40 FEET; 4.THENCE N 00° 18' 23"W,A DISTANCE OF 30.00 FEET; 5.THENCE S 89°28' 37"W, A DISTANCE OF 140.47 FEET; 6.THENCE N 00° 11' 18" W,A DISTANCE OF 757.17 FEET; 7.THENCE N 89° 15' 15" E,A DISTANCE OF 138.91 FEET; 8.THENCE N 00° 18' 23" W,A DISTANCE OF 100.34 FEET; 9. THENCE S 89° 13' 43" W, A DISTANCE OF 138.71 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF PETERS AVENUE AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 1, PAGE 56 OF SAID PUBLIC RECORDS; THENCE RUN ALONG SAID EAST LINE N 00° 11' 18" W, A DISTANCE OF 116.95 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF THOSE LANDS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 3939, PAGE 463 OF SAID PUBLIC RECORDS; THENCE RUN ALONG SAID LANDS FOR THE FOLLOWING THREE (3)COURSES AND DISTANCES: 1.THENCE N 38°02'06" E, A DISTANCE OF 138.66 FEET; 2.THENCE S 82°55'44" E,A DISTANCE OF 23.32 FEET; 3. THENCE S 51° 37' 15" E, A DISTANCE OF 37.56 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LANDS; THE SAME BEING A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF TAMIAMI TRAIL (US 41);THENCE RUN ALONG SAID LINE FOR THE REMAINING COURSES AND DISTANCES: 1. S 52°02' 35" ESA DISTANCE OF 85.20 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 12° 59' 04", A RADIUS OF 1773.76 FEET, A CHORD • BEARING AND DISTANCE OF S 45° 33' 03" E, 40111 FEET; THENCE IN A WESTERLY DIRECTION, WITH SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 401.97 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; 2.THENCE S 39°03'31" E, A DISTANCE OF 1306.74 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 20.35 ACRES MORE OR LESS. Page 1 of 1 Courthouse Shadows CPUD EXHIBIT C DEVIATIONS FROM LDC REQUIREMENTS 1. Deviation #1 seeks relief from Section 4.05.06.B of the LDC, which requires 3 loading spaces for the first 50,000 SF of each retail store, warehouse, wholesale establishment, industrial activity, terminal, market, restaurant, funeral home, laundry, dry cleaning establishment, or similar use which has an aggregate floor area of 20,000 but not over 50,000 plus one additional off-street loading space for each additional 25,000 SF over 50,000 SF or major fraction thereof which would require 7 loading spaces to instead allow a total of 5 loading spaces measuring 10'x20' (200 s.f.). This deviation applies to the location shown on the Master Plan. 2. Deviation #2 seeks relief from Section 4.06.02, Table 2.4 of the LDC, which allows a shared 15' landscape buffer to be provided between platted commercial building lots with each abutting property contributing 7.5 feet, to permit a single 8-foot wide average internal landscape buffer between separately platted tracts as shown on the Conceptual Master Plan with each property contributing 4 feet. This deviation applies to the Outlot parcels as shown on the Master Plan. 3. Deviation #3 seeks relief from Section 4.06.02.D1 and D2 of the LDC, which requires the water management system to not exceed 50 percent of the square footage of any required side, rear, or front yard landscape buffer and also have a minimum of a 5' wide level planted area, to allow the water management system to encroach 100% into the perimeter landscaping buffer. 4. Deviation #4 seeks relief from Section 4.06.03.6 of the LDC, which requires all rows of parking spaces shall contain no more than ten parking spaces uninterrupted by a required landscaping island, to allow up to 19 parking spaces uninterrupted by a required landscape island. 5. Deviation #5 seeks relief from Section 5.03.02.H and 5.05.05.D.2 of the LDC, which requires a wall or fence to be 6' away from the property line when a non-residential development lies contiguous to or opposite a residentially zoned district, to allow the wall or fence to be on or adjacent to the property line. 6. Deviation #6 seeks relief from Section 5.05.05.B, which requires separation from adjacent facilities with fuel pumps to a minimum distance of 500 feet and from residential to be separated by 250 feet to allow a separation of 0' feet for the fuel facility separation from residential. 7. Deviation #7 seeks relief from Section 5.06.04.F.3 regarding directory signs to allow the existing directory signs with fewer than 8 tenant panels and at the existing height of 25' to remain. 8. Deviation #8 seeks relief from Section 5.05.08.D.4 of the LDC, Variation in Massing, which requires buildings 40,000 square feet or larger in gross building area, a maximum length, or uninterrupted curve of any facade, at any point, must be 150 linear feet. Projections and recesses must have a minimum depth of ten feet within 150 linear feet limitation, to allow variations as shown on Architectural Deviations Exhibit A-11. Courthouse Shadows PUD,PL20120001515 Last Revised 10/06/2016 Page 1 of 2 Courthouse Shadows CPUD EXHIBIT C s ' 9. Deviation #9 seeks relief from Section 4.06.02.C.4 of the LDC, which requires a perimeter landscape buffer for properties within Activity Centers to be a minimum of 20 feet in width, to permit a minimum width of 15' with an average width of 20' as shown on the Buffer Exhibit for the 0.28 acre parcel located at the intersection of Peters Avenue and U.S. 41 East. The buffer may include traffic control devices and utilities. 10. Deviation #10 seeks relief from Section 5.05.05.D.2 of the LDC, which establishes landscape standards for facilities with fuel pumps where they are within 250' of residential districts, to permit an alternative landscape buffer consistent with the proposed Deviation #10 Cross Section exhibit. { } I Courthouse Shadows PUD,PL20120001515 Last Revised 10/06/2016 Page 2 of 2 3 ,aa'‘ IY A 1 O n �an� ' t•.1o° 4 ' x4,1 =f N D : 6 14'. or Xs t _ _ C. 4 I� I Et 111111 a! m I g ,t. ; it F a v .4 . a j41 . ;� a $4 Nu 4 • N 9 a, ® 4 4 g 'i al 4 1I `I a : ce • n III w 7 I 4 4 el 1 w l a c p b s V • 414 PI 1 i r r J , , i w aI 'r • jh 1 F dt t , .7i. :. ._. ii.,:- ' _, . .: ii tia E C 3 F g A 'i s g '1 116 f g z' f s c glIqgi dff-4L2o- a Eay+ F S .0—.1.1 3-C 2 7L,�E".P. !FPr5"a S ''. fl R peg^;� I. �a . saE- >.s-ft, 3 , `` 5 ° • R e n ,, yids' ' a7°'° $ zg31:e m E r, FLE $� ° asa 1p-ogy5y} �.. .. . ' ID m▪.. x`" . -o , r5- m :Fr N '�,� e• >n 5g.°.5' pe'g3—$ aFnV Ill c t F p " c €, “ E Q� S ,'.1a• 4 4 .).',. y,7 395E E ' >'� ssEsi „le 3 I .. ` 1 ag (1? g w 3v -� pp 4t 1UIfl :' ! L 0 it D E. n as p) H S tit 7 Q. N 11 1 O y � c � � � �= « 6 � iii Z ; � - -9 * * s �313d an 1 m a •? '* C O N 0D C , P4 Z �: fD 3 Lili . Jt '+ 1 f(p m :�I[ u I!, C §m > mQ ' -I n O Z1,1 p / m 3. o Cd $ I • 21 \ .----k cij z(37.(//)\ p2 g / 4/ ` -- < Tl Q \ - t"O t IS �, la ii ::: : . //frC Off. -D-1 n �, 73„. , _. FT, , . . . . . . .th. x) N > - • . . . .:. , 1 . .. . .. �o 0 1 t - :: q V XZ � l = b CO - % _ 11 b • t/7 Q I Ila O ^Z—�'� y 1 O o Ci.. \\OC1AL&At\1ILES'I+GIRINc\PROJ-PIANNWG\CSPWA-COURRTII SE SHADOWS(P120120001515)\DRAWINGS\BUFFER E%NIBR(RE 2).OWG 0/76/1016 41411 M4 I CI P W , ,-, _. .. 1 L. .7 co N ., , J : i �` 1 4 f �� tilt Pdtit9 cn , ,_ tem I O . 0 ==nth 4 ,/0 e ,may �. V1 �^) � c * ,''` r'` V/ 1 CD ...I \ Vie-- ,� = 4 4 " of • ,... ,42•>,. o . z---co "-*' S� 40, ,c * r r/` c,C�� '' " e J n o .•� 1w 0 • 0 QD- I I `" I 1 a) I4I a (CD I r I R. r. t., ,.... &Ai, I 1 1 _ x I I I " AVir I I 1 I I I, 4t tri t `1 �' 1 -n rn Co v CP 13 -v -v ....< a al =-c7; as CI 6 a) `rrrcC3 ¢, = a) W co _ tea' � 0" � a)aa) o =0 03 v -. m S r iI 2 _ o $ f Z l- r? W i Z z°i -° 0 a V o I O 4.. 1 ria,- - ,` % , 1: II' a - 1 0 I 'I Q z i 71- Illi as., i • - I III! e n 0 1 m Ifs i i a 4,, ., ,, _,,. 'II1 4 r-11 — si, x . I ¢, I O 5 I 5 iii •5 I 4 Y T :. s CO Z iii c, itN • �, ... if s (p w R iIN III I 1E74 i Co t ter Go-pointy GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT ZONING DIVISION CONSISTENCY REVIEW MEMORANDUM To: Dan Smith,AICP, Principal Planner,Zoning Services Section From: Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner, Comprehensive Planning Section Date: April 26, 2016 Subject: Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Consistency Review of Proposed Revisions to the Courthouse Shadows Planned Unit Development—3rd memo PETITION NUMBER: PUDR—PL20120001515—REV: 3 PETITION NAME: Courthouse Shadows Planned Unit Development (PUD) REQUEST: Revisions to the existing Courthouse Shadows PUD to add "membership warehouse club with associated liquor store" as a Permitted, Principal commercial use, increase the maximum amount of square footage allowed for commercial uses from 147,000 square feet to 165,000 square feet, secure and employ deviations from the Land Development Code (LDC), make a boundary change to the PUD to add an ± 0.28 acre area and, revise the PUD document and PUD Master Plan accordingly. LOCATION: The subject site, consisting of ±20.35 acres, is located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Tamiami Trail East (US 41) and Peters Avenue, in portions of Sections 11, 12 and 13, Township 50 South, Range 25 East. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS: The subject property is located within the Urban designated area (Urban Commercial District, Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict — Activity Center #16), is within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay (B/GTRO), and is in the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA), all as identified on Future Land Use Maps of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). The concept of Mixed Use Activity Centers "is designed to concentrate almost all new commercial zoning in locations where traffic impacts can readily be accommodated, to avoid strip and disorganized patterns of commercial development, and to create focal points within the community." Relevant to this petition, the ±0.28 ac. area to be added to the existing PUD is zoned C-3—Gateway Triangle Mixed Use District (GTMUD-MXD) in the Collier County Zoning Map, and is within the Mixed Use Activity Center#16. The B/GTRO of the Future Land Use Element(FLUE) states that"for parcels within the boundaries of Mixed Use Activity Center #16, land uses will continue to be governed by the Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict. A zoning overlay may be developed for these properties within the Mixed Use Activity Center to provide specific development standards." In this regard, the County's LDC contains development standards for the GTMUD-MXD zoning district (LDC Section 2.03.07.N.). Additionally, LDC Section 2.03.07.N.2.c. states that amendments or boundary changes to PUDs that existed prior to March 3, 2006, are not subject to the overlay requirements. The subject PUD was first adopted in 1985 by Ordinance No. 85-11, and then superseded in 1992 by Ordinance 92-08. Therefore, LDC development standards for the GTMUD Overlay do not apply for the±0.28 ac. area proposed to be added to the subject PUD. Attachment 3 In regard to the Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict of the GMP, rezoning actions are subject to certain considerations as outlined below(in italics], each followed by staff analysis [in bold]. a, Rezones are encouraged to be in the form of a Planned Unit Development. There shall be no minimum acreage limitation for such Planned Unit Developments except all requests for rezoning must meet the requirements for rezoning in the Land Development Code. [The revisions include and rezone a C-3- , GTMUD-MXD zoned property into the boundaries of the existing PUD.] b. The amount, type and location of existing zoned commercial land, and developed commercial uses, both € within the Mixed Use Activity Center and within two road miles of the Mixed Use Activity Center. [Activity 1 Center #16 consists of some residential zoning, the Collier County Government Center PUD, and the remainder is commercial zoning (C-1, C-3, C-4, C-5 and Commercial PUD). Within two road miles, most properties are zoned C-3, C-4 and C-5. The revisions include the rezone of a commercially zoned property into an existing PUD that allows, has been developed with and will redeveloped with,commercial uses.] c. Market demand and service area for the proposed commercial land uses to be used as a guide to explore a the feasibility of the requested land uses. [The revisions include and rezone a vacant [± 0.28 ac] C-3 _ zoned property into the existing commercial PUD. In staffs opinion, a market study is not necessary.] d. Existing patterns of land use within the Mixed Use Activity Center and within two radial miles. [Existing land use patterns consist of commercial, residential, and institutional. The subject commercial parcels are located along US 41, which is primarily developed with commercial uses. Therefore, the redevelopment proposed would be consistent with the existing pattern of land use development along US 41.] e. Adequacy of infrastructure capacity, particularly roads. [Comprehensive Planning leaves this determination to the Transportation Planning staff as part of their review of the petition.] 1 f. Compatibility of the proposed (re]development with, and adequacy of buffering for, adjoining properties. [The request includes multiple deviations to reduce the perimeter buffer width in order to accommodate larger surface water management features, to construct walls immediately inside 1 property boundaries and to reduce the required landscape buffer width between separately platted commercial lots. Distance deviations are also requested from the fuel station pump = facilities to the nearest residence and adjacent fueling facility. Comprehensive Planning leaves this determination to the Zoning Services staff as part of their review of the petition.] i g. Natural or man-made constraints. [Man-made constraints exist. Application materials explain the ±0.28 acres of land being integrated with the Courthouse Shadows PUD is a surplus land remnant from the Florida Department of Transportation related to previous widening of US 41 and/or intersection improvements. Independent development of this small parcel would be difficult because of LDC requirements for commercial development.] i 1 h. Rezoning criteria identified in the Land Development Code. [The rezoning criteria responses were included with the PUD application. Comprehensive Planning staff defers to Zoning Services to review these criteria.] 71 L Conformance with Access Management Plan provisions for Mixed Use Activity Centers, as contained in the x Land Development Code. [Comprehensive Planning staff defers to Transportation Planners to z evaluate this criterion.] j. Coordinated traffic flow on-site and off-site, as may be demonstrated by a Traffic Impact Analysis, and a site plan/master plan indicating on-site traffic movements, access point locations and type,median opening locations and type on the abutting roadway(s), location of traffic signals on the abutting roadway(s), and 2 i i 1. internal and external vehicular and pedestrian interconnections. [The PUD Master Plan depicts internal traffic circulation and parking areas typical to shopping centers with outlots. Ingress — egress points are located along Tamiami Trail East and Peters Avenue. The intersection of these two streets is signalized, along with signalization at the main entrance on Tamiami Trail East across from Espinal Boulevard.] k. interconnection(s) for pedestrians, bicycles and motor vehicles with existing and future abutting projects. '- [The PUD Master Plan does not depict such interconnection for pedestrians or motor vehicles with abutting projects. Only one location around the perimeter of the subject property does not abut a roadway, at the southwest corner where residences sit along CoHee Court and back-up to Haldeman Creek.] 1. Conformance with the architectural design standards as identified in the Land Development Code. [More than 20 deviations or exceptions are being sought by the subject petition from the architectural requirements of the LDC. Comprehensive Planning staff defers to Zoning Services and K. Architectural Review staffs to review these deviations/exceptions for appropriateness.] [ FLUE Policy 5.4 requires new developments to be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land area. Comprehensive Planning leaves this determination to the 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 and use intensities 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, development standards (building heights, hours of operation, setbacks, landscape buffers, etc.), building mass, building f location and orientation, architectural features, amount and type of open space and location, traffic generation/attraction, etc. FLUE Objective 7 and Policies 7.1 through 7.4 promote smart growth policies for new development and redevelopment projects. These Policies were addressed at the time of original approval in 1993, and the Courthouse Shadows PUD was determined to comply with them. Regarding the factors identified in these Policies, no changes are proposed to the PUD that would change that determination and re-analysis by staff is unnecessary. Based upon the above analysis, the proposed PUD may be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan. 1 { cc: Ray Bellows,Zoning Manager,Zoning Services Section David Weeks,AICP, Growth Management Manager, Comprehensive Planning Section Michael Bosi,AICP, Director,Zoning Division G:ComplConsistency Reviews\2016 GICDES Planning Services\Consistency Reviewsl20161PUDR\PUDR-PL2012-1515 Courthouse Shadows R3.docx 3 ) Page 1 of 2 From: JourdanJean Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 9:13 AM To: SmithDaniel Subject: FW:Sam's Club Urgent! Dan: Below is the e-mail we discussed. Jean • From: Klbeatty48Caaol.com [mailto:Klbeattv48Ca�aoLcom] Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 10:44 AM To: JourdanJean; McKuenElly Cc: klbeattv48(aaol.com Subject: Sam's Club Urgent! Good Morning Jean and Elly, After speaking to neighbors who live within 500 ft of the proposed Sam's Club, there are some concerns that deserve attention. I also live on Haldeman Creek, approx. 1,000 ft from it. I'm requesting you to forward this to the CRA-AB members and the Haldeman Creek MSTU Advisory Board members asap. 1. There is already drainage coming into Haldeman Creek from The Glades,which filters through pipes under the parking lot of Walmart on the east trail. Will further runoff drainage from this proposed development come into Haldeman Creek and how will the proposed additional .28+1-FDOT surplus parcel, adjacent to the NW PUD boundary affect the flow of Haldeman Creek. Apparently, this will go right over the Creek at the NE section where US 41 is. This is a lush preserve portion of Haldeman Creek now with mangroves, etc. How is • this being handled? 2. Is there a plan to build a sound proof wall along the property line abutting Haldeman Creek, so the many sounds coming from this development all hours of the day and night(deliveries at night), be softened for all the neighbors who live on the Creek now? Streets such as Collee Ct., Peters, Captain's Cove, Canal, Basin St., etc. Even homes in the area east of this could be affected by the sound,which are homes that are on Guilford Rd. There is a gas station planned for this development as well,which will, most likely, be much larger than the one that is on that property now. 3. The local property owners are wondering why the CRA would allow a private club, such as Sam's Club, which will not be something that is available for all citizens of the area to build there when it will contribute highly to traffic congestion, noise, etc that they will have to endure, while not having the advantage of enjoying other possible retail uses,which they have always been able to utilize without a membership, in the past. Not all of the local citizens are going to want to join Sam's Club and therefore this parcel will be of no use to them. They would prefer a nice shopping plaza with stores they can enjoy often. 4. There's a former gas station just east of Peters St. and facing US 41 that has a little building on it that is an aerator. Local residents state there is contaminated ground there that is being managed by this aerator. This contamination needs to be cleaned up. 5. At first glance, having a Sam's Club nearby seems like a good thing, but, I think this needs to be looked at closer. Is the Courthouse Shadows parcel part of the CRA? 6. Do you have an idea when this will be heard by the BCC? Attachment achment 4 /Current/Daniel... 1 0/1 8/2016 Page 2 of 2 Lastly, there's a public informational meeting at the BCC Chambers tomorrow, Wednesday, July 13 at 5:30 pm. I think it's important for as many of the board members as possible to be there. I think this deserves out attention. Apparently, no questions or comments will be heard and all must be directed, according to the letter to citizens from Grady Minor, by email, phone, fax or mail to Grady Minor and Associates. Shouldn't something this big be vetted by Mark Strain, Hearing Examiner or does the BCC decide that? Thank you, Karen Karen L. Beatty, ABR, GRI Downing-Frye Realty, Inc. Direct Cell: 239 269-7788 Direct Fax: 239 236-0365 www.karenbeatty.com www.nativeknowsnaplesOlistingbook.com NATIVE Floridian, loving Naples since 1977. Serving Buyers, Investors and Sellers since 1995! Bayshore/Gateway Triangle CRA Advisory Board since 2006 Member of NABOR, FAR, NAR MULTIPLE AWARD WINNER By the way... the greatest compliment you can give me is the referral of a friend or family member. I promise to treat them with the same care as 1 would my own. 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, tile://bcc.colliergov.net/data/GMD-LDS/CDES%20Planning%20S ervices/Current/Daniel... 10/18/2016 Re proposed Sams Club From: Lise O'Brien [lise.obrien@me.com] Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2016 5:11 PM To: Smithoaniel Subject: Re proposed Sams club Dear Mr Smith, As a resident of nearby East Naples, I write to oppose the construction of a Sams Club at the Courthouse Shadows Shopping Center. I am sure by now you've heard most of the objections - across the street from walmart, poor fit for planned smaller commercial ventures in that area, etc. May I add - Naples is at risk of becoming another casualty of big box sprawl , and this alarmingly close to downtown. Folks like my husband and myself were attracted to Naples • precisely because it indeed does have a unique and charming downtown. other areas being developed in East Naples will also have a special "flavor" if you will . A Sams Club will bring with it another featureless plaza, and yet another gas station - and would go completely against present plans for an interesting, fun, unique area, one that would attract younger folks as well as more retirees. I do hope you will take the longer, more strategic view of this proposal . surely that would not include a Sams Club in this particular and critical location. R Thank you so much for taking the time to read this note. Lise OBrien 5091 Andres Drive Naples 34113 Sent from my iPad Page 1 $ Sam's Club From: marybisher82@gmail .com Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2016 4:58 PM To: SmithDaniel Subject: Sam's club we recently moved to the Isles of Collier Preserve. someone mentioned a Sam's club proposed on 41. I would like to see a Sam's club as I think that more retail stores would follow. There is a lot of empty store fronts that need to be filled. Have you ever considered reaching out to a home goods store called "At Home"? They advertise on HGTV. I know they have taken existing vacant retail space and put in large stores. I believe there are 3 stores in Florida. Google it. They would do very well in this market! Regards, Mary Basher Sent from my iPhone Page 1 I • Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA•Bayshore Beautification MSTU Haldeman Creek MSTU BAYSHORE/GATEWAY TRIANGLE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT LOCAL ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 13th, 2016 MEETING The meeting of the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment Advisory Board was called to order by Maurice Gutierrez at 6:00 p.m. at the CRA Office Meeting Room 3570 Bayshore Drive,Unit 102. Roll Call: Present: Advisory Board Members: Maurice Gutierrez Steve Main,Larry Ingram,Karen Beatty,Peter Dvorak, Mike Sherman,and Shane Shadis. Excused Chuck Gunther CRA Staff Present: Jean Jourdan, CRA Operations Manager, and Shirley Garcia, Operations Coordinator. IL Adoption of Agenda: Motion to approve the agenda, as amended,made by: Steve Main, 2nd by: Peter Dvorak. Approved unanimously. III. Adoption of Minutes: Motion to approve the Minutes as amended,made by: Peter Dvorak,2nd by Steve Main. Approved unanimously. IV. Presenters: Mattamy Homes Neighborhood Informational Meeting: Presenters were Q Grady Minor and Associates, Wayne Arnold. Wayne representing Mattamy Homes, Matt O'brien was present. The property is located on the northwest on the corner of Thomasson/Bayshore Dr. They have submitted to the County for a PUD rezone to permit 276 units, the existing lake will remain and 2 other lakes will be made on the property with one central amenity for the residents. A conceptual plan was presented to the audience. Matt O'brien provided history of their company stating they are one of the largest private home builders in North America.At this time they are unsure of what building type they will construct. Single-family, townhouses and condos are being sought in the rezoning application. The building type constructed will be based on the market at the time of approvals. There were questions from residents about the property and a resident on Pine St.had asked if there was going to be a barrier wall along Pine St or plans to put a wall along the property that lines Pine. There were a lot of concerns of drainage but Wayne Arnold assured the residents that there will be no negative adverse effects from the new homes being built on the lot. There hasn't been a decision on the name of the Community at this point but will take any recommendations if someone would like to suggest something. Their next step is to go before the Planning Commission and then the Board of County Commissioners. Sams Club-presented by Q. Grady Minor and Associates,Wayne Arnold and Kite Realty representative,Doug Kirby. Wayne went through the plans of the property with traffic entrance and exits on and off the property. They will close the access that leads onto Peters Ave., so there will be no traffic impacts on the small residential street. They are coordinating with the City of Naples and CRA regarding the sidewalks that are required to be addressed in the Land Development Code through construction or payment Attachment 5 in lieu of. The City and CRA's is working on an infrastructure project to upgrade the fire suppression system, but it does not include construction of sidewalks. The existing buildings will be demolished except for the Buffalo Wings. There were complaints that a Super Walmart going across the street from Courthouse Shadows Shopping center and having 2 big box stores across from one another was not desired. Some of the public would like to see a smaller version of Mercato,with a mix use component. Commissioner Fiala had no issue with Sam's Club and is encouraged by the new development coming into the area because the building has been vacant for so long. Commissioner Taylor suggested that Doug Kirby revisit a new concept and consider a model of a Sam's Club in Manhatten that is very urban with living on top. Kite Realty was questioned if they would be willing to discuss some other options with developers on the property. The advisory committee wanted to take a consensus of support for the Sam's Club,4-3 in favor of Sam's Club. V. Project Updates 1. Gateway Triangle Properties: The Buyers formerly requested to exercise their option to extend the due diligence period(October 6th). At their September 15, 2016 public meeting, the Naples Airport Authority's (NAA) will hear a request by the Buyer to amend their June 16th decision to support up to 150 feet building height to include an additional 10 feet for building/rooftop appurtenances and remove their mandate for the Buyers to grant an aviation easement over the site. They are still waiting for comments from the FAA. There was $50,000 deposit and additional $10,000 money for the extension request. The money is refundable if they do not get their rezone and subsequent requests in the contract. 2. Solstice f/k/a Cirrus Point: The proposed Purchaser requested an extension, but his deposit has gone hard. He met with County zoning staff to discuss amending the approved PUD from condo to townhouses and maintaining the affordable housing component. The developer was talking about some nice Teed certified homes being built there. 3. The Garden School: They submitted their plans to the County. 4. Microbrewery: They submitted their Site Improvement Plan for permits on July 26th and County provided an insufficiency letter on August 17th (this is typical). The applicant will be required to address the comments and resubmit the plans. 5. Sugden Park Pathway: The pathway design was completed by the firm of Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA. The estimated cost of construction is determined to be $292,537.07. CRA staff is in discussions with the Parks and Recreation Department regarding the possibility of a partnership to fund the pathway. 6. Karen Dr Stormwater: The contract for the grant funding will go to the BCC for signature in October and we anticipate bidding the project out in November. Staff received approval from the Grants Department to incorporate the property just north of Karen and south of the Haitian Church into the project to alleviate the current flooding on the property. ($350,000). 7. Fire Suppression: The contract for the grant funding will go to the BCC for signature in October. The City of Naples is partnering with the CRA and preparing the plans in house for Page 2 Peters, Gordon Av and Collee Court. We anticipate bidding the project out in November ($330,000). 8. Food Truck Park: The project is scheduled for the Hearing Examiner on September 22, 2016 at 9:00 am in the Growth Management Meeting Room 610, located at 2800 North • Horseshoe Drive. Shirley Garcia will be sending out an email blast of the agenda as well as the applicable information if anyone wanted to attend Z 9. Thomasson Drive: The right of way issues will be resolved through a redesign of the project at the intersection of Bayshore and Thomasson and along the property known as Cirrus Pointe. The inclusion of a roundabout at the intersection will address the limited right of way and promote safer traffic patterns for both vehicle and pedestrian. An extension to the contract will have to be approved by the BCC. Construction is estimated to be complete in April 2018. MSTU Project Updates: The MSTU meetings are on first Wednesday of the month at 5pm, the basic meeting discusses landscaping, irrigation and their projects. One of the projects they are working on is the Thomasson Drive project and RWA has a complete new redesign so if anyone has any questions they can attend the meeting. VI. Request for Payments: None other than routine operational. VII. New Business: Mr. Fortino has requested a lease on the Caliber Collision site and would like to demo part of the garage, he is requesting the CRA Advisory Committee to support this agreement. Peter Dvorak made a motion to support Mr. Fortino's leasing request, Steve Main second. Approved unanimous. VIII. Old Business: Parking Study: Parking study came in at $41,200.00. Motion to approve the parking study, Steve Main. Second,Mike Sherman. Approved unanimously. CRA Advisory Board Applicant: did not attend. Committee tabled it for next meeting. VIII.Advisory Board General Communications: IX. Citizen Comments: Commissioner Taylor requested the advisory committee look at having a moratorium on Gas Stations and for staff to do an update to their CRA redevelopment plan. Maurice Gutierrez made a motion to approve the moratorium and Steve Main second, approved unanimously. X.Adjournment:,8:27 p.m. Approved by Maurice Gutierrez, CRA-AB Chairman Page 3 AGENDA ITEM 9-B y.. Coer County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DANIEL JAMES SMITH, AICP -ZONING DIVISION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: NOVEMBER 3, 2016 SUBJECT: PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REZONE(PUDR) -PL20150002519; NEW HOPE MINISTRIES APPLICANT/OWNER New Hope Ministries, Inc. 7675 Davis Boulevard,Naples,FL 34104 AGENTS Tim Hancock,AICP Richard D. Yovanovich,Esquire Stantec Coleman, Yovanovich&Koester,P.A. 3200 Bailey Lane,Naples, FL 34105 4001 Tamiami Trail N., Suite 300,Naples, FL 34103 REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant is asking the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) to make a recommendation on the adoption of an Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance Number 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida. The applicant is asking to amend the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from a Community Facility Planned Unit Development (CFPUD) known as New Hope Ministries CFPUD zoning district to a Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) zoning district for the project to be known as the New Hope MPUD, to allow an 800 seat church, a multi-purpose facility, and construction of a maximum of 319 residential dwelling units on 39.89 +1- acres, by providing for repeal of Ordinance Number 08-07, the New Hope Ministries CFPUD; and by providing an effective date. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property is located on the north side of Davis Boulevard east of Santa Barbara Boulevard in Section 4, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (See location map on page 2). PUDR-PL20150002510; New Hope Ministries Page 1 of 19 November 3,2016 CCPC • "d vp7 1 `t�1/IIIIIr,O�� i z ���1/ ��. 011111,140��d11111 5-' 'S ��0��is �1111111t11�f�1e��.�i 091 1111 rs a■ a��l��i i� *_____ILIS41llo ��o 04iHi.!!r►I HIuIIiillnI �g _..m irinalyv...,- animps I 1111111111111111 toinuitica. Illllillllll.1 ry = 11.: Iho,io��o��ieipn�i aniginumuarp. j re:1111111111._ fl. al liffpnitital t. N1111111101 z:f-=-- 2 111118i01 was IT , �.,e ft < IIIIIIiC�►131 .. Wzi ,a. � � 3 AO' UI_A WI ‘... , „. , „ . i �..� In _., riii _01 ®� o N gapAlki u tig inCV J Z N A Mil IMOlieldh. Vil ir--- '..j'1§;I:Ni',-;;;,,,,, 04,-":44 mot y Z r1= 2..,t*,_ ,._... ..N.:y. \ ,, lr 5 :.%,,, ,e,,111 i 111 \mi r j —1111. i- 0 4....... ...... a. ,,,Iv,,,;,t‘;\‘',-,,,'. 1.,i,,,,,..4":",, ,,,,,_- ...,._..,;)-iiii.---''t i [____ .„ F* - minima �1IIIIII I "-- i� 4 - � .. --�� 1I"I.A1 . ": ■IIIIIII�'I 2 i I VIII ++ {I Z T Irl 3- av 0.,,,,„,„/,+,. •"i►,r r-IV��III I it 11M11. c `,�„ �:� .r•,., ►r•.,°_ ■IIIr, ' 11111111111. l k�:11=11_. = —jj C 11'JI11: 1a r. iiurJr , _ 1ri. .=....- 1 wi.f7diummisim simmull TA 14.;,11-*:q. '�i�,; ;�"'°,,,'4 1�1......., i MI SII MB _-- Imill 4�,��� lrP noon!,! ennpuluui„ il �■-. •i 4 . .1 ' ulfuun,�1 "" �;: =4.; is r 1 , PDDR-PL20150002510; New Hope Ministries Page 2 of 19 November 3,2016 CCPC t 1 a ,.Z— h e�i Ufa Wa li s s. 0 viryorylnv, Z a 's g O:Q M 10 fV 4 ,O V y y ai ao 'a 0' co el U ag � • i, m 3� mmmnmcn 4Oi TtN fV u74 O 6 IL 6 W O #, Li! J. Qom' i- a U 01 tH ii ! hi ii.`. Z • s▪ wCJa VJw 8 , 0Q� ' . Z 2 s04 ? ? g /l Ifa8 I- o 5 . poi ". 8 W ¢ riyil/ > Q1° Se gXaX. ac4 DI ti jg1 ° dO w � Q§ O :..: _ F-_0 _ _aaLL11 uoaazaa. au d osa. o 0122 88c8i2 160 w . q :- j 'T( I 1 1131 iYl(w, .:7 i'71 i.1.l('..I(... I I•.... Q i ' I. i J F ,. �.: 1 t j. I O w F., a . l ,../..,,,,;., •i it TFs' slim rr. . 1 . l..W.1.. I :�1II�____ L II =� u6i Ci5 ll1 .� jI 1 X111 h,".. j.- i1. W O dli, • 11 YI 1.•.1. • Fll 'I'....,,,,..$,,,,,,T.,.,,,... 4 1 ,.1..,141.Io t I I 13,420 I i I I I,I '�I, •E�..1 .I.1-' � a I I- L„. ,,,,, - --.1:.{ 9 I i Ill I .; ij ;I' • ...-...... • �'.• -ii c W ri "f .,. .•;;,::. i..!. ..L 11-� I; I i -t-,� 74 I I. ` I 4 t ..„., ; I , I I • {, �[ t J - y0*e*eA•e eee�a� j I".r 11 I.,r I ! • O ! (j 1R e•AAe e.PAAA.A:• ••.e :: s ....AA.A......A.A..Ae♦ {E 1 f " ii 7 ••.•••• •••.A•••••*•+•••••.A.••4,ti :r I I';".`} `1 F s' [ Fp '::::1 A d !S 4 .. 1❖ Z A*.❖.❖�t 1 Slii ♦!O ♦e.' 4i ♦.A..1 I I r . • illj kf:I- I eO.•.'..�:.O. a O•e0•A•i� :} i_ 1 ] i.AA..AA..A. x •...A� •-. E i I�,. •.♦♦.......♦ .....1 • •0....♦.............1... IJ._ � � liil 00.............1.....♦ .;rr�ww- m.....♦e A.♦ ..a...s 0 I ,• .-s>as`+ pm CF CIt1-10:R'�/•RY_.r0 S il.. • �,'zcccai RrnRti1 I T 1 11431473 1 I i ��� ; 6 I ,1 111���I���1..r �± ill II ! ������I�I� �� U ( W ;•iIi i �31TTTff� a `� 1. • ; • J. } �z | \ \ g I y $ ! %\ I [ § \\ { - 6 ! ( K ( 0 \ } ! .5 \ j 2 ; ; k / � > / \ r... » or@ ZO (\(\:� \ y } �u -=� §/2 9�g/�I f§ / / , , c , ®- §E@SA l'1.! 1. 320 oe ' ! -J M«-- Cern.. r «�§ % g ! ..« + ( w ft ' 0 ! a0k ' 1� [ Wgu m £2q 2( E §7� - LIJ z E ± \j \0u�� { 0°cc)- \\ \ciu.wZ0 0 ( \/ : &zD \ ! 2E§ j ��o / ww§ § ens- \ i. m§ : §/2 § } ( : �4 JJ < ( \ ]\( j } ( S 3 ! �G§ \\ . \ / / \ 4 § 2$/\ ' 1 /j / / : 2� 0 j( � 20 O7 i h2ok j ]re ^ § ) §� 2 1 . ® 0 } X 0 / 3 ! ` i \ ce V } ( JS zC9 W o \ \ �§k §-moi \ Cc40.1 I2 z/\u \ \ 03 E} N1Z0 §§�§ ; :, m$0 0 ` . e5 } | : :i ! . _ NEW HOPE MINISTRIES MASTER PLAN PAGE 2 ( PUD% &1m721¢ Ne Hope Ministries Page4of19 ( November 3,2016 CCP ; 1 PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The petitioner is requesting to rezone the ±39.89 acre site from the New Hope Ministries Community Facility Planned Unit Development (CFPUD, Ordinance No. 08-07) to the New Hope Mixed Use PUD (MPUD). This rezone will allow Community Facility (CF) uses to continue on the eastern portion of the property (±19.96 acres), while providing multi-family residential uses on the remaining±19.93 acres at a density of up to 16 dwelling units per acre (DU/A) on Tract R (Residential), permitting a maximum of 319 DUs to be developed. The maximum number of seats for a church will be reduced from 4,200 to 800, since CF uses will only be permitted on a portion of the entire property. Prior to the CFPUD rezone in 2008, the proposed±19.93 Residential Tract was zoned for up to 150,000 square feet of office development, 38,000 square feet of miscellaneous retail and 81 multi-family residential units (Up to 16 DU/A) as the Neapolitan Park PUD, and was determined to be consistent with the Growth Management Plan due to its location within an approved Mixed Use Activity Center. Two (2) accesses are proposed for the PUD. One is a shared access between the two uses onto Davis Boulevard; the other is a future shared access onto Santa Barbara, through an access easement with the Shoppes at Santa Barbara PUD. The agent provided the following list of changes contained in this amendment as shown below: • Allow a mix of community facility and multi-family residential uses • Reduce church seating from 4.200 to 800 • Residential multi-family uses up to 16 DU/A with a zoned height of 50 feet and an actual height of 62 feet(See Residential Development Standards Table on page 6) • Building A not to exceed 3 stories,Buildings B,C,D,and E not to exceed 4 stories • • Added additional Principal Uses along with Multi-family to include -On-site sales or leasing office -Model Units -Other principal uses comparable in nature • Allow permitted Accessory Uses and Structures to include -On-site sales or leasing office -Model Units -Other principal uses comparable in nature PUDR-PL20150002510; New Hope Ministries Page 5 of 19 November 3,2016 CCPC • Allow permitted Accessory Uses and Structures to include -Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with principal uses permitted in this District, including neighborhood community recreational facilities and property management and maintenance structures intended to serve the residents and guests of the proposed development -Garages and carports -Guardhouses, Gates, and Gatehouses -Administration facilities intended to serve the residents and guests of the proposed development -Swimming pools,tennis courts,and other similar recreational facilities and buildings to serve residents and their guests -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 The table below contains the new development standards included for multi-family residential development. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TABLE Requirements Principal Use Accessory Use Minimum Lot Area 43,560 square feet 10,000 square feet Minimum Lot Width 150 feet 50 feet Maximum Height Zoned 50 feet 25 feet Actual 62 feet 32 feet Minimum Distance between buildings 35 feet 0 feet or 10 feet Minimum Floor Area 750 sq. ft. NA Minimum Building Setbacks Front Yard a c Side Yard b c Rear a c From Davis Blvd a a Preserve 25 feet 10 feet Lake Maintenance or Landscape Buffer Tract or Easement' 20 feet 0 feet a=50%of the building height,not less than 30 feet b=50%of the building height,not less than 15 feet c=50%of the building height,not less than 10 feet ' Lake Maintenance Easements and LBE's are to be separately platted or designated tracts. PUDR-PL20150002510;New Hope Ministries Page 6 of 19 November 3,2016 CCPC In addition,the applicant is also asking for the following deviations: 1. Deviation 1 requests relief from Section 6.06.02.A.4.a of the Land Development Code, which requires a five-foot sidewalk to be constructed on both sides of the internal driveways; to allow a sidewalk to be constructed in substantial compliance with the sidewalk locations shown on the Master Concept Plan, providing pedestrian interconnections to the adjacent commercially zoned property as shown. 2. Deviation 2 requests relief from Section 4.06.02.0 of the Land Development Code, which requires a 15-foot wide Type B buffer and a ten-foot wide Type A buffer between the proposed residential use and the existing Community Facility use (Church), to allow for the required 10' Type A buffer adjacent to the drive aisle lying west of the existing Multi- Purpose Building to be located within an easement on the Residential Tract as shown on the Master Concept Plan. i Com P,1 d• t:.. _ -. I �6Sdd* �� Bembridge EMS Complex PUD ,;I`,,:'„,' Wildwood Estates PUD 6DU/A Jltr'- J,, 12,46 DU/A J . � IJ_ ' ESTATES "r ` V.II 10.1 1i5, /I _. n�41u�,I, i,1�1 _ *. JL. IiUPE r amry. rnmtltiIHIEs = ti `r b, * ,�` I �. 1 F "+IP .- t t ,.. «.,..,tis 4;; '� esi , Ihut . a �, a � 11- 6. , e.14 VI? ,�t,. . ', A "lint nctnrt ^` TUNIIIiENNIN , , CFPUb 1162 C ,n, 7• y I „ - ill I 4 I I lk. 4,4. Alt .. Jt -1' ”' 4'4--i'"1 r t , 4 1sr'' . 1 era � _ � z�� " act`=` . ; w._ �`�',,,,iikt.-L''' _ -+� 's' -' ' ;. The Cook Property PUD : ,_• 3.95 DU/A u T ter_- mww, �,, .._ q 1 AL 1° I 'e �,-k,I ,f }„ J. w f 4s °o PUDR-PL20150002510; New Hope Ministries Page 7 of 19 November 3,2016 CCPC SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING (Subject property highlighted in yellow below on page 7) North: Calusa Park Elementary with a zoning designation of Bembridge EMS Complex PUD (Density 6 DU/A),Multi-family with a zoning designation of Wildwood Estates PUD (Density-12.46 DU/A) West: Vacant land with a zoning designation of Shoppes at Santa Barbara PUD South: Davis Boulevard, Boys and Girls Club with a zoning designation of C-3, Collier County Animal Shelter with a zoning designation of A, single family homes with a zoning designation of The Cook Property PUD (Density—DU/A) East: Multi-family with a zoning designation of Wildwood Estates PUD(Density-12.46 DU/A) GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element Consistency: Approximately ±19.93 acres of the subject site (westerly portion) are designated Urban, Urban Commercial District, and within the Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict#6, 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). The remaining±19.96 acres of the subject site (easterly portion) are designated Urban, Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict and within the residential density band for Mixed Use Activity Center #6. Together the±39.89 acres subject site constitutes the entire New Hope Ministries MPUD. This rezone petition may be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan,if the maximum density does not exceed 319 dwelling units. (See Future Land Use Consistency Review-Attachment 3). Conservation Consistency Coastal Management Element(CCME): Environmental Planning staff found this project to be consistent with the Conservation & Coastal Management Element (CCME). A minimum of 5.67 acres of native vegetation are required to be retained for the PUD. Transportation Element: In evaluating this project, staff reviewed the applicant's Traffic Impact Statement 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 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 PUDR-PL20150002510; New Hope Ministries Page 8 of 19 November 3,2016 CCPC SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING (Subject property highlighted in yellow below on page 7) North: Calusa Park Elementary with a zoning designation of Bembridge EMS Complex PUD (Density 6 DU/A),Multi-family with a zoning designation of Wildwood Estates PUD (Density-12.46 DU/A) West: Vacant land with a zoning designation of Shoppes at Santa Barbara PUD South: Davis Boulevard, Boys and Girls Club with a zoning designation of C-3, Collier County Animal Shelter with a zoning designation of A, single family homes with a zoning designation of The Cook Property PUD (Density—DU/A) East: Multi-family with a zoning designation of Wildwood Estates PUD(Density-12.46 DU/A) GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element Consistency: Approximately ±19.93 acres of the subject site (westerly portion) are designated Urban, Urban Commercial District, and within the Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict#6, 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). The remaining±19.96 acres of the subject site (easterly portion) are designated Urban, Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict and within the residential density band for Mixed Use Activity Center #6. Together the±39.89 acres subject site constitutes the entire New Hope Ministries MPUD. This rezone petition may be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan,if the maximum density does not exceed 319 dwelling units. (See Future Land Use Consistency Review-Attachment 3). Conservation Consistency Coastal Management Element(CCME): Environmental Planning staff found this project to be consistent with the Conservation & Coastal Management Element (CCME). A minimum of 5.67 acres of native vegetation are required to be retained for the PUD. Transportation Element: In evaluating this project, staff reviewed the applicant's Traffic Impact Statement 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 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 PUDR-PL20150002510; New Hope Ministries Page 8 of 19 November 3,2016 CCPC 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 percent of the adopted LOS standard server volume; b. For links adjacent to links directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2 percent 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 percent 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." X The proposed PUD Amendment on the subject property was reviewed based on the then applicable 2015 AUIR Inventory Report. The TIS submitted in the application indicates that the proposed new residential development will generate approximately 142 PM peak hour trips, with 96 PM peak hour net new trips on the adjacent roadway links, as follows: Roadway Link 2015 AUIR Current Peak 2015 Remaining Existing LOS Hour Peak Capacity Direction Service Volume/Peak r Direction Davis County Barn C 2,200/East 736 Boulevard(SR Road to Santa 84) Barbara(4 lane divided) Davis Santa Barbara to B 2,900/East 2,111 Boulevard(SR Radio (6 lane 84) divided) j Santa Barbara Radio Road to B 3,100/North 1,589 Boulevard Davis Boulevard (6 lane divided) Santa Barbara Davis Boulevard B 3,100/South 2,149 Boulevard to Rattlesnake Hammock Road (6 lane divided) PUDR-PL20150002510; New Hope Ministries Page 9 of 19 November 3,2016 CCPC 1 Based on the 2015 AUIR, the adjacent roadway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed new trips for the amended project within the 5-year planning period. Therefore,the subject rezoning can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan. ANALYSIS: Staff has completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition, including the criteria upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in Land Development Code (LDC) Subsection 10.02.13.B.5,Planning Commission Recommendation (commonly referred to as the "PUD Findings"), and Subsection 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 these same criteria as the basis for their recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC), who in turn use the criteria to support their action on the rezoning or amendment request. An evaluation relative to these subsections is discussed below, under the heading "Zoning Services Analysis." In addition, staff offers the following analyses: Environmental Review: Environmental Planning staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD document to address environmental concerns. The project does not require review by the Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) since the project did not meet the EAC scope of land 1 development project reviews as identified in Chapter 2,Article VIII, Division 23, Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances. The entire property, except for preserves, has been previously cleared and filled with the Phase 2 Site Development Plan Amendment approved in 2008 (SDP-91-65-AR-8668). No impacts or changes in location to previously approved preserves are proposed with the amendment to the PUD. A conservation easement in favor of the County over the preserves on site was previously recorded in the official records of Collier County(OR: 4342 PG: 3311). Landscape Review: Staff has reviewed the PUD Document and Master Plan and recommends approval subject to removing all references pertaining to internal buffers. The area for the deviation regarding the internal buffer should be noted on the Master Plan and an Exhibit shall be attached showing the buffer area layout/extent. All other internal buffers meet the requirements of the LDC. Transportation Review: Staff has reviewed the PUD Document and Master Plan and recommends approval subject to the Transportation Commitments contained in the CPUD Ordinance, which includes provisions to address public safety. Additionally staff has included developer commitments to specifically address additional operational concerns related to impacts resulting from the proposed development. Zoning Services Review: FLUE Policy 5.4 requires new land uses to be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses. In reviewing the appropriateness of the requested uses and intensity on the subject site, the compatibility analysis included a review of the subject PUDR-PL20150002510;New Hope Ministries Page 10 of 19 November 3,2016 CCPC proposal comparing it to surrounding or nearby properties as to allow use intensities and densities, development standards (building heights, setbacks, landscape buffers, etc.), building mass, building location and orientation, architectural features, amount and type of open space, and location. Staff is of the opinion that the design standards and uses are compatible with surrounding uses. The residential densities for this proposed PUD were once approved for 16 D/UA in the Neapolitan Park PUD,along with Adult Congregated Living Facilities and Hotels at 26 D/UA. The existing preserves(which are under a conservation easement)are proposed along the northern end of the proposed project, providing compatibility with the existing residential uses abutting the project's northern boundary. The applicant has also proposed only three stories to Building A, which is located closest to the northern boundary.The other three sides abutting this proposed Multi-family residential use are a Commercial PUD to the west, Davis Boulevard, Commercial (C-3), Collier County Animal Shelter to the south,and Community Facility uses(Church uses)to the east. Staff has reviewed the PUD Document and Master Plan and recommends approval on the condition that the Residential Development Standards Table indicates Building A, having a maximum of three stories.At the Neighborhood Information Meeting(NIM),concerns were raised regarding the number or stories of the building closest to the northern property line. The applicant,during the NIM,made a commitment to having only three stories. Deviation Discussion: The petitioner is seeking two deviations. The petitioner has provided justification in support of the deviations. Deviations are a normal derivative of the PUD zoning process following the purpose and intent of the PUD zoning district as set forth in LDC Section 2.03.06 which says in part: It is further the purpose and intent of these PUD regulations to encourage ingenuity, innovation and imagination in the planning, design, and development or redevelopment of relatively large tracts of land under unified ownership or control. PUDs . . . . may depart from the strict application of setback, height, and minimum lot requirements of conventional zoning districts while maintaining minimum standards by which flexibility may be accomplished, and while protecting the public interest. . . Staff has analyzed the deviation requests and has provided the analyses and recommendations below. • Deviation #1: Requests relief from Section 6.06.02.A.4.a of the Land Development Code, which requires a five-foot sidewalk to be constructed on both sides of the internal driveways; to allow a sidewalk to be constructed in substantial compliance with the sidewalk locations shown on the Master Concept Plan, providing pedestrian interconnections to the adjacent commercially zoned property as shown. PUDR-PL20150002510;New Hope Ministries Page 11 of 19 November 3,2016 CCPC Justification: The intent of this deviation is to provide for sidewalks around the perimeter of the building areas, but not to require sidewalks around the outside of the parking area where they would serve no beneficial purpose. Rather than placing an additional five-foot sidewalk around the perimeter of the site which may not provide much functionality, the applicant has included a sidewalk around the proposed lake with connections provided to the amenity center as well as the sidewalks that are in front of each building. This approach would seem to provide greater functionality versus a perimeter sidewalk or a ten-foot wide sidewalk on one side of the internal driveway and parking areas. Additionally, connection points are provided directly to the adjacent commercial parcel in two locations, one at the southwest corner and one along the driveway that will ultimately connect with the shopping center driveway at the time of further development of the commercial project. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff concurs with the applicant's justification and recommends approval. Deviation#2: Requests relief from Section 4.06.02.0 of the Land Development Code which requires a 15-foot wide Type B buffer and a ten-foot wide Type A buffer between the proposed residential use and the existing Community Facility use (Church), to allow for the required ten foot Type A buffer adjacent to the drive aisle lying west of the existing Multi- Purpose Building to be located within an easement on the Residential Tract as shown on the Master Concept Plan. Justification: The intent of Deviation #2 is to allow for the 10' Type A buffer that would typically be located on the CF tract to be located within a buffer tract or easement on the R designated parcel. This is required due to the proximity of the existing internal drive aisle that is immediately adjacent to the common property line between the two land uses but will not result in a reduction in the required buffers. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff concurs with the applicant's justification and recommends approval. Staff recommends adding a note to the Master Plan, indicating a deviation and adding an exhibit to the proposed PUD, showing the location/extent of the buffer deviation. • FINDINGS OF FACT: LDC Subsection 10.02.08.F states, "When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and recommendations to the planning commission to the Board of County Commissioners...shall show that the planning commission has studied and considered proposed change in relation to the following when applicable." Additionally, Section 10.02.13 of the Collier County LDC requires the Planning Commission to make fmdings as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the additional criteria as also noted below. PDDR-PL20150002510; New Hope Ministries Page 12 of 19 November 3,2016 CCPC PUD FINDINGS: LDC Subsection 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." 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. Staff has reviewed the proposed amendment and believes the uses are compatible with the development approved in the area. The commitments made by the applicant and staff's recommendation with stipulations and conditions should provide adequate assurances that the proposed change should not adversely affect living conditions in the area. 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. is Documents submitted with the application, which were reviewed by the County Attorney's Office, demonstrate unified control of the property. Additionally, the development will be required to gain platting and/or site development approval. Both processes will ensure that appropriate stipulations for the provision of and continuing operation and maintenance of infrastructure will be provided by the developer. 3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Staff has reviewed this petition and has offered an analysis of the relevant goals, objectives, and policies Y of the GMP within the GMP discussion and the zoning analysis of this staff report. Based on those staff analyses, Planning and Zoning staff is of the opinion that this petition may be found consistent with the Future Land Use Element. 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. Staff concurs that the proposed uses and associated deviations, with conditions of staff, will provide compatibility,both internal and external of the PUD. 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The amount of usable open space meets code and serves the development. PUDR-PL20150002510; New Hope Ministries Page 13 of 19 1' November 3,2016 CCPC 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities,both public and private. The roadway infrastructure 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 (SDP or Plat), at which time new TIS will be required to demonstrate turning movements for all site access points. Finally, the project's development must comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals, including but not limited to any plats and or site development plans, are sought. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. 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 MPUD Ordinance, which includes provisions to address public safety. Additionally, staff has included developer commitments to specifically address additional operational concerns related to impacts resulting from the proposed development. 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. The petitioner is seeking approval of two deviations to allow design flexibility in compliance with the purpose and intent of the Planned Unit Development Districts. This criterion requires an evaluation of the extent to which development standards and deviations proposed for this PUD depart from development standards that would be required for the most similar conventional zoning district. Staff has provided an analysis of the deviations in the Deviation Discussion portion of this staff report, and is recommending approval with conditions of all deviations proposed. 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 zoning analysis provides an in-depth review of the proposed amendment. Staff is of the opinion that the project as proposed is consistent with GMP FLUE Policy 5.4 requiring the project to be compatible with adjacent neighborhood development. Comprehensive Planning staff finds the proposed PUD application consistent with the Future Land Use Element. The petition can be deemed consistent with the CCME and the Transportation Element. Therefore, staff recommends that this petition be deemed consistent with the GMP. PUDR-PL20150002510;New Hope Ministries Page 14 of 19 November 3,2016 CCPC 2.The existing land use pattern. Staff has described the existing land use pattern in the "Surrounding Land Use and Zoning" portion of this report and discussed it in the zoning review analysis. Staff believes the proposed PUD is appropriate given the development restrictions included in the PUD Ordinance and the conditions and stipulations proposed by staff. 3.The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. The proposed PUD with conditions and stipulations would not create an isolated zoning district. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. Staff is of the opinion that the district boundaries are logically drawn given the current property ownership boundaries. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning necessary. The proposed amendment is not necessary,per se; but it is being requested in compliance with the LDC provisions to seek such an amendment to allow the owner the opportunity to develop the land with uses other than what the existing zoning district would allow. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. The project includes numerous restrictions and standards that are designed to address compatibility of the project. Development in compliance with the proposed PUD should not adversely impact living conditions in the area. 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 MPUD Ordinance, which includes provisions to address public safety. Additionally staff has included developer commitments to specifically address additional operational concerns related to impacts resulting from the proposed development. PUDR-PL20150002510;New Hope Ministries Page 15 of 19 November 3,2016 CCPC 8.Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. The proposed amendment should not create drainage or surface water problems. The developer of the project will be required to adhere to a surface water management permit from the SFWMD in conjunction with any local site development plan approvals and ultimate construction on site. 9.Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. If this PUD petition is approved, any subsequent development would need to comply with the applicable LDC standards for development or as outlined in the PUD Document. The setbacks and project buffers will help insure that light and air to adjacent areas will not be substantially reduced. 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 conditions. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. The proposed zoning change should not be a deterrent to the improvement of adjacent properties. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare. If the proposed development complies with the Growth Management Plan through the proposed PUD, 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 PUD 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 subject property could be developed within the parameters of the existing zoning designations;however,the petitioner is seeking this amendment in compliance with LDC PUDR-PL20150002510;New Hope Ministries Page 16 of 19 November 3,2016 CCPC provisions for such action. 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. The GMP is a policy statement which has evaluated the scale, density, and intensity of land uses deemed to be acceptable throughout the urban-designated areas of the Collier County. Staff is of the opinion that the PUD development standards and commitments with conditions and stipulations will ensure that the project is not out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood and County. 15.Whether it's 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 proposed GMPA and the LDC, and staff does not review other sites in conjunction with a specific petition. The proposed amendment is consistent with the GMP as it is proposed to be amended as discussed in other portions of the staff report. 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. This project will undergo extensive evaluation relative to all federal, state, and local development regulations during the site development plan or platting approval 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. This petition has been reviewed by County staff that is responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP as part of the amendment process and County Staff has concluded that no Level of Service will be adversely impacted with the commitments contained in the PUD Document. 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. PUDR-PL20150002510;New Hope Ministries Page 17 of 19 November 3,2018 CCPC NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING: The applicant's agents conducted a duly noticed NIM on August 2, 2016, at the New Hope Ministries Event Center. Please see the attached NIM summary provided by the agent. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney Office reviewed the staff report for this petition on October 27,2016. RECOMMENDATION: Zoning Services staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission forward PETITION (PUDR) PL20150002519 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval with the following conditions: 1. Remove internal buffer labels on the Master Plan. 2. Add a note referencing an Exhibit for Deviation#2 on the Master Plan. Provide an Exhibit to the proposed PUD showing the buffer location/extent and buffer types. • 3. Revise the Development Table to reflect Building A , referenced on the Master Plans, as having a maximum of three(3) stories. Attachments: Attachment 1: PUD Ordinance Attachment 2:Applicant's Backup Material Attachment 3: GMP Consistency Review Attachment 4: E-Mails PUDR-PL20150002510; New Hope Ministries Page 18 of 19 November 3,2016 CCPC PREPARED BY: P//3 he DANIEL JAMES SMITH,AICP DATE PRINCIPAL PLANNER ZONING DIVISION REVIEWED BY: J0' �T 1 RAYM.�►�I V. BELLOWS,ZONING MANAGER D TE ZONIN DIVISION / . !� - /4- / MIKE BOSI,AICP, DIRECTOR DATE ZONING DIVISION APPROVED BY: /to - .2d - 1Lo JAMES NCH, DEPUTY DEPARTMENT HEAD DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT 10/2.4 DAVID S. WILKISON, P.E. DEPARTMENT HEAD DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT ORDINANCE NO. 16- AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2004-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH 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 COMMUNITY FACILITY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS NEW HOPE MINISTRIES CFPUD ZONING DISTRICT TO A MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (MPUD) ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS THE NEW HOPE MPUD, TO ALLOW AN 800 SEAT CHURCH AND CONSTRUCTION OF A MAXIMUM OF 319 MULTI- FAMILY DWELLING UNITS ON 39.89 +1- ACRES; BY PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF ORDINANCE NUMBER 08- 07, THE NEW HOPE MINISTRIES CFPUD; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF DAVIS BOULEVARD EAST OF SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD IN SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. (PETITION NO. PUDR-PL20150002519) WHEREAS, Tim Hancock, AICP of Stantec, representing New Hope Ministries, Inc., petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to change the zoning classification of the herein described real property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,that: } SECTION ONE: The zoning classification of the herein described real property located in Section 4, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, is changed from a Community 116-CPS-015341 69 New!lope Ministries Inc-PUDR-PL20150002519 Page 1 of 2 10/26/16 Attachment 1 Facility Planned Unit Development Zoning District to a Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) Zoning District for the 39.89+l- acre project to be known as the New Hope MPUD, to allow an 800 seat church and construction of a maximum of 319 multi-family dwelling units 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 Number 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, is/are hereby amended accordingly. SECTION TWO: Ordinance No. 08-07,the New Hope Ministries CFPUD is hereby repealed in its entirety. SECTION THREE: This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super-majority vote of the Board of County ri 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 t Managing Assistant County Attorney Exhibit A: Permitted Uses Exhibit B: Development Standards Exhibit C: Master Plan Exhibit D: Legal Description Exhibit E: Requested Deviations from LDC Exhibit F: Developer Commitments [16-CPS-01534]69 New Hope Ministries Inc-PUDR-PL20150002519 Page 2 of 2 10/26/16 EXHIBIT A FOR NEW HOPE MPUD PERMITTED USES The New Hope MPUD totals approximately 39.89± acres of property and is planned as a Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD), consisting of both residential and community facility land uses, The project is divided into two tracts. The westerly 19.93 acres lies entirely within the Mixed Use Activity Center.The easterly tract is comprised of approximately 19.96 acres, lies within the Urban Mixed-Use District and is currently developed with an existing sanctuary and associated parking and accessory uses. Each tract will be developed in accordance with the development standards outlined below: COMMUNITY FACILITY (CF) The CF tract is±19.96 acres and permits church facilities, including a sanctuary, and accessory uses typically permitted in association with a church. No building, structure or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land uses in whole or part, for other than the following: A. Permitted Principal Uses and Structures: 1. Churches and houses of worship, not to exceed 800 seats. 2. Any other use deemed comparable in nature by the Board of Zoning Appeals. B. Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures: 3. Customary._accessory uses and structures including child and adult day care facilities and administrative offices, related to the church use. 4. Recreational uses and facilities including but not limited to swimming pools, tennis courts, volleyball courts, athletic fields, tot lots, boat docks, _ walking paths, picnic areas, recreation buildings, special event areas, and basketball/shuffle board courts. 5. in conjunction with the church, a bookstore, educational classes, recording studio, printing shop, counseling center, and church bus/van parking area (all such uses shall be related to and incidental to the church). 6. Gatehouse. 7. Essential services, including interim and permanent utility and maintenance facilities. 8. Water management facilities. 1 October 26,2016 • 9. Any other accessory use deemed comparable by the process outlined in the LDC. RESIDENTIAL (R) The Residential tract is ±19.93 acres in size and permits a maximum of 319 residential units. The maximum gross density within Tract R will be 16 units per acre (upa). The Master Concept Plan has been designed to meet or exceed the minimum LDC standards for building setbacks, perimeter landscape buffers and building heights typically associated with land use categories of this density. 6 g. Residential development will be designed to accommodate a full range of multi-family ( dwelling types, compatible recreational facilities, essential services and customary f accessory uses typical of multi-family development. s No building,structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or land used, in whole or in I. part, for other than the following: 1 A. Principal Uses ( 1. Multi-Family Dwellings 2. On-site sales or leasing office 3. Model Units 4. Any other principal use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list µ 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. Construction administrative offices for the developer and authorized contractors and consultants, including temporary access ways and parking areas, internal to the site during construction. i C. Accessory Uses and Structures - 1. Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with principal uses permitted in this District, including neighborhood community recreational ( facilities and property management and maintenance structures intended 3 to serve the residents and guests of the proposed development. l 2. Garages and carports. I 3. Administration facilities intended to serve the residents and guests of the proposed development. g 4. Swimming Pools, Tennis courts and other similar recreational facilities and i buildings to serve residents and their guests. ( , 5. Guardhouses, Gates and Gatehouses 6. 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. 2 October 26, 2016 1 i PRESERVE (P) The purpose of this Section is to identify specific development for the Preserve Areas as generally shown on Exhibit 'C', MPUD Master Plan. A minimum of 5.67 acres of Native Vegetation Area is required. This PUD is providing 5.73 acres of preserve. No building, structure or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or part, for other than the following subject to permitting: A. Principal Use: 1 . Preserve B. Accessory Uses and Structures 1 . Passive recreational areas, in accordance with the LDC. 2. Non-paved biking, hiking, and nature trails, and boardwalks, in accordance with the LDC. 3. Water management structures required by permitting agencies. 4. Preserves may be supplemented with native plant materials to meet buffer requirements. Supplemental plantings within preserves shall be in accordance with LDC section 3.05.07. 3 October 26, 2016 EXHIBIT B FOR NEW HOPE MPUD DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Table I sets forth the development standards for land uses within the New Hope Ministries Community Facilities (CF) Tract, Front yard setbacks in Table I shall be measured as follows: 1 ( 1 . If the parcel is served by a public or private right-of-way, the setback ( is measured from the adjacent right-of-way line. E 2. If the parcel is served by an internal access way, the setback is measured from the back of curb or edge of pavement. If the parcel is served by a platted private drive, the setback is measured from the road easement or property line. I ii TABLE I COMMUNITY FACILITY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS i f Requirements Principal Use Accessory Use Minimum LotArea 1 0,00 0 N/A 7 square feet ( Minimum Lot Width 80 feet N/A Maximum Height 3 stories not to 35 feet (Zoned) 48 feet Maximum Height 3 stories not to 47 feet (Actual) 60 feet Minimum Building i Setbacks ) .z Front yard 25 feet 25 feet 1 Side yard 15 feet 10 feet Rear yard 15 feet 10 feet d 1 MPUD Boundary 25 feet 10 feet2 5 i Lake] 20 feet 20 feet Preserve 25 feet 10 feet I I Distance between 15 feet 10 feet t structures i 1 Lakesetbacks are measured from the control elevation established forthe lake. f 225 feetwhereabuttingresidentially developed orzoned properties 1 3 4 October 26,2016 i i 1 Landscaping and Buffering Requirements: ( i 1. If landscape buffers are determined to be necessary adjacent to ipreserve areas, they shall be separate from those preserve areas. x Table II sets forth the development standards for land uses within the New Hope Ministries CFPUD, Residential (R) Tract. f i TABLE II i RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS I Requirements Principal Use Accessory Use Minimum Lot Area 43,560 sq. ft. 10,000 sq. ft. Minimum Lot Width 150 feet 50 feet Maximum Height i. Zoned: 50 feet 25 feet I Actual: 62 feet 32 feet F Minimum Distance between buildings 35 feet 0 feet or 10 feet Minimum Floor Area 750 sq. ft. NA Minimum Building t Setbacks Front Yard a c Side Yard b c 1 Rear a c ( From Davis Blvd a a Preserve 25 feet 10 feet ( Lake Maintenance or Landscape Buffer Tract i F or Easement' 20 feet _ 0 feet ( a = 50% of the building height, not less than 30 feet P 1 b = 50% of the building height, not less than 15 feet c = 50% of the building height, not less than 10 feet 1 ' Lake Maintenance Easements and LBE's are to be separately platted or ( designated tracts, i i 52 3 T T 3 i i s y October 26, 2016 r i i I a t, .. Z z a w w w0 '� € O_o Q a' e 3° Z Z Q Q Q C x o NiM0N � 03 � 0 Z CI �' € 0 CO M 1- z g t� of ai ai O' co co h CO I M 2 N- 1 V i CO. N O h (O tf) h �( . Q M ' N r N In O 1!' UJ - b W J w a (�- E `_ Va FZ L7 a i i 0 -G-1 w t�J j w w W -1 �J UJ 2 Q U o f a ~ 0 w X M w IY T toit It . a ,„,u -- w a o, a o re CC wao a � Z 2 �d i- 0 P' a "' z VU CO v oFF z a z Ua z °� w as 0 y 0 > > ? - S La - O W aU aD it S S N 0 I— CO _, O Z 0 U U 4 v z y D a O 0 - 4 J `"'Z I� w Y 7 Lu N a n o ( D D f3 g '- z W 2 W 1 y � 0 0 0 0v ' X a a a5w 0 011 wp u 0 w0Ui 0 aw z > C ai � U zzz W 0 CK o .� 0 � wo > f= 'Y ~O a'� o .nz u�) am DO1¢ OOO 5 4 wwu] � w ¢ a z wmkU a w _, oQFI- F r• 5 co O! U' U' S) Cn w e9 > L w w 0 ,_ ,42 ,0 vu iOs114.1 m 4 via U Q O 0 - - 2 1 < WILDWOOD LAKE!3 VD-'r , - f ... . _•. .-.»._. ... ._ r 1 `i Li i ;�lr� /` r.`i% k ;ii+c � _ri s1?i, _.;_;ji,11••' r .ra.1'ti; t ;1+.4 , „1 `�I 1 w i • cfrrf 1 ` . F.•Y 1 #rk J.:I .."1.1.1..•r' . I t ice,.H'1 , '.1 145; i 1 Ca s Z w •p'.f^.'a*.,r_„ l- '1. "'. , ..� •.!j i i _,J. i v.¢,c.Y , i„�. t, al in {�1 r•,1 't.ft ! _-I— U_ 'Li j rxaj !!' .S"z �" 7L� ;1.540 f x Iz ,i[._ 1 I r �',;:l11 `V ' 'T!j Y1/ 1°' i1 1 ' W it i •••'--- 1 `�i ,i 1' 1•• 1I. 4 .1:404x9 i 4i & —+-'it'' t "t 1 i i l ;a •i, i i ' J 1 J gg• 4 3Ilif 2 ; ' vi��i�=� •' t ii i z•C9' 0 ♦•+•+•_•+•+•++++++++♦11♦ • I t ' ++i• •+i+i O ++++++++++�:; ,` •1 I:I,l 1 i .;+ 0 ,, a -1 r +•A �/•+fir' to ' ++•••+++•+1 . ! 1'.. F'r4 i t' -4' i - , _4 C. _.N.ti •++++++�•♦ e4++++++0 +�•++++�+�•i - �ai.l ', _�+.w Q Z i i W i i - •i ` •+.+•+•+•+++`+.+++++++•. ax +++++'•+:+++.. ''_..�.,. M or,c, • e ..�`� ,i .-_ :p: erius.iii„.r,ui., , CCC N71C /.■�M __ /f - - i i i= lL Z o, r , q — IGliii-lit ', 4 1 yi; i ( U J II I1 -- NZldd DOO ., i w 4 • j �. . = w w a �P '• ri LP , :I I Li, w •° ! SI Ijfi {, - i y • -. ce 1 • 4 a O, a c 1. o ` 1 s N U w r 0 5 pS 1 N t t s x I 1 j} t t 4. C Z \ t. g a -a-) °� - Q' ° ; u.1 ALL 1.- 1-- o1'\co 0 ' \ p 2 r o 01 '1 • 1 `t11 5 U '11co °"o1 ` ' , o `L O 1 w . W A , Q — v1 4C OO % 42 _ Zl11yv ZO OONy s\i \ W ;4 O7 . WwcQ aZO p. � cc N O OJ � — � 1 \ Ot �N z \ \ l 'Z N 2, da \ '0S \ \',gOZ 4.j C al � 1, 1i— , Ne ppZ 1• a!: 7 W U A.142O }, t �OZ. A �' 11 �G UN Q • 0 'O Q W Z N u.1 \. 1\' ` N`y y; \A,1'' \ c`' .yc 0 ti uy '?11 . :'i w p t 7 .1 0 I � 1\ • • OG V — O ® ; �i, GA 1L1 700- k�,0,,\`i T \\-..\I,\I\ WI \ \;:.1 3w 1.it° C° 6 .... .. � ' ',u..1 o .& _1 0 a.. Z - o i ,,\ u \ ' ' 0 0 CC CC O p OW + • : Z m Z 7N p Z � i 1101 ' aZ� OO p Nov N E T i EXHIBIT D FOR NEW HOPE MPUD I LEGAL DESCRIPTION 11 THE EAST '/ OF THE SOUTHWEST V4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, AND THE WEST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, 4 LESS THE SOUTH 75', CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 39.89 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. I f Y li 2 I 7 October 26, 2016 r EXHIBIT E FOR NEW HOPE MPUD LIST OF DEVIATIONS 1 . Deviation 1 requests relief from Section 6.06.02.A.4.a of the Land Development Code, which requires a 5 foot sidewalk to be constructed on both sides of the internal Drives; to allow a sidewalk to be constructed in substantial compliance with the sidewalk locations shown on the Master Concept Plan, providing pedestrian interconnections to the adjacent commercially zoned property as shown. 2. Deviation 2 requests relief from Section 4.06.02.0 of the Land Development Code which requires a 15 foot wide Type B buffer and a 10 foot wide Type A buffer between the proposed residential use and the existing Community Facility use (Church), to allow for the required 10' Type A buffer adjacent to the drive aisle lying west of the existing Multi-Purpose Building to be located within an easement on the Residential Tract as shown on the Master Concept Plan. 8 October 26,2016 EXHIBIT F FOR NEW HOPE MPUD LIST OF DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS All facilities shall be constructed in strict accordance with approved SDPs, and all applicable State and local laws, codes, and regulations applicable to this MPUD, in effect at the time of plat, SDP approval or building permit application as the case may be. Except where specifically noted or stated otherwise, the standards and specifications of the official County LDC shall apply to this project even if the land within the MPUD is not to be platted. PUD MASTER PLAN A. Exhibit "C", MPUD Master Plan illustrates the proposed development and is conceptual in nature. Proposed area, lot or land use boundaries or shall not be construed to be final and may be varied at any subsequent approval phase such as final platting or SOP approval. SCHEDULE OF DEVELOPMENT/MONITORING REPORT A. An SDP shall be submitted per County regulations in effect at time of site plan submittal. The project is to be constructed in several additional phases. WATER MANAGEMENT A. The Stormwater Management System shall show full water quality pre-treatment volume before the stormwater reaches an elevation that would have the lake overflow its banks and then backflow into the natural ground areas (preserve). B. The Preserve Management Plan shall include provisions for annual monitoring to determine potential impacts of stormwater on the preserve's vegetation. The property owner will be required to replace vegetation adversely impacted by the stormwater with vegetation that will be suitable to the future conditions. TRAFFIC A. Access points shown on the CFPUD Master Plan shall be considered to be conceptual. The number of access points constructed may be less than the number depicted on the Master Plan; however, no additional access points shall be considered unless a PUD amendment is approved. B. During periods of church worship or special events generating attendance that would equal the church worship attendance, the church must secure traffic control assistance from either the Florida Highway Patrol or the Collier County 9 October 26,2016 Sheriff's Office subject to the availability of a Sheriff Deputy or Highway Patrol Officer for that purpose. PLANNING A. if during the course of site clearing, excavation or other construction activity an historical or archaeological artifact is found, all development within the minimum area necessary to protect the discovery shall be immediately stopped and the Collier County Code Enforcement Department contacted. ENVIRONMENTAL A. The Preserve Management Plan shall include provisions for annual monitoring to determine potential impacts of stormwater on the preserve's vegetation. The property owner will be required to replace vegetation adversely impacted by the stormwater with vegetation that will be suitable to the future conditions. B. The minimum preserve area required by the Land Development Code is 5,67 Acres. A minimum preserve area 5.73 Acres will be provided. MONITORING REPORT New Hope Ministries, Inc. (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 New Hope Ministries. Inc. 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. MISCELANEOUS 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 10 • October 26,2016 } violation of state or federal law. B, All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the development, • 7t qS 66 93 93 11 October 26, 2016 Co a-rCor�.Kty Growth Management Department Zoning Division Comprehensive Planning Section MEMORANDUM To: Daniel Smith,AICP, Principal Planner Zoning Division, Zoning Services Section From: Sue Faulkner, Principal Planner Zoning Division, Comprehensive Planning Section Date: October 27, 2016 Subject: Future Land Use Element Consistency Review PETITION NUMBER: PUDR-PL20150002519 - REV 4 PETITION NAME: New Hope MPUD REQUEST: The petitioner is requesting to rezone the 139.89 acre site from the New Hope Ministries Community Facility Planned Unit Development (CFPUD, Ordinance No. 08-07) to the New Hope Mixed Use PUD (MPUD). This rezone will allow Community Facility (CF) uses to continue on the eastern portion of the property (119.96 acres), while providing multi-family residential uses on the remaining 119.93 acres at a density of up to 16 dwelling units per acre(DU/A) on Tract R(Residential), permitting a maximum of 319 DUs to be developed. The maximum number of seats for a church will be reduced with this PUD rezone (PUDR) from 4200 to 800, since CF uses will only be permitted on a portion of the entire property with this rezone. LOCATION: The subject site is located on the north side of Davis Boulevard, approximately 600 feet east of the intersection of Santa Barbara Blvd. and Davis Blvd., in Section 4, Township 50 South, Range 26 East. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS: Approximately 119.93 acres of the subject site (westerly portion) are designated Urban, Urban Commercial District, and within the Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict #6, 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). The remaining 119.96 acres of the subject site (easterly portion) are designated Urban, Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict and within the residential density band for Mixed Use Activity Center#6. Together the 139.89 acres subject site constitutes the entire New Hope Ministries MPUD. Zoning Division•2800 North Horseshoe Drive•Naples,FL 34104.239-252-2400 Page 1 of 5 Attachment 3 In evaluating this petition's newly proposed residential uses (western portion of the subject site) for consistency with the Growth Management Plan, staff reviewed uses allowed in the Urban Designation, Urban Commercial District, and the Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict as depicted in the FLUE. The text excerpts shown below are followed by [Staff comments in Bold]. "I. URBAN DESIGNATION ******* Urban designated areas will accommodate the following uses: a. Residential uses including single family, multi-family, duplex, and mobile home. The maximum densities allowed are identified in the Districts,Subdistricts and Overlays that follow, except as allowed by certain policies under Objective 5, [This petition proposes to construct multi-family residential uses, which is consistent with uses allowed in the Urban Designation.] "C.Urban Commercial District This District is intended to accommodate almost all new commercial zoning; a variety of residential uses, including higher densities for properties not located within the Urban Coastal Fringe or Urban Residential Fringe Subdistricts; and a variety of non-residential uses." [This petition proposes providing multi-family residential use, which is consistent with uses allowed in the Urban Commercial District.] "1.Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict ******* Allowable land uses in Mixed Use Activity Centers include the full array of commercial uses,residential uses, institutional uses, hotel/motel uses at a maximum density of 26 units per acre, community facilities, and other land uses as generally allowed in the Urban designation. The actual mix of the various land uses shall be determined during the rezoning process based on consideration of the factors listed below. Except as restricted below, under the provision for Master Planned Activity Centers, all. Mixed Use Activity Centers may be developed with any of the land uses allowed within this Subdiistrict. For residential-only development, if a project is located within the boundaries of a Mixed Use Activity Center which is not within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict or Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict, up to 16 residential units per gross acre may be permitted. If such a project is located within the boundaries of a Mixed Use Activity Center which is within the Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict, the eligible density shall be limited to four dwelling units per acre, except as allowed by the density rating system and the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay. If such a project is located within the boundaries of a Mixed Use Activity Center which is within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict, eligible density shall be as allowed by that Subdistrict. For a residential-only project located partially Zoning Division•2800 North Horseshoe Drive.Naples,FL 34104•239-252-2400 Page 2 of 5 1 within and partially outside of an Activity Center, the density accumulated from the Activity Center portion of the project may be distributed throughout the project. Mixed-use developments—whether consisting of residential units located above commercial uses, in an attached building,or in a freestanding building—are allowed and encouraged within Mixed Use Activity Centers. Density for such a project is calculated based upon the gross project acreage within the Activity Center. If such a project is located within the boundaries of a Mixed Use Activity Center which is not within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict and is not within the Coastal High Hazard Area, the eligible density is sixteen dwelling units per.acre." [Relative to this petition, the Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict, when it is not within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict or Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict, allows up to 16 residential units per gross acre (DU/A). The±19.93 acres proposed for residential-only uses are entirely located within the Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict#6 and are not within either the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict or the Coastal High Hazard Area, and therefore are eligible for up to a maximum of 16.0 DU/A. This petition proposes residential uses at a density of 16.0 DU/A(19.93 acres x 16 DU/A=318.88—r 319 DUs).] Since the Community Facility uses (church and related uses) and intensity were previously reviewed by staff and approved by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners via Ordinance 08-07, the CF portion (±19.96 acre site) is deemed consistent with the FLUE of the Growth Management Plan(the Urban designation lists"churches"as an allowed use). In reviewing for compliance with Policy 5.4 (shown in italics) of the Future Land Use Element(FLUE) for the purpose of promoting sound planning,protecting environmentally sensitive lands and habitat for listed species while protecting private property rights, ensuring compatibility of land uses staff provides the following analysis in bold text. FLUE Policy 5.4: New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses, as set forth in the Land Development Code (Ordinance 04-41, adopted June 22, 2004 and effective October 18, 2004, as amended). [Comprehensive Planning staff leaves this determination to Zoning staff as part of their review of the petition. However,staff would note that in reviewing the appropriateness of the requested uses 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, development standards (building setbacks, landscape buffers, etc.), building mass, building location, traffic generation/attraction, etc.), as well as the information provided in the Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict section of this review.] In reviewing for compliance with Objective 7 and related Policies (shown in italics) of the Future Land Use.Element (FLUE) regarding Smart Growth principles (interconnections, loop road, sidewalks/trails, etc),staff provides the following analysis in bold text. FLUE 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. [Exhibit C, MPUD Master Concept Plan, depicts an existing access point onto Davis Blvd. (SR 84) — a Zoning Division•2800 Noilh Horseshoe Drive•Naples,FL 34104.239-252-2400 Page 3 of 5 boundary will interconnect the New Hope MPUD to the commercial property to the west and follow the future road that will connect out to Santa Barbara Blvd. Only one type of dwelling unit is being proposed,multi-family. No deviation was requested for the LDC required open spaces. The New Hope Community Facility tract has an existing multi- purpose building that can accommodate civic facilities.] CONCLUSION This rezone petition may be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan. 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 PUDR-PL2015-2519 New Hope Ministries R4.docx Zoning Division•2800 North Horseshoe Drive•Naples,FL 34104•239-252-2400 Page 5 of 5 Page 1 of 2 From: Amy Gant [membership@nhgcc.com] Sent: Wednesday,August 24, 2016 1:33 PM To: SmithDaniel 1 Cc: Amy Gant Subject: New Hope Ministries Property Proposed MPUD Rezone Dear Dan Smith, I am the President of Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club which is located in close proximity to the subject rezone (just east on Davis Blvd). Following the Neighborhood Information Meeting on August 2, 2016, we wish to express several concerns and offer several recommendations: - Very few projects have been approved in Collier County at the maximum allowable density of 16 units per acre, and certainly none in this area. The density for existing residential _ development in this area is much lower, generally not exceeding 6 units per acre. We feel that 319 dwelling units is a very high density on the 20 acre residential tract. - Additionally, the project is designed to share a single access with the church. This will generate a substantial amount of traffic impacting this single point of ingress and egress. A second point of ingress and egress is planned through a future adjacent commercial development to the north, but there are no plans for development of that parcel at this time. We would recommend that the project be limited to no more than 160 units. Or, if it is approved for more than 160 units, that it be limited to 160 units until such time as the second point of ingress and egress is operational. - The developer's consultant indicated that this would be a very upscale market rate rental l' complex. However, there were very limited plans and detail available. The minimum unit sizes allowed are efficiencies of 450 square feet, one bedroom of 650 square feet and two bedroom of 800 square feet. We recommend that, similar to several recently approved market rate rental projects, the minimum unit sizes be as follows: > No efficiency units > One Bedroom: 800 square feet > Two Bedroom: 1,000 square feet > Three Bedroom: 1,200 square feet - The project should commit to the following amenities: a resort style swimming pool, a clubhouse with fitness center, a tot lot/playground, a gated entry, on-site property management and an architectural design concrete wall along Santa Barbara and Davis Boulevards, with landscaping along the right-of-way side of the wall. - The consultant indicated that the building height was requested at 4 stories and 50 feet. Development in this area is limited to 3 stories. We would recommend limiting the height to 3 stories and 40 feet, at least where the buildings will be close to Santa Barbara and Davis Boulevards. Attachment 4 file://bcc.colliergo ices/Current/Daniel... 10/27/2016 Page 2 of 2 - The developer is (Goldberg Companies, Inc.), website contains a disclaimer stating that they cannot guarantee that no one with a criminal record lives in the proposed development because they depend on the person filling out the application and another company to check this. This does not support the representation that the property will be upscale and operated in a first class fashion. Thank you for the work you do on behalf of the citizens of Collier County and for considering our concerns and recommendations. If you have any questions I can be reached at 239-417- 2555. Sincerely, David Beiser, President Naples Heritage Golf& Country Club Amid Ga.w(- Administrative Assistant Naples Heritage Golf&Country Club mbrship@nhgcc.com (239)417-2555 Office (239)417-1717 Fax AUDt,BioN � Ftl nom/.cDNkt51MGPey lhI ' tIIIXII.I. , Mission Statement "Naples Heritage Golf& Country Club is a casually elegant golf club with a commitment to provide friendly and sincere personal service driven by a well trained and quality oriented staff with hands on management working as a team to meet and exceed our members and guests expectations" file://bcc.colliergov.net/data/GMD-LDS/CDES%20Planning%20Services/Current/Daniel... 10/27/2016