Loading...
CCPC Minutes 02/16/2017 February 16,2017 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples,Florida,February 16,2017 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 Patrick Dearborn EXCUSED ABSENCE: Joe Schmitt ALSO PRESENT: Mike Bosi,Planning and Zoning Manager Corby Schmidt,Principal Planner Jeffrey Klatzkow,County Attorney Heidi Ashton-Cicko,Managing Assistant County Attorney Tom Eastman,School District Representative Page 1 of 29 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 9:00 A.M., FEBRUARY 16, 2017, 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—January 19,2017 6. BCC REPORT-RECAPS 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. PL20150002167/CP-2015-1: A Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners proposing amendment to the Collier County Growth Management Plan, Ordinance 89- 05, as amended, specifically amending the Future Land Use Element to revise the Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict of the Urban Mixed Use District to add the previously requested 150,000 square feet of commercial land uses for the 14.492 acre tract per Petition No. CP-2003-1; to add 50,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area to the existing 200,000 square feet of commercial land uses and the previously requested 150,000 sf of commercial land uses for a total of 400,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area of commercial land uses; to remove a development restriction related to transportation impacts; and furthermore recommending transmittal of the amendment to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. The subject Subdistrict is 47.94± acres and located on the north side of Vanderbilt Beach Road and approximately 1/4 mile west of Collier Boulevard in Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Corby Schmidt,AICP,Principal Planner] 10. NEW BUSINESS 11. OLD BUSINESS 12. PUBLIC COMMENT 13. ADJORN CCPC Agenda/Ray Bellows/jmp February 16,2017 PROCEEDINGS MR.BOSI: Chair,you have a live mike. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning,everyone. If everybody will please take their seats.Welcome to the February 16th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. Now that you've got your seats,please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 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: Ms.Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr.Schmitt is absent. And,Mr.Dearborn? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr.Schmitt had a conflict today. He let me know about that,so his is an excused absence. He won't be here. That takes us to the addenda to the agenda.We have one item on today's agenda. Ifs a Comprehensive Plan amendment for transmittal only at this point. There are no other issues,no other changes to the agenda,which takes us to Planning Commission absences. For the first time in the years I've been on this panel,there's nothing scheduled for the month of March. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: For the whole month? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The whole month,the way it looks. Now,the only—and I checked CityView and Report Manager this morning. The advertising deadline is,like,today. So if they don't--I mean,unless something changes at 5 o'clock tonight that staff doesn't know about,we won't be meeting in March. If there's a change to that,staff will contact everybody. Definitely not March 2nd,but maybe the 16th. But I can't see that happening at this point. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's a rarity. In the years I've been on this panel,we've never had a whole month that we haven't met. So I'm not sure what that's telling us as far as the local economy goes,but our--Mike? MR.BOSI: Mike Bosi,the Planning and Zoning Director. I think that's a statement to the effectiveness in the—of the Hearing Examiner's Office,because that office has taken a number of petitions that could have been to the CCPC but haven't risen to the elevation of public concern and handled it more on a procedural basis. So I think ifs the effectiveness of the decision that the Board of County Commissioners made to provide for the Hearing Examiner's Office. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Whoa. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,that's pretty nice of you,Mike. Thank you. Also,the next meeting,then,we would have would be April 6th. Does anybody know if they can't make the April 6th meeting? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well,at least we'll have a quorum. I can't remember if that was—Mr.Schmitt,I think,was going to be absent also in March for at least one meeting. Well,ifs not going to matter now,so as far as I know he'll be here for the 6th as well. That takes us to the approval of the minutes.We've had electronically distributed to us the January Page 2 of 29 February 16,2017 19th minutes. Does anybody have any corrections,comments? If not,if there's any motion. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Patrick. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Karen. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: 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 DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-0. Are you prepared for any recap discussion this morning,or is that a Ray thing? MR.BOSI: No. At the February 14th Board of County Commissioners meeting,the Board of County Commissioners considered the adoption of a moratorium for specific land uses,car washes,gas stations,self-storage facilities,and pawnshops along U.S.41 within a specific geographic area. The Board did not adopt that moratorium but rather directed staff to go out and engage the public within a discussion as to what other land uses they would like to see promoted. And based upon the identification of those land uses,we're going to try to provide and identify maybe some incentives that would spur the market to provide those desirable land uses from a public perspective. And also they did adopt a moratorium or directed staff to bring back the advertising,bring back a moratorium for dispensaries for medical marijuana,and that was—the thinking behind that was as the state sets up the structure from a statute point,the rule-making process allows staff to understand where the state's going and provide the local discretion as to how we feel that it's appropriate for those land uses to integrate within the built environment. So that was a directive to impose a 12-month moratorium for medical marijuana dispensary facilities, and those were the two land use items that the Board had taken. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On the medical marijuana,that one is—I think there was a recommendation to bring the ordinance back to this board when it's drafted;is that right? MR.BOSI: Yes,and thank you,Chair. They--the Board directed us to bring back the ordinance that would impose the 12-month moratorium based upon the concern that a moratorium needs to be adopted in a manner similar to the way that we adopt amendments to our Land Development Code. So USDLPA would need to hear the proposed ordinance. And we're projecting that to be the 6th of April,the day we bring that back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now,if that ordinance is approved,then,wouldn't it then have to still be articulated in the LDC? So basically the Board would be establishing their policy by the ordinance,and wouldn't we still have to change the LDC,or is this going to-- MR.KLATZKOW: No,no,no. The process is going to be first you declare the moratorium,then you change the LDC. The Board was more comfortable if the moratorium process went through the Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR.KLATZKOW: So the actual moratorium decision will go through the Planning Commission before it goes to the Board. At that point in time it will come back to staff,staff will draft the appropriate proposals for LDC amendments,then it will go through the regular process for an LDC amendment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great. I just wanted to make sure that the LDC process was intact,because that's where the vetting from the stakeholders and people involved would get a more in-depth vetting that Page 3 of 29 February 16,2017 way. Okay. Thank you,Mike. Chairman's report;I really don't have any.I've got something for consent,but I guess I'll discuss it under Chairman's report Last meeting we had a very,let's say,a complicated set of corrections needed to the second reading of the Tollgate PUD. And instead of a consent,because they were all citation related,this panel was satisfied with me reviewing that. The applicant did submit something before it got to me. The County Attorney's Office found a series of problems with that submittal. So as of this date,I have not seen it,so I can't report to you if it's been cleaned up yet. I expect that it will be soon. We have--Heidi's reviewing stuff as it comes in in that regard,so hopefully by our next meeting, which will now be April,I can tell you it got resolved. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: We haven't received a second review of the documents. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'll keep the panel informed to make sure everything gets done on that one. ***And that takes us to our only advertised public hearing today,and it's Item PL-201 50002167/CP2015-1. It's for the Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard commercial subdistrict just west of 951 on Vanderbilt Beach Road. All those who wish 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: Now,this is a Comprehensive Plan amendment,and ifs not a typical amendment that we see. Normally we see a majority of rezones,PUDs,things like that,so I'm going to ask staff in a minute to walk us through the process for review and what we're actually talking about today so that the other panel members who may experience this for the first time know what to focus on. Before we go there,we'll go with disclosures.We'll start with Stan or,I'm sorry,Tom. MR.EASTMAN: No disclosures. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I talked to Fred,and that's all. Nine hundred eighty-five pages.It's an impressive document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's why I wish we could do things electronically. We killed a lot of trees on that one. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: We did get it electronically;that's how I know it's 985 pages. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,not all of us did.Diane? This is the tree killer right here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I like to touch the paper. No disclosures. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I had read the staff report and the 985 pages. I talked to staff. I met yesterday with the applicant;we talked about the issues that were raised and what were relevant to this meeting. Surprisingly,with the amount of pages we received in opposition,I've had no contact with any people opposing this other than what was in our packet,and that's something that hadn't occurred before. Okay. Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Nothing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Patrick? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Nothing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that,we'll move into the--we'll start out with the—I'd like Mike to explain to everybody in the room,as well as the members of this panel who may experience this for the first time what we're actually here to review today in comparison to what we're going to be reviewing the second or third time this comes through. MR.BOSI: Thank you,Chair. Mike Bosi,Planning and Zoning Director. Today what you have before you is a full-scale amendment to the Growth Management Plan. Within the regulatory structure of Collier County,the Growth Management Plan sets the goals,objectives,and policies for how any one individual project is to move forward,and then that creates the rational nexus for the Land Development Code regulations that dictate how the developments--the specifics of how the development moves forward. Page 4 of 29 February 16,2017 So this is an amendment to that Growth Management Plan. And this is unusual because normally the Growth Management Plans that you'll receive are small-scale amendments,and they only require one cycle of public hearings with the local planning commission or local LPA,which is the Collier Planning Commission,and then the Board of County Commissioners. This is a full-scale amendment because it encompasses more than 10 acres. And when you have a full-scale amendment,that requires two sets of hearings with the local planning advisory board,the Planning Commission,as well as the Board of County Commissioners. After this petition is heard by the Planning Commission,a recommendation is made to the Board of County Commissioners. The Board of County Commissioners transmits that recommendation--their decision to the State Department of Economic Opportunity. The Department of Economic Opportunity will spend 30 to 90 days reviewing the contents of what's being transmitted in this amendment,will provide us an ORC Report,objections,recommendations,and comments,upon what we're suggesting. In the change of the legislation in 2011,they only comment upon state-significant resources. So an issue like this probably won't rise to that level. Once we get that ORC Report back,we will schedule adoption hearings with the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners. When you have a Growth Management Plan amendment like this that deals with a specific piece of property that is also encumbered by a PUD,it's at the adoption stage that the changes to the PUD that are reflected within what's being proposed at the Growth Management Plan amendment stage will be incorporated,and it's that PUD that provides for the opportunity for the compatibility review,the detail review that the Planning Commission is associated with and familiar with as to buffer,type of uses,distances, the heights,those type of things that are normally part of our discussion and deliberations. So it will be at the adoption stage that we're going to bring the companion PUD amendment forward. Now,we have spoke with the representatives from the Black Bear Ridge community,which a number of people are here. I think that we've explained a little bit of the separation of the process.They're aware of it,but today the evaluation from the Planning Commission's standpoint is,is there justification for the additional 50,000 square feet to be added to the subdistrict that governs the commercial allocation for this piece of property? That's the question that is the sole determination for this Growth Management Plan amendment. And you're provided direction by Florida Statute 163 as to what those criterias are to make that evaluation. It's based upon the existing square footage that's currently constructed but also square footage that's entitled "not yet constructed"within the market area for the proposed development. So that's the question that's going to be evaluated today,and at the adoption stage the specifics of compatibility in any one users will be the--will be the expanded questions that will be for the PUD amendment. And that's a general overview of today's purpose and where we're going to be going in the future. And Corby mentioned,it's probably July/August when we'll be back to the Planning Commission at the adoption stage with that PUD amendment as a companion item to the GMP amendment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And for clarification,too,the NIM that was held,it looks like,based on—I listened to the audio,and I also read the summary statements. The applicant combined the NIM for the PUD with the NIM for the GMP,which is allowed as long as they're within one year. And so a lot of issues in the NIM--I saw the questions raised by the public—those are going to be addressed really in the Planned Unit Development stage of this review;is that a fair statement? MR.BOSI: Correct,sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then what we'll do is move into,as we typically do--did you have something you wanted to add,Jeff? MR.KLATZKOW: No. It's just that once you establish uses through the Growth Management Plan,it's kind of difficult at the PUD sense to say,well,no,you can't have them. So,I mean,to me,I understand the bifurcation we're doing here but understand that you're creating a box here that you're letting the developer play in,and it's going to be hard to squish that box down the road once you get the GMP done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's part of the reason there are some comments to today's application Page 5 of 29 February 16,2017 that Fm going to suggest staff may want to clean up to avoid creating something in the GMP that normally isn't there. So we'll be talking about that. Thank you. Okay. With that I'll turn to the applicant for—and,by the way,ladies and gentlemen,if you haven't been to one of these meetings before,the applicant makes a presentation,then we ask for staff members to make a presentation,and based on the input that you have already provided on the record by your letters and by the NIM,some of the staff members are here just to address those issues just so you'll know where they're coming from. I heard statements on the NIM that may be better clarified by staff,so they're here today to help with that. After staff gets done,we then turn to public speakers. If you haven't registered to speak,that's the first group of speakers I'll ask for.But anybody that's here that wants to speak that was sworn in will be allowed—well,certainly,we're here to listen to the public,so definitely you could be able to speak today. After you get done speaking,then the applicant will have a rebuttal period,short rebuttal period,then we'll go into a discussion on this panel and recommend something to the Board of County Commissioners. Bruce,ifs your turn. MR.ANDERSON: Thank you,Mr.Chairman,Commissioners. My name is Bruce Anderson. I'm with the Cheffy Passidomo law firm,and I'm here representing the applicant. With me today is George Vukobratovich from Welsh Companies;one of the applicants,Josh Fruth; Fred Hood from Davidson Engineering;and our transportation engineer,Norm Trebilcock. The purpose of this Growth Management Plan amendment is twofold. One is to correct a scrivener's error in the original Growth Management Plan amendment for this property that occurred in 2003. When the acreage of this property was added, 150,000 square feet of commercial uses was approved by the Board of County Commissioners. But during the paperwork process,the county inadvertently left that out,the commercial square footage total,and everyone agreed that was an error,and the PUD was later approved including the 150,000 square feet. The second purpose of this Growth Management Plan amendment is to authorize an additional 50,000 square feet of commercial uses. I want to stress that no new land uses are being added to what was already approved. Now,there may be some confusion on that part because the amendment language as submitted adds a reference to just over 95,000 square feet of air-conditioned mini self-storage being allowed. That self-storage facility is already built. The staff made an interpretation which was affirmed by the Hearing Examiner at a duly advertised public hearing that self-storage use is a comparable use to other specifically listed uses in the PUD. The basis for this determination was that a self-storage use is a significantly less intensive use with lower traffic and utility impacts than other uses that are listed in the PUD for this property. Because this reference to the self-storage is not necessary,we are proposing to remove the sentence that refers to that in the amendment language. As staff told you,this is the first of two hearings that are required for this amendment. You will hear the other one—you will hear it again in a few months. We do have some neighbors here this morning from Black Bear Ridge. This is the Black Bear Ridge community here(indicating)on the other side of this landscape buffer. We have met— CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That buffer,that's a preserve,I thought. MR.ANDERSON: Preserve,yes. We have met with them three times. And while we have made some progress,there do remain some issues that we don't see eye to eye on. We are willing to continue our dialogue with them and hope to reach an agreement before you hear this again.Most of the things that we could agree on are the type of details that are normally in the PUD document rather than the Growth Management Plan. And you will hear the PUD when you hear this Growth Management Plan amendment again. They'll be heard at the same time. And you will note that the staff finds that there is a need for the additional commercial square footage in this area,and they are recommending approval. Just a sidenote,those of you who've been on the Planning Commission for a while might recognize that ifs not often that the Comprehensive Planning staff finds that there is a need for additional commercial, Page 6 of 29 February 16,2017 and we're pleased that they agree with our analysis. We respectfully request your concurrence and recommendation for approval. Thank you. That concludes my opening. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Are any members of your group going to speak at this time? MR.ANDERSON: With regard,if there are questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR.ANDERSON: They're all available. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any questions of the applicant at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only things I want to caution you on,during the NIM meeting--I did go through it in detail,and I did listen to the audio. There were things said at the NIM that are relevant to the Planned Unit Development application. You will need to make sure those are incorporated,because I pulled the draft PUD,and they're currently not incorporated as clearly as they were explained at the NIM;the connections between creating a road along the north,that wouldn't happen;the uses on the north versus uses to the south,the lighting on the building,sconces and shielded,and the issues about the deviations,the 20-foot versus the 10 or 15. You already platted the property. They're platted with buffers already meeting the current LDC--or PUD. So I would suggest you make sure your PUD has all that in it,and we can save a lot of,probably, concerns at the PUD level just to address at least what you told the public at the NIM. That would be the first thing. I did go through--my questions on the GMP language,I know there's an issue that I believe I was talking to Corby about in regards to fast food versus coffee shops. For example,if they do a Starbucks or something else there,how is that differentiated? And some language has been—I think Corby asked your people to get with him because of that issue and then clean it up,and they did produce some draft language today. I don't know if you've seen it yet. Ifs going to be put on the overhead during Corby's presentation.So that will be something I'd certainly look forward to the public weighing in on. Also,I know there's an issue with a cost-sharing agreement,and that is more of an LDC issue involving the roads,but I do have the transportation people here,so they're going to provide a discussion on that today relevant to the GMP,but also in that document there was a—now,I know it's a document between--ifs not—the county's not part of that document,but in that document there was a stipulation in there about a distance in which some uses weren't allowed from the west side of that property. So that would be something to take into consideration when you lay out your PUD and you define where your uses are going. I'm saying all this ahead of time. Normally we don't even talk about this at a GMP level,but I want the residents here to know that those items that you brought up are not ignored. They will be addressed,but they have to be addressed with the proper document. And I'm just making the record as clear as possible to the applicant that we fully intend—and this board will uphold them to everything that's on the record. So with that,I'll make sure I don't have any other issues right now from the document reading that I did. And—no,I'm fine. I understand.I've got—we'll hear the rest of it through the staff presentation and the public. Thank you. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Corby-- MR.ANDERSON: Thank you,sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: —you're up. Thank you,Bruce. It's your turn,sir. MR.SCHMIDT: All right. Thank you,Mr.Chairman. Good morning. For the record,Corby Schmidt,Principal Planner with the Comprehensive Planning section. And you're correct in your description,Mr.Chairman,that a number of the issues that were talked about at the neighborhood information meeting are more specific to compatibility or consistency with LDC Page 7 of 29 February 16,2017 regulations and would be addressed or will be addressed in the PUD document at that time. Some of those issues or concerns that came up during the neighborhood information meeting regarding traffic,lighting,screening,the wall along the north edge of the property,issues that neighbors had with noise produced by the businesses and the traffic,those are issues for the PUD. With regard to the Comprehensive Plan amendment,looking at the language that was proposed by the applicant and the rewrite or the recommendation from staff,the order of the subdistrict provisions has changed,and only a few other changes take place: There's clarification over the acreage of the property;the configuration or the size of the property has changed in the recent past and the property itself and the uses were,at the NIM,proposed for significant change.But since that NIM was held,almost the entire application, or the substance of it,was revised. And so the prohibited uses that are not allowed on the property that,at the NIM,the applicant wanted to add back in and allow on the property aren't there,and a number of other things like that that have changed to whittle down to what's before you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is that all that you have,Corby? Could you put the—could you walk us through the changes that you handed out this morning? MR.SCHMIDT: I can. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Put them on the overhead so everybody in the audience can see them. MR.SCHMIDT: This is one of those petitions that has been going on for quite some time. And the NIM was held,and since that NIM there was a reapplication. There were meetings with the Black Bear Ridge people that were not formal NIMs. There were staff and applicant--or at least one meeting with the applicants to clarify what that second or that follow-up application would be like. And at that time those prohibited uses that might have been added back in to be allowed in the development were discussed,and those uses included tire stores,convenience stores. And our key use here today to focus on is fast food restaurants with drive-through lanes. Ifs not a common phrase we see,but regarding this specific Planned Unit Development and this subdistrict language,that's the phrasing or the terminology we have been presented with. And for the LDC to be used with its use of SIC codes,that phrase or that terminology used doesn't fit exactly. So an interpretation needed to be made,and that was recommended to the agent at one of those meetings with staff. And the key concern was at the time,if you have some uses in mind for the property be sure they're not considered to be fast food restaurants with drive-through lanes. And you can talk about fast food restaurants,and I think if I polled the planning commissioners,you each might have a different answer as to what you'd consider them to be. And as generally as we could speak,we thought,well,any restaurant that has a drive-through might be considered fast food. It could be that generalized when you just think of the ones you know. But that didn't turn out to be the case. Staff discussed this further,and with one of the specific uses that is proposed for this property,being a coffee shop,the way the SIC codes work and the LDC is structured,even a coffee shop might be considered a fast food restaurant. So what you see on the overhead today,if there is to be a coffee shop on this property,the parenthetical wording you see highlighted on the screen in front of you would be added to the Comp Plan or to the provisions of the subdistrict to allow that to take place in the PUD document and then to be developed on the property. MS.ASHTON: Mr.Chair? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your mike's not working,Heidi. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: I think you need to clarify for the Planning Commission that the language in yellow is existing text except for the parenthetical that Corby added which states"except coffee shops only." And I think that even that language"except coffee shops only"lacks clarity as to what could go in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,in the double underline portion of the yellow text is what's being suggested for adding. And if it needs further clarity,then we'll have to either see if we've got to do at this stage,or we can leave that for discussion at the PUD stage. MR.SCHMIDT: Yeah. This was simply put together quickly so you got an idea what needs to take Page 8 of 29 February 16,2017 place. And you're correct in your clarification. Just the parenthetical was added since you received your packets. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now,as far as the language that's here,there's two,I guess, significant issues. One is an increase in square footage,and the other is possibly this added parenthetical. The fact that they're in the GMP,does that mean that if they're requested in the PUD,the applicant automatically gets them? MR SCHMIDT: Not as I understand the way we work— MR.KLATZKOW: Therein lies the problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I agree with you. MR.KLATZKOW: Therein lies the problem with these small-scale amendments,all right,because once you're authorizing all these uses,it gets much harder during the PUD process to say,well,we know we authorized you for this,but now you can't have it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But the basis for the denial at a PUD level can be issues for incompatibility or inconsistency with the LDC. MR.KLATZKOW: Okay. What I'm telling you is that you're creating,again,a box for the developer to develop his property in. It's much harder after you've created that box to say,okay,but we're going to take this out,and we're going to take that out rather than when you do it holistically doing the PUD at the same time as your final GMP amendment. They should be—the two should be consistent with each other. You're giving somebody the right in the GMP to do something,and then you're saying,well,we're going to take it away from you in the PUD process.There's no need to have that issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're starting out,though,with language already in the GMP that is probably more detailed than could have been handled in the PUD,which is the prohibitions. Those prohibitions could have been just simply not allowed in the PUD and dealt with at that level.The fact that it's here and it could be interpreted broader than may need to be,I think,is the issue. Is that—that sounds like what you're saying is that these can—but it works a box both ways.It can work as a box to be allowed or as a box to be prohibited. And I think we're trying to— f MR.KLATZKOW: Pm just saying I would prefer an approach where the PUD and the GMP—since this is a small-scale amendment type of thing—I know the acreage is more than that,but it's really a small-scale amendment,you know,and this amendment's for the purpose of developing a single piece of property—that the two are completely tied together at the same time so that there's no discrepancy between one and the other. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I know what Jeffs saying,but just because a use is allowed in a GMP doesn't mean that you get it in a PUD,right? But in this case— MR.KLATZKOW: What Pm saying is that in the normal process,yes. In the normal process you have a GMP for the whole county,all right,and then somebody's rezoning property,and you're going through the PUD. This type of Comprehensive Plan amendment is really more akin to a PUD than anything else. It's just required that they go through this,all right,so that what I'm saying is that—do them both together so there's no discrepancy between the two.That's all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And that's what happens with the adoption and the rezone at the next stage. This is transmittal. The problem we've got is the cat's been almost let out of the bag by the existing language that does have specific uses prohibited. MR.KLATZKOW: Okay. Well,they're coming in here for an amendment,right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're coming in for a PUD amendment,and they're coming in for adoption at the same time. That would bring them to—both of them together simultaneously,and that was the review that I think we'd be looking at to solve as many issues of this kind as we possibly can. This transmittal just is required to get us there. MR.KLATZKOW: No,I understand what you're saying. I understand. At the end of the day,the two should be substantially identical. Page 9 of 29 February 16,2017 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think that will be addressed when they come in as companion items. I reviewed the PUD. The draft language so far doesn't match up to the NIM nor to everything here,but the—I would assume that after this meeting--or not assume. It would have to be,because everything's on record. By the time we get to the last two items,which would be the combination of a rezone and the adoption,all these things will be worked out and meshed up together like Jeff's asking for. MR.SCHMIDT: And that's correct,Mr.Chairman. It is the reason that statute allows us to talk about both processes today and then prepare for those formal changes in the PUD document when we're back in front of you for the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan change. They will mesh together,and they will be consistent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And we'll do our best to get there. Does anybody else have any questions of Corby? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Corby,I have two more. And I looked and tracked the history of this scrivener's error. And the sentence that had the 200,000 in it originally was never struck through as being omitted;it just was never included when we retyped it up,apparently,and got into the GMP.And when it got added,the strikethrough to increase the 200-to 350-wasn't included in the re-ad. So I don't know how all that occurred. It looked like it was 2007/2008 that some of that may have transpired. But now that we've rewrote it more clearly,I'd like to make sure the second sentence addressing the square footage is clear.It says,development intensity for the existing area of this—it says,the existing area of this subdistrict shall be limited to a maximum of 200,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area.You really mean that applies to the Mission Hills PUD,right? MR.SCHMIDT: It does. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could we—so that the existing area of this subdistrict doesn't get confused between the Vanderbilt Commons PUD and the Mission Hills PUD,that after the word"subdistrict"we can put a parenthetical of Mission Hills PUD so we know that 200,000 is allocated to that PUD,and this new 50,000 is going to be or could be added to the Vanderbilt Commons PUD. MR. SCHMIDT: That would add some additional clarity,yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then the second sentence in the following paragraph,which refers to the self-storage facilities,there's no need to have that in the GMP;in fact,we try to avoid that specificity. Ifs better dealt with in the rezoning document. If it needs to be added at all,that's where it should go. Do you have any objection to dropping that sentence? MR.SCHMIDT: No. In fact,in my handwritten version over at the desk,I've already struck through it based on what the attorney has spoken about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That gets us through my questions of you. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have one question,Mark,and I believe it's—maybe when you spoke I might have misunderstood. The 150,000 feet(sic)was in here for this particular piece of property. I think you mentioned 200,000 that was supposed to be in here? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. The original GMP amendments—Heidi? She wants to explain. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: We did some research on this,and when this was adopted in the beginning, it authorized 200,000 square feet for the Mission Hills property. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: And then it was expanded to include the subject parcel. And in the process of amendments,the original text of the 200,000 for Mission Hills was dropped out. And when it was added back in,it added 200,000 square feet,although the applicant at the time had requested an additional 150,000 square feet,bringing the total to 350,000 square feet. It gets complicated because we could not confirm that the Board understood when the GMP amendment went through that they were approving 350-. It was unclear,although that's what the applicant had requested. Page 10 of 29 February 16,2017 So that's why--but I don't know how you want to do this because the PUD was approved with 150,000 square feet. So this amendment here will reconcile that and then ask for an additional 50,000 square feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Was this all in that 2007/2008 time frame when everything was kind of coming to a hault and all that—projects up there were kind of— MS.ASHTON-CICKO: I think that the changes occurred between 2004 and 2008 where the 200,000 was dropped off. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I went and looked at the 2008 GMP and the 200,000 reappeared,and there were five ordinances prior to that date that it reappeared. And I can't tell by reading those which--how they—how that reappeared. So it looks like someone caught it during a rewrite,maybe cleaned it up through an EAR application, something--some process,and it reappeared. It wasn't ever struck,so it just didn't get included back in. So that's what happened. And when it did get included back in,it was never reconciled to the application for the 150-that was approved by the Board of County Commissioners. So,anyway,that's the history as I understand it. Anybody else have any questions of Corby? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you,Corby. And while we're on staff report,I have asked transportation staff to be here in their collective group as a—to discuss the roads,because I know in the NIM—and I know a lot of you have been concerned about the road system,and there's that cost-sharing agreement. All that's kind of unique.I've not seen it done that way necessarily in the county. Usually it's with the developers. So it looks like you may have inherited it. I'm not sure all the terms of the agreement. But I've asked the transportation staff to take a look at it and at least explain the road routing,the system,what's going to happen to the median at the most eastern roadway and the Pristine Drive light. So if someone from Transportation could come up and attempt to explain that multi road area... MR.SAWYER: Good morning,Mike Sawyer,Transportation Planning Principal Planner. I'm going to try and explain,at least on our review of the GMP amendment that's before us today, how we went about that and the criteria that we actually used to do that based on the TIS that was actually provided for us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's relevant to the part here today. But just so—the public is here who—and the NIM was very clear. They have a lot of concerns about the road,the cost-sharing agreement, all of that. Well,the county required the cost-sharing agreement by language in the PUD or required the traffic to be addressed. So I would like to hear your—how that road system is to eventually change in the future. For example,I believe it's a directional left-in off of Vanderbilt onto,I think ifs Buckstone to the east. Pristine's going to have a light,and I'm not sure what the other roads are going to have,Wolfe Road and the rest of it. But if you could just tell us so the community understands how that road system's supposed to come together. I mean,since it was such a highlighted part of the NIM and the letters that we received,I'd appreciate it if you can. MR.SAWYER: Yeah. And we've got other staff members here that will talk both—about both of those subjects as well as what I'm going to do,just to let you know. So we've got additional staff members here that will go through those issues. Basically what I wanted to do first was just basically just talk about the GMP amendment itself principally at this point. Basically,this is our presentation on the Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard subdistrict GMP amendment. Okay. Basically,what we do when we're looking at both a GMP amendment as well as a PUD Page 11 of 29 February 16,2017 amendment is we're looking for consistency with the GMP itself,which means that we're looking to see if the surrounding road segments have capacity to accommodate what is being proposed within the next five-year window. We also certainly--when we get down to the actual SDP or platting stage,that's when we actually look at concurrency. That's when we actually start putting trips on the system.Right now what we're talking about is just consistency. In other words,is there capacity in the next five years? The TIS that we reviewed indicates,you know,the uses that are being proposed,and in this case, because of the uses that are being proposed and the square footages associated with that,we actually are finding that there is actually a 20-trip reduction in the p.m.peak. That's what we look at. P.M.peak is the real key that we look for when we're evaluating traffic. These are the surrounding road segments.We've got Vanderbilt Beach basically from Logan to Collier Boulevard,we've got Collier Boulevard itself from Vanderbilt Beach to Immokalee,then Collier Boulevard,Vanderbilt Beach to Golden Gate.As you can see,basically we've got either a C or a B level of service on those three segments.Capacities are at 3,000 as far as the 2016 AUIR numbers—you can see what those numbers are—and then the remaining capacity onto each of those three segments. As has been pointed out,the PUD amendment itself is also something that currently staff is reviewing. The applicant has comments. They will be responding to those comments,and we'll be putting in additional developer commitments with those. The SDP or the PPL,as I've already stated,is when we actually look at concurrency. That's when the actual trips being proposed are going to be put actually on the system. In other words,that's when we actually do the concurrency portion of it. That's basically how we looked at this. We did find that the petition is consistent. We do have capacity on the road segment. I think Trinity has additional information that she can provide you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Question about your TIS.This is actually requesting an increase in square footage. What of the square footage caused the reduction in the trips? Because they're not—they're adding--they're not changing uses. The uses are remaining the same. MR.SAWYER: Correct. Principally where that came from was the 95,000 square feet of storage, personal storage that they're proposing. That,in and of itself,has a very low trip generator. They are actually taking out both retail and office space,which are higher generators. So when you look at that whole mix,yes,they're adding additional square footage,but the square footage that's actually going towards the storage use actually brings the number down. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,that probably coincides with the required parking for that storage facility was six spaces;whereas,if it had been office,it would have been 318 spaces,a large parking lot with—parking with lights. So from that perspective,I think your intensity reduction makes sense,so... MR.SAWYER: That's a very good way of looking at it,yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else of Mike? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Trinity? MS.SCOTT: Thank you. For the record,Trinity Scott,Transportation Planning Manager. Many years ago,before any of the PUDs in this area were built,several of the developers came in in a very short time frame. And the folks who were in these positions prior to me,Mr.Nick Casalanguida,Mr. Don Scott—and I know Mr.Klatzkow was very involved with the PUDs,involved in this area to establish a roadway network that would allow the residential to have direct access to the commercial without having to get to the arterial roadway network. So what you have on your screen here is,in red,this is Wolfe Road. Can you see my cursor there? And then it turns around and it becomes Pristine. The area in the bold red has been turned over to the county for maintenance. The section of Pristine from Cubs Way down to Vanderbilt Beach Road has not to date but is anticipated to—in the near future to be turned over as county maintenance. There is an existing traffic signal on Wolfe Road which--I have had Chad Sweet in the back from Traffic Operations. He'll give me the hook if I say something wrong—I do not believe is fully operational at Page 12 of 29 February 16,2017 this point. I believe it is utilized by the fire station for emergency access. And when this was planned,all of the PUDs have some language,not all of it is consistent,but the PUDs have language that states that their fair share for this traffic signal would be required when it met warrants. It is anticipated that it will meet warrants at some point. This is the Carolina Village area. This is anticipated to have a roadway connection from Pristine over to Buckstone. This area in here is an undeveloped Planned Unit Development which is Sonoma Oaks. In their existing Planned Unit Development,it also calls for a right-of-way reservation to have a roadway that would connect in this area over to Mission Hills Drive. The county is currently looking at all full median openings on six-lane roadways. Our major concern is a safety concern of the left-out situation. So in this particular area at Buckstone right now,someone can come to this area,and they can make a left out. And what we find on these arterial roadways is they make the left out and they sit in the median,and they have several folks who will stack up in the median which impedes the sight distance and also impedes the folks from Vanderbilt Beach Road who are trying to make the left into the development as well. So we are assessing all of these countywide. I believe we have 22 or 23 countywide,and so we're looking at them on a case-by-case basis. So the county would like to,in the future,in coordination with perhaps some U-turn opportunity and perhaps with a traffic signal at this location,would be to eliminate the left-out from Buckstone.They would still continue to have a right-in,a right-out,and most likely a left-in as well. So we would just like to look at eliminating that. So the folks who would typically make a left coming out of Buckstone would be able to take this connector road to get out of this signal or,if they were continuing south on Collier Boulevard,could go within the Mission Hills shopping center at any of the existing openings and be able to go south on Collier Boulevard with a right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That helps. I know that Vanderbilt Beach Road and Collier Boulevard intersection is a nightmare around 5 o'clock in the afternoon. MS.SCOTT: As are most in the county,particularly right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,your comment about the left turns out are a problem. The people are stacked up there waiting to get a break in the stacking of the left lane onto Vanderbilt,so hopefully that will help things. Anybody have any questions of Trinity? Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I do. I love transportation. I want to thank Mark,first of all,for putting in the self-storage,for reducing the traffic there,because you are right,this is not going to get better. Pm a Logan person,live on Logan,and where—when this Vanderbilt Beach Road will go past Collier Boulevard is going to be very heavily used because at this point a lot of the people turn north on Logan to get on hnmokalee Road and then turn eastbound to go that way. Traffic--I can tell you it's Livingston Road. If you go Livingston Road just to get on Vanderbilt Beach Road,they're backed up as far as First Baptist Church on Livingston. And I'm going—I mean,so I know what this is going to be like,so--and there is so much commercial within this area already,and you are so close also to the activity center on hnmokalee and 951. So,yes,transportation is very important. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Trinity,thank you. MS.SCOTT: You're welcome. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that will rest for now. And with that,Mike,what we are going to do is go into public speakers. We do take a break at 10:30 so the young lady here typing away trying to type as fast as everybody talks can give her fingers a break. So we'll proceed with public speakers until then,and we'll start with the registered public speakers. If you had not stood and had been sworn in when we asked earlier,please let us know when you come up to the podium. Mike,call the first—and either podium can be used by the speakers. MR.BOSI: Thank you,Chair. Page 13 of 29 February 16,2017 The first public speaker is Terrie Abrams,followed by Beverly Smith. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you register to speak? MR.BRACCI: I did,Mr.Strain. I'm Steve Bracci. Pm the attorney on behalf of Terrie and the association,so I think it's appropriate for me to kind of tee it up and then— CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,no. We'll decide what's appropriate. I just need to understand what the relationship is. And,Steve,you know me. I try to make sure everything—all the Ts are crossed and Ps are dotted. I notice the lady that deferred to you—and does she still intend to speak? MR.BRACCI: She does still intend to speak.I did try to speak with Mr.Klatzkow before the meeting about the order of speaking and was—and I said I'd like to speak as their attorney beforehand. They said that's fine. Just submit your card,so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,you should check with myself. I mean,Mr.Klatzkow is our attorney, but we decide the order of speakers. We have no problem with you speaking first. I just would have like to have known it ahead of time. We would have accommodated it right from the get-go. So go ahead and we'll go to the speaker that was announced second after. MR.BOSI: And just,Chair,I have not received—and maybe Mr.Bracci submitted it to a different individual. I don't have a speaker slip for Steve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's okay. We'll--I know who he is,so... Steve,go ahead,and we'll be glad to hear you. MR.BRACCI: I believe I did submit one,so I'm not sure what happened there. Thank you. For the record,my name is Steve Bracci,and I represent Black Bear Ridge Property Owners Association,which is the 100-unit residential subdivision situated immediately north of the subject property sharing a boundary along the entire common east/west property line. It was pointed out earlier. You can see it on the overhead. It's the community just north of the property. While today's meeting is technically framed in terms of the need for an additional 50,000 square feet of additional commercial intensity within the region of Vanderbilt Beach Road and Collier Boulevard,the genesis of this meeting is really the decision by the developer a couple years ago to allocate 96,000 square feet of its allowed 150,000 square feet of commercial intensity to a single miniwarehouse facility at the northwest corner of the subject property which is currently under construction. While I believe Black Bear Ridge is willing to ultimately support the additional 50,000 square feet,it is Black Bear's contention that the developer,by its own volition,decided to allocate such a large amount of their intensity to a small amount of their property area,and it actually did so in contravention of the letter and the spirit of the 2004 cost-sharing agreement to which Black Bear and the developer,Vanderbilt Commons, are both parties. This cost-sharing agreement has been brought up a couple times already this morning. That cost-sharing agreement specifically provided that the subject property may be rezoned and developed for,quote,specialty retail and office land uses. We understand that there was a hearing and that there was an ultimate determination by the county a couple years back that there was a comparable/compatible analysis which allowed for the construction of that facility. But I think,by any stretch,I don't think anyone would argue that it is specialty retail and office land uses. In fact,earlier I believe it was either Mr.Strain or one of staff members that actually said that it took out—the miniwarehouse took out the retail and office components. So there was an acknowledgment this morning already that miniwarehouse is not specialty retail or office. So what are we left with? We are here today with a private cost-sharing agreement which was acknowledged this morning as having been initially a requirement of the county which didn't allow for such use. And so we are now here today with a developer coming in and saying essentially we have,you know, most of our acreage left,and we need more intensity. And this area is talking now—the framing,again,of this issue here today is whether the county also needs that intensity. But as has been acknowledged by Mr. Klatzkow and others,you know,there's an inherent link between this discussion today and whether there's going to be an ultimate transmittal to the state leading the developer down the garden path of cost and everything else and whether or not they're ultimately going to get their 50,000 square feet,and also,then, what the connection is with the PUD uses that would be allowed at a future date. It's encouraging to hear Mr.Strain reference the NIM meeting and those concerns that the residents Page 14 of 29 February 16,2017 had,and hopefully that will continue forward as part of the PUD process at a later date. But my clients are here basically today to try to salvage the spirit and intent of the cost-sharing agreement and to propose forward that certain uses be addressed either now or at the PUD process,and they would like for those to be heard by the Planning Commission and to give extra attention to those in light of the fact that there is a private agreement between these folks which has not been honored to date. It seems that the county may be selectively choosing to honor the cost-sharing agreement where on one hand they're talking about necessity of it with respect to cost sharing on traffic improvements at Vanderbilt Beach—or at Pristine Drive and Vanderbilt Beach Road,and yet there was no honoring of it with respect to the miniwarehouse usage in the past. So my clients have legitimate concerns about the cost-sharing agreement. There's concerns about the warrant issue on the cost sharing and whether--whether the warrant should really have been closed out by now because,as acknowledged by Ms.Ebert,the traffic here is really resulting from the expansion of the county,not by virtue of this particular area,this subset of the county,which is essentially--which was essentially done back in 2004,and now we sit in 2017 and we're saying,hey,you've got to now pay for this traffic signal. I mean,what's driving the need for a traffic signal there is the eastern expansion of Collier County and the failure of Immokalee Road,the recirculation of traffic from Immokalee cutting south down Collier Boulevard to get west on Vanderbilt Beach Road because Immokalee Road has failed. It does not seem appropriate that these folks should bear the inordinate burden;that should really be shared by the county in its entirety. So I do think that,Mr.Strain,we should,as a county and as a Planning Commission—and this is a difficult issue,and it's not one that everyone really fully understands,and I would admit that I,myself,don't fully understand it.But what triggers the warrant? You know,is the warrant triggered by these folks themselves,or is the warrant triggered by the expansion of the county themselves? And what is the appropriate allocation in that instance? So my folks,the Black Bear Ridge folks,want to speak to that today. And,again,my clients do want to ultimately get behind this project. They want to see a good quality project be developed there. But one issue that has really become a hot button is this issue of the coffee shop, and I'm not really sure why staff has chosen this morning to hand to us a change—a proposed change in the GMP language to except out the coffee shop. Because the discussions that have been had between the parties,the developer and Black Bear,and also between Black Bear and staff this week,has been whether or not a coffee shop fits within the definition of a fast food drive through under the Land Development Code, and there was sort of an acknowledgment that,well,the code speaks for itself. So I'm not really sure why staff has taken it upon itself to essentially advocate this position on behalf of the developer to insert this language into the GMP when the applicant's attorney,Mr.Anderson,this morning basically said,look,we're willing to take that out and deal with it at the PUD point in time. I don't know why staff has taken it upon itself to add this into the GMP when it seems that everyone's in acknowledgment that it shouldn't be in there at all. So I think that it's—I'm hearing,I think,the direction would be that that GMP language with respect to those uses should come out all together and be addressed at a later point in time,but I just would like to get some clarification;my client would like some clarification on that point as well. And then just a final point would be that,as Mr.Anderson has acknowledged earlier,there have been discussions between the Black Bear Ridge folks and the developer. We do hope to continue those discussions and hopefully at some point in time throughout this process we can reach some consensus above and beyond what might be discussed here today and at the subsequent County Commission meeting. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Steve,before you walk away,a couple of things I want to make sure either I understand or I can help explain. The county wasn't part of the cost-sharing agreement from what I can tell. Was that your understanding as well? We didn't sign on that. MR.BRACCI: No,that is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The cost-sharing agreement seems to be based on acreage. Page 15 of 29 February 16,2017 MR.BRACCI: That is correct as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think that's the crux of the error,and we didn't participate in that.Had a document like that come forward,most of the county planners and us,if we had gotten to review it before it was finalized,I can't imagine we wouldn't have looked at intensity or density as a basis for cost sharing far above acreage,because the zoning for Black Bear Ridge has more units available to it. If they don't build out to that,it seems questionable on how you apply a cost share based on a lower density when ifs configured on a per-acre basis. And the same goes for a commercial parcel that does increase its intensity,like could happen here. And,actually,your argument for increasing intensity on this by 50,000 square feet is—might be a little difficult to address because they're actually reducing the intensity by the square footage that they used. But regardless,your cost-sharing agreement,not having a part of the county,not having the county participating in it,I think,has inherent problems with it,and I'm not sure the best resolution of that. I certainly will look to Mr.Klatzkow if you could opine on what bearing that agreement should be on the zoning efforts coming through for this board either at the GMP or LDC level. MR.KLATZKOW: Yeah,I walked over earlier in this meeting to Trinity and said,you need to wrap this up before this concludes. I know where this is heading,and ifs going to be a train wreck. We need to get this entire issue as far as who's going to pay for the light resolved as part of this process,in my opinion. I don't think ifs fair that ultimately the homeowners have to kick in on this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now,in the PUD—we have a detailed transportation section of the PUD, and the applicant is coming forward proposing to strike quite a bit of that and rewrite it. And I would turn to Mike or—because Mike is the overall zoning. I know Corby's strictly Comprehensive Planning. But,Mike,the arrangements for how these roads are to be taken--handled in regards to payment and responsibility,is that something that can be addressed in that transportation section of the PUD,assuming that either the applicant and the opposition parties get together and work it out on their own,or can that be something that can be dictated to be included in the PUD? MR.BOSI: Well,the legality of that,I may turn to a little advice from the County Attorney's Office. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm trying to figure out how to find a solution,Jeff,outside of a document we don't have any power—authority over. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: The current PUD does make reference to a shared agreement,but when this comes through as the PUD amendment,we can strike that language and it can be addressed through a prop share arrangement like we typically do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So in order for this to come through at the PUD level when the applicant wants to actually come in and get the uses squared away and the additional square footage added, we will have an opportunity to address the issue and hopefully clean up the sharing agreement you currently have thafs not part of our basis? MR.BRACCI: One complication there is that the—Black Bear is in the Wolf Creek PUD. This is in a separate PUD,I believe. So somehow we'd have to link these PUDs in some kind of process before the County Commission in order to accomplish that. I think that there may be--you know,if everyone's willing,we could accomplish that,but I don't think ifs as easy here as just addressing it in this one,because it—the cost-sharing agreement spreads over multiple PUDs. MR.KLATZKOW: When this first started years ago--my memory is a little dim,because this is years ago that we started developing this area;Mission Hills,Black Bear. The representations the developers were making as to who was going to do what and what was going to develop isn't quite the way it's developing. I'm not saying—there weren't any misrepresentations made. It's just that,you know,as time goes on needs change,market changes,whatever,so that I think it's appropriate that we take a look at what we did and why and now how we're going to fix it,all right,because what's going on here is not the way it was supposed to develop entirely. It's changed a bit. That's fine. The county's changed a lot,too. But as long as we're changing it,okay,then there's no reason why we can't go back to the beginning and say okay,this was predicated on that,thafs not happening,we're going to change this. And it may be for Page 16 of 29 February 16,2017 several items that we look into this and say,you know what? We need to fix this now before this is completed,this thing. Because there was a reason we had this loop here with Wolfe Road going straight down to VBR,all right. We put that in as a bypass years ago,all right,because we new Immokalee Road was going to get heavily trafficked,and at the end of the day,we knew people were going to take a left on Immokalee down here,get down to VBR,and then get into town. This is not by accident,this entire loop. We also knew that VBR eventually was going to get expanded to the east,and the shopping center here is going to get more and more dense. But this little shopping center in front of Black Bear,this was supposed to be just, like,personal uses for the residential use,some restaurants,hair cutting place,that sort of thing. That's what was explained to us with the way this was going to develop. It was going to be a neighborhood little place. It's not quite developing like that,because the county's not quite developing like that. All right. So it's appropriate that staff goes back to the beginning as to why we're doing it this way, what representations were made,okay,and then,perhaps, in this process try to clean up what we can so that the area can develop hopefully in a better way rather than a piecemeal process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think--go ahead,Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Jeff,may I ask you a question. Originally,how many developers--or, I mean,how many people are supposed to be in on this cost-sharing agreement? MR.KLATZKOW: It was an odd arrangement at the time because it was multiple developers who came in on this. Usually you just get the one developer with the cost share. Here there are multiple developers. MR.BRACCI: I do have some-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I think I want a--I think I know a path to get this resolved. Corby or Mike,a transmittal goes to the state after the Board gets an ORC report and comes back; we do adoption. Even if there's no objections from the state,even if the Board on a three-- I think it's a simple majority vote--approve it for a transmittal,we have the absolute right to deny it at adoption;is that correct? MR.BOSI: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The whole process that you're here for today and the idea for getting this PUD changed,or a PUDA,affords the community an opportunity they would not have had if the developer didn't come forward and do this. So by letting this transmittal move forward we can get three or four more months of item in which you and the developer can hopefully get together,the transportation staff could come up with a better solution to the road system out there,and that the next time when it comes back for adoption,we can make sure these things are resolved as they should have been probably from the time it started. Now,this is an opportunity that arose because of this request. Had the request not come up,it would have been a civil matter probably for you guys to have to handle on your own. So I think,regardless of any issues of compatibility,to get this past transmittal to get to the next phase would give us the opportunity to really get into this and maybe find a resolution, Steve,and I ask for your conversation of that as far as-- MR.BRACCI: Obviously,I have to defer to my clients,who I haven't spoken to. But just in terms of the concept,I mean,the transmittal itself,I don't think there would be an issue other than,as we all know, typically the transmittal is the precursor to what happens at zoning,you know. And,again,the 50,000 square feet in and of itself isn't as much as the issue as how it's going to operate,you know. And it gets back to Mr.Klatzkow's point a moment ago about how--what the original intent of this was was sort of a blend. It was going to be residential over retail.You know,it was going to be a little bit of a streetscape type of thing. And as Mr.Klatzkow mentioned,the character of this particular project's changed;the character of the county has changed. And if we're going to revisit these--you know,a lot of the--you know,if we're going to acknowledge the transmittal going forward,it's with the understanding that these things should be revisited like we're talking about,maybe with more particularity than what might otherwise be at a PUD hearing that follows the transmittal on the GMP to the state. Page 17 of 29 February 16,2017 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,based on the discussion we just had,it's not going to go forward without further discussion and clarification. So,I mean,that's going to happen at the next time around,and the best way for it to happen is for all the parties to get together,including our Transportation Department, and come up with a better solution. If they can't,this board will take a look at it,provide the best recommendation we can to the Board of County Commissioners,then they would have the ultimate authority on it. MR.BRACCI: Then the only other two things I'd like to add--then the corollary to that,I think, would be that,as has been suggested here today,that that language on uses does come out of the GMP transmittal language. It seems to me that there's sort of a direction in the room that that might be happening. But the other thing,too,is—what was the other thing? My mind is escaping me on that. Oh,that I guess we would have to work with staff and the County Attorney and I guess ourselves to come up with a process whereby if there's some link between multiple PUDs as it relates to that cost-sharing agreement,we somehow get that--everyone before the Board at the same time so that we can address it globally. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I'll let Transportation initiate the parties that should be involved in this based on the agreements that are out there. I haven't had time to look at all the surrounding PUDs that might be affected by this,but that's something that can be clarified as we get more time to deal with this. Your comment about removing the references to the specific uses,honestly,we don't normally put uses in the GMP. That's a zoning matter. We look at ranges of uses like office and retail or whatever. The reference to the self-storage facility shouldn't be in the GMP. That's typically what we don't do. That was a request of the applicant that has now been--or the applicant's not necessarily caring about it at this point. The other uses that are there really are to the benefit of your neighborhood. I think you'd want to keep those. Those other ones are prohibitions. Now,that strengthens your argument you can't have these; however,because they're there,I don't mind deferring those—taking those out and deferring those all to a discussion of the PUD if that's what you're—if that's what you're leaning towards. But,you know,you're having it one way and not the other. I don't want to—I kind of want to keep it fair. MR.BRACCI: Well,to your point,that's fine,other than--well,I mean—and we can talk about that,too. But the—one of them's a double negative. So the prohibition--the exception to a prohibition is an affirmation,right? So on the coffee shop issue,which is a hot-button issue—because it's saying--I don't have—it's not on the board anymore,but it essentially says,these uses are not—you know,the fast food,except for a coffee shop,which essentially becomes an affirmation of a coffee shop. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. It's saying it's not prohibited. It doesn't say it's allowed. It just says it's not prohibited. You're only listing prohibited uses there,which is a rarity in itself And your idea of striking all of them,that's fine,but then it just provides more of—we are going to have to look at it harder at the PUD level to make sure it's covered appropriately. MR.BRACCI: I think we'd be okay with a global strike of all of that language,including the prohibitions as well because,like you say,we could take it up at the PUD level. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That might be a better way to approach it. I'll ask the applicant's opinion when we get up to rebuttal. Okay. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR.BRACCI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now we'll ask for speakers.As registered speakers are called,we'll come up to the podium. We're going to take a break at 10:30 for 15 minutes. So go ahead,Mike. MR.BOSI: Terrie Abrams,followed by Beverly Smith. MS.ABRAMS: Hello. I'm Terrie Abrams,7213 Acorn Way. I don't understand all of this,and I will be the first one to admit it,but what I will tell you is I bought into this community knowing what this gentleman said,that the intent was for that area at Vanderbilt to be Page 18 of 29 February 16,2017 something that would support our community that would be compatible with our community,and we have no issue with that. We have no issue with the development of it as long as it supports and enhances our lifestyle. It appears to be going the other way,and so we can take that up at a later date. I think—I will say something about the coffee shop. I think we all know that we have an intense traffic issue. It is a fast food restaurant that does service food,and by the Collier County code,it is clearly defined as a fast food drive-through. It will only intensify traffic issues. It will only make it more dangerous. And if that area's supposed to be compatible with the community and be pedestrian friendly,it will not. So thank you for the opportunity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,ma'am. Next speaker,Mike? MR.BOSI: I'm Sony. Beverly Smith,followed by Mark Allen. MS.SMITH: Good morning. My name is Beverly Smith. I'm a resident at 7278 Acorn Way. I've been a resident there for three years;however,I've been frequenting Florida and Naples,Florida,since the early'70s,so I'm fully aware of the transition that's gone on in Collier County. First I want it known that myself and my fellow residents are not objecting to what the developer is planning with this community. We do not object to the development. We want it. We don't want to look at dirt anymore or weeds when we drive into our community. Our main concerns are the fact that with this extended use of square footage,that—what is going to happen and the usage involved here,and that is our concern. We have a lot of traffic issues that I don't think are being addressed by the county. We see it every day. We have seen this traffic increase over the last three years unbelievably. The loop roads being used as a bypass for the 951Nanderbilt traffic signal has increased dramatically. We have Vanderbilt Way now that is going to be opposite Buckstone Way,which is an entrance and an exit to Mission Hills shopping center;heavily used,an area right now that there have been major accidents,minor accidents,and a lot of near misses in that one T square,which will now be a complete intersection. We are also concerned,or I am presently concerned,with there is a property on the northeast corner, two parcels that are being quoted as future development. Are these future developed parcels going to be included in this amendment,be a part of this amendment,or are we going to be here 18 months from now with the same issue of wanting additional square footage or additional changes to the amendment to accommodate this future development? Originally the vision for this property was to be a pedestrian-friendly development where you could walk to,you could have a restaurant,you could have office facilities,whatever. It's become a strip mall. We are having two strip malls and a warehouse. It is no longer pedestrian friendly. Another concern now is that you have markings on Vanderbilt Way for what appears to be parallel parking on both sides of the street. Now you've got parallel parking,you've got cross traffic coming across Vanderbilt Way,you've got the loop roads being used to avoid 951 and Vanderbilt,you have traffic coming in Pristine,out Pristine,and you've got traffic coming in and out of Buckstone. It's going to be an absolute nightmare and a safety problem for people,especially those that would like to walk or be—have it pedestrian friendly. I know a lot has been said this morning about the fast food or the cafe type of restaurant. In speaking with the developer,and we have on several occasions,a particular establishment has been mentioned as to be the potential user of this property,and it is a fast food restaurant.There's no way of getting around it. You can call it cafe. You can call it drive-up,drive-through.It is a fast food restaurant by statute of Collier County in their description of a fast food,and that is what our objection is. A cafe restaurant,no problem. Drive-up cafe restaurant,that is a problem to us. I think also that the traffic being,I know,a major consideration for most of us—and we have seen it. And I don't(sic)think that the county looks at not only what is happening now,but I know you look out five years from now. But what about the development--we have Raffia Preserve that hasn't even built out yet, and that will be built out in the next 24 months with a total of almost 500 homes. We have two parcels on Pristine that already a townhome community has been or is being presented Page 19 of 29 February 16,2017 as a new development. That could potentially have 200 townhomes right on Pristine. This is going to increase the traffic on that loop road dramatically. And we don't really think that it's being looked at in that picture. And ifs easy to say that a warehouse does not produce as much traffic as maybe 10 retail stores,but those retail stores and what they're going to be determines the traffic. You can have five retail stores with very little traffic,or you could have five retail stores with major traffic. So usage is of most importance to us on how that 50,000 extra square footage will be used. And,again,we are down to two strip malls and a warehouse and an unknown for those back two parcels,and that's a little concerning to us. As property owners,we've invested in this community.We've invested based on your vision of what our community should be and,you know,we have put our faith in the Collier County Commissions,that you have our best interest at heart. We're not opposed to development. We don't want to prohibit a developer from having a profitable business. We want to see that. That is an encouragement to us;it encourages our whole development and our whole community. But we want it to be compatible and friendly to our community. As neighbors,we want to be respectful,but we would like the developer to be respectful of us and our thoughts. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you,ma'am.And just so you know,almost—well,I can't think of anything you just said that didn't—couldn't be addressed more appropriately at the PUD. Had they not come in for this,those two—that property had no restrictions on where uses could go. Part of what could come out of that is those intense uses that are more concerning to you all can be along Vanderbilt,and the more passive uses can be on the north side. That's the possibility that this provides. Had it not opened it up, you'd have no—there would be no recourse,really,to get this accomplished. So,anyway,we understand your position,and certainly appreciate you— MS.SMITH: I think the original PUD,as it was presented by the county of 150,000 square feet,was more than adequate and more adequate to the development in the area. That being changed now,you know, going to the 200-,I think the whole concept,the whole visual concept,what is being presented,has changed. Like I say,we're not in objection to the developer. We want to work with him,but we want to be heard,and we want the developer to understand our opinion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mark,can I ask a question— CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes,go ahead. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: —for clarification. Thank you,by the way,for your statement.You reference Raffia Preserve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a project to the north. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Yep. Just out of curiosity,in Black Bear,which I think a lot of you-all are here today for,what was disclosed to you guys by the developer of that when you bought your houses there? Was there anything in writing given to you-all as far as what was going to be used for that thing? Was there any description or talk of that at all,just— MS.SMITH: At Raffia? At Raffia? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: No,no,no,at Black Bear where you guys are,I'm assuming, homeowners.Was that Stock or whoever the developer was— MS.SMITH: It was Stock. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: --did they disclose to you-all in their contract that there was going to be-- MS.ABRAMS: And it was defined— CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ma'am,you can't speak from the audience because you have to be on record,so I'm sorry. MS.SMITH: We were notified. We knew that the development,it would be residential development to the north of us,which— COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Yep. MS.SMITH: —at the time WCI did not own,so that was not—it was just—I'm not sure who the Page 20 of 29 February 16,2017 owner was at that time. We knew there were two parcels on Pristine that at one point were considered--one parcel was considered agricultural,which now has been--been now transferred over to a developer who's going to put residential in there. We knew that. We knew there was going to be development below us to the south. To the extent that it was discussed when we purchased our lands,other than what we knew that it was going to be a,you know,pedestrian-friendly type of development,that's all we were told. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: That's all you were told,okay. Just curious. Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And,Mike,we have time for one more. MR.BOSI: The final speaker is Mark Allen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mark Allen. There was a surveyor who I used to work with in Bonita Springs who had been in this community since he was born named the same name. I wasn't sure when he said we had a speaker named Mark Allen--you're not him,but welcome. MR.ALLEN: I'm not he. Hi. My name's Mark Allen. I'm a homeowner and full-time resident in Black Bear Ridge. I live at 7347 Acorn Way,and we've been there for three years. Our house backs up to the preserve that borders Vanderbilt Commons or Carolina Commons,so we're separated by about 200 feet. I'd like to first state that I'm not opposing the development of the region or any rezoning of Carolina Commons MPUD but have concerns related to the effects of increased traffic,and Pm relying upon you and your sound judgment to make decisions regarding this and am thankful for some of the comments I've heard and have a much better understanding of some of this this morning. With respect to traffic,traffic on Vanderbilt Beach has significantly increased in the last couple of years,particularly during peak rush hour times. With an increase and influx of traffic from the east,what used to be an easy entrance onto Vanderbilt from either Buckstone or Pristine Drive can now require a considerable wait for an opening in traffic during morning rush hour,and the traffic on Vanderbilt is such that there are frequently three lanes backed up to Vanderbilt and Vineyards and Vanderbilt and Oaks intersections such that several light changes are required to pass through. Likewise,during afternoon rush hour,the left turn lane from Vanderbilt to Collier may be backed up westward of the left turn lane onto Buckstone,and it's not unusual to have eight cars stacked up in that stacking lane turning into Buckstone from Vanderbilt. In our neighborhood,the traffic flow is complex. Given the design of the area,with interconnections between Collier Boulevard and Vanderbilt Beach Road via the Wolfe Road and Pristine Drive and Mission Hills and Buckstone loop roads,there's a shunning of traffic through the residential areas to bypass the CollierNanderbilt intersection. Most of us that live in the area can attest to near misses due to rolling stops and outright failures to even slow down by people in a hurry,particularly exiting the Mission Hills commercial district or cutting through from Collier to Vanderbilt via the Mission Hills to Buckstone loop road. All of this is occurring without Mission Hills being fully built out,Vanderbilt Commons open, Sonoma Hills PUD developed,Raffia Preserve with its tacked-on Palermo Cove PUD finished,Vanderbilt Reserved developed,and Falls at Portofino finished. The connectors and loop roads may be good for shunting traffic away from CollierNanderbilt intersection,but they are not good for quality of life in the residential areas. The design of the Vanderbilt Commons connector road as a shunt exacerbates the problem. It does not foster a pedestrian-friendly environment,which was the original intent. Business types that disproportionately add to increased traffic and congestion also are not conducive to maintaining quality of life and fostering a pedestrian-friendly environment. So traffic is a big concern for us;an effect on our quality of life,noise pollution,all those things that occur. Just a couple other comments regarding the cost-sharing agreement. You know,we kind of looked back on the history of some of that,and it seems like that agreement was put together and signed in 2004. And reading the agreement,the agreement states that it was to be for construction and design of a two-lane road to serve three moderately upscale residential communities. At the time in 2004 when that was signed,Carolina Commons didn't even exist because that was still zoned as agricultural,and it wasn't until,I think it was,2005 or so that that MPUD was approved. Page 21 of 29 February 16,2017 So the mad in that agreement was to construct a road to service three residential communities. Nothing in there about servicing of MPUD commercial district,nothing in there about serving a tacked-on Palermo Cove property that would drain down in through the Wolf Creek PUD. So our concerns there are,you know,are liabilities associated with that? And some of the verbiage in the upcoming amendment seems to incorporate--at least the proposed verbiage incorporate that agreement into it such that we would be held responsible for those costs. Okay. So—and then one other comment if I could make about the fast food drive-up and coffee. Coffee and beverages,I mean,a lot of this seems to be trying to change definitions in order to fit a certain establishment in. Coffee and beverages are classified as food by the FDA,the federal government. They're regulated. Coffee is food.Beverages are food. If you can drive up and you can pick it up quick,that's fast food with a drive-through. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,sir. And with that,we're going to take a break and come back at 10:45 and resume with any remaining speakers,and then we'll go to the applicant. Thank you. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If everybody could please resume their seats. Let the record show that Mr.Bosi did not come back in to push the button on time. MR.BOSI: I delegated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,your delegation missed it too,Mike. Okay. Now we're reseated,and we're done with our break. Mike,had you asked—you called all the registered public speakers? MR.BOSI: Yes,sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If there are any speakers who have not already spoken and who would like to speak,not necessarily to repeat what we already heard--I think we got a good synopsis of what the people who spoke had concerns about,but any new speakers who would like to speak who haven't spoke yet. You spoke. MS.ABRAMS: Can't speak twice? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. MS.FUCHS: Then I'll speak. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No,I think—if I can ask the lady in the green to come up,and could you tell me that you'd like to cede your time,from the microphone,to Mr.Bracci,then that would be fine.But you've got to do it on the microphone. MS.FUCHS: I have to say what? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Never mind. Ifs your turn.Please state your name for the record. Did you stand up and get sworn in when we did that? MS.FUCHS: I did,yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS.FUCHS: Wendy Fuchs,and I'm a full-time resident in Black Bear Ridge,7351 Acorn Way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS.FUCHS: Just one thing that I would like to add. And as we were talking with Corby,he said that maybe there was a misunderstanding that our community,from what was presented today,we are opposed to a coffee shop with a drive-up,drive-through,pull-up,any type of window,and we believe that that's what some of this language said today. The corner they're proposing to do it on would be right at the entrance of the property on Buckstone Way. We've seen rendered drawings of this. And I think that when you take a look—this developer developed Pebblebrooke,and Pebblebrooke,at the corner of Immokalee and Collier Boulevard where it has a McDonald's drive-through,is an absolutely nightmare. You cannot even pull into the shopping center. You're in traffic jams where traffic cannot even move.And we know that with this tiny little configuration in the corner,this is what we will be looking at if we have any type of drive-up,drive-through,pull-up that serves any type of food,coffee,or anything. So as a community,that's what we are opposed to. Page 22 of 29 February 16,2017 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you,miss. Are there any other speakers who have not spoken that would like to speak? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that,we will move to a couple of things. I want confirmation from staff that the issues involving the road-sharing agreement,the uses and all that,are not matters necessarily for discussion today versus the PUD,but I also would like you to address the suggestion that we would drop the--actually,the remainders of—the remainder of the references in the GMP to the uses. I know David came up and talked to you about that. I don't know if there was a problem there or not,but Pd certainly like you to jump in and talk to us about it. And what I'd--what I think we're looking at Corby,is not only what you've got out in red,but drop where the--all the yellow sentence,too. MR. SCHMIDT: Yes. If your recommendation would be to drop from the subdistrict language in the Comprehensive Plan those prohibited uses and then allow yourselves to deal with them in the PUD only-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR.SCHMIDT: --then after that first sentence--and I can't read it from this distance--but strike that entire remainder of that paragraph. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The rest of the paragraph. MR.SCHMIDT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have any problem with that from your perspective? MR.SCHMIDT: I think David would like to address that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR.WEEKS: Commissioners,David Weeks of the Comprehensive Planning section. I'm not sure if Mike and I agree with this--it might be putting me in an awkward position. The concern I have about striking the prohibitions is,obviously,that means those uses are now allowed by the subdistrict. The PUD,of course,could address it later and retain those prohibitions. But by allowing the uses,that begs the question,where's the data and analysis to demonstrate that there is a need for those uses? There was data and analysis submitted that demonstrated a need for the additional 50,000 square feet that is being requested for the types of uses that are already allowed on the subdistrict. Now we're adding additional uses.Where's the data and analysis to support the additional uses? That's my concern. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I appreciate that,David. Thank you. I had more of a practical concern. When we did the Golden Gate Master Plan,we specifically put uses in there that we felt would be detrimental to our community,and we did that because the GMP is a higher level. If you have to undo something and you've got to not only deal with it through a PUD,but you've got to undo it through the GMP,those prohibited uses are a lot harder to undo then. I would hate to see this location have gas stations,as an example. I think that would be highly detrimental to the community. Not necessarily all these--well,fast food restaurants,for that matter,and drive-through,those are the same things we prohibited in Golden Gate Estates. I think the discrepancy comes in is because we're trying to define fast food to possibly allow something that I hear--I didn't even know we're going to hear--may be on the books. Mike,you look like you're trying to say something. MR.BOSI: And I'm just--I think I'm in alignment with yourself,is I think remove the parens to that last sentence that exempts out coffee shops from the prohibition in--and that language that currently exists in the subdistrict could remain. And from the consistency standpoint from the application,I don't think that would create any of the concerns that David had expressed about--if we would remove those prohibitions from the subdistrict. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,what I was going to suggest is that we leave the language in that was there because it protects the neighborhood better.I don't think you guys really want to have all that removed. And then don't add any new language in regards to that sentence. Take out the parenthetical,but the next time when they come in for adoption,if there's somehow an agreement reached with the neighborhood and everybody's on a similar page,we can consider it at that time. We don't necessarily need to consider it Page 23 of 29 February 16,2017 now,and they could also provide the data and analysis that David's looking for for any changes in that language if it's necessary. But that would give us the breathing room.The community's still protected like they were.The last thing I'd want to see on that property is a gas station,and I don't want them to have to go through that,only because it's so problematic.Everywhere it goes right now,we just need to leave it alone,so... MR.SCHMIDT: Mr.Chairman,I would agree that that's the right approach today,to leave those prohibitions and,if it's the desire of the Commission,to remove the parenthetical so that the language in the recommendation that you had in your packets for that paragraph would still stand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I think that I would rather see that and leave the opportunity for the developer to try to work through the problems with the community and negotiate that with the community to a point where they are more comfortable with it,and the opposition to that language isn't as concerning as it is right now. Maybe there's ways to solve it. That's something the developer can work out in the added time we could have between this transmittal and the PUD and the adoption. MR.SCHMIDT: And that brings us to,really,what that language would be like,perhaps,the added parenthetical and the paragraph above to identify Mission Hills. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR.SCHMIDT: The red struck-through language would be struck through. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yep. MR.SCHMIDT: And that last sentence that's highlighted on the screen in yellow would remain but remove the parenthetical. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was added. I think that's the direction we're heading. MR.SCHMIDT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Before we go to a rebuttal by the applicant,is there any discussion? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. I'm going to ask Corby a question. You could have sat down,Corby. I tried to find out from Transportation how many—how many parties were involved in this cost-share agreement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,Corby's not going to know. That's a zoning issue. And Transportation won't know,to be honest with you,until we look at,like,six or seven different PUDs in the area,because to guess at it today would be problematic.No one was prepared for that. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Well,that's what she said-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the next time this comes back,all that--we'd have three or four months to get all that worked out. That's what Transportation will probably attempt to do between now and then. MR.SCHMIDT: More than two. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,yeah. There's more than two,for sure. Okay. With that,if the applicant has an opportunity and wants—you have an opportunity now for some rebuttal. Bruce? MR.ANDERSON: Thank you,Mr.Chairman. The only thing I want to clarify is that removal of the"except coffee shop"language will not prohibit us from requesting that in the PUD document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think you'd have to request it in the adoption phase of the GMP and the PUD. That's what I was getting at. At this time,with what we've heard from the data and analysis,that may or may not be needed. The concerns from the community that haven't necessarily been vetted as fully as they could be if you had two or three more months in order to do it,by the time it comes back on adoption,if some of those issues and hurtles are resolved,then we could always put it back in at that time. And,Mike,if I'm out of school on that,tell me. But that's my understanding of what we're doing here today. MR.BOSI: No,I think the question was that Bruce was--and you're right,we can— CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,I know where he's going.He's saying if it's not here,he still wants to put it in the PUD. He'd have to put it in the adoption form of the GMP as well as the PUD. MR.BOSI: And I don't necessarily think that he would have to do that. I think he would say at the Page 24 of 29 February 16,2017 PUD language they would suggest coffee shops were exempt from that language,and we would be in discussion about that specific activity. But there's nothing here that would prevent them from working that out and making the modifications as whatever agreement would be between the—his client and Black Bear Ridge. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Mr.Chair, I'd rather that the language be addressed in the GMPA,because I think there is some subjective determination as to what—the fast food restaurant with drive-through. So if at adoption they did want to add something,I'd prefer not to have the double negative but to maybe add at the end of the sentence,"however,restaurants with drive-through lanes that primarily serve coffee are allowed." Something to that effect I would put in the GMP if that's what you request. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well—and I think we can still do that at adoption to the GMPA; is that not correct? MR.BOSI: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I was getting at. So,Bruce,when—between now and the next few months,you've got a lot of discussions that apparently you're going to have to have,especially as a result of that cost-sharing agreement. If you get through all those and this coffee shop issue,we can address it at that time when we've got the PUD and all the issues resolved,because it will probably come in the same discussions with those issues. That's my suggestion at least. MR.ANDERSON: And,staff,correct me if I'm wrong,there is some confusion or doubt whether a fast food restaurant with a drive-through includes a coffee shop in the first place. MR.KLATZKOW: Is the issue the traffic? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I think the issue—well,the issue is the traffic and the intensity that the residents believe is going to be there if a drive-through is involved. MR.KLATZKOW: They don't want a McDonald's,for example,because that generates a certain level of traffic. A different type of drive-through would be less intense. I don't know,maybe like a Starbucks would have a less intense drive-through business than a McDonald's would. So rather than trying to figure out coffee shops or bagel shops,whatever else,base it on traffic. If the concern of the drive-through is to generate the traffic,your limiter could be the traffic. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the TIS was done on the shopping center criteria for the retail component,and rm not sure that differentiates out coffee shops,but I think they're included necessarily in that retail component calculation for a shopping center. But we can—that's another opportunity the applicant can come back with when they come back in a couple of months or so. And I--one of my favorite places is Starbucks. But I can tell you they have more--they have as much,if not more,traffic than a McDonald's. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: More. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They back them up. And the ones I've attended in Ohio,they go around the building out in the road sometimes. So I can understand the concern,but I think it needs to be addressed,and I think that's something you can do over the next two to three months. MR.ANDERSON: Thank you,sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anything else you wanted to say in rebuttal? MR.ANDERSON: No,sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And with that,anybody on the Planning Commission have any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll close the public hearing and entertain discussion and then motion. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you have something you wanted to say,Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Discussion. I am not going to vote for this amendment to add this 50,000 square feet. I think this developer came in,he knew it was 150,000 square feet,he decided—which is fine,his prerogative,to put in a mini-storage. And I think he should—he has,I believe, 70-some thousand feet or whatever to work with,and I feel that he should live within his 150,000 square feet. I don't think we need this amendment. Page 25 of 29 February 16,2017 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,nobody really needs an amendment. But the neighborhood could use the amendment to fix what wasn't fixed before. Right now they could have a restaurant with a--like Stevie Tomatoes right up against that preserve area right near the residential. On the PUD level,when this comes back,the neighborhood will have the opportunity to take a look at all those and request certain limitations where they're placed. For example,I heard in the NIM audio and I read in the minutes that the neighborhood—that the argument put forth by the applicant was that there would be less intense uses along that north side. Well, guess what? We need to spell that out. Here are the uses along the north side.That's going to protect you. Keeping those uses along—the more intense uses along Vanderbilt Road will help you. Those are the things that aren't in there right now. And if they don't go in there and we just walk away and say,okay,you live with the 95-,you get 50,000,55,000 more square feet,you could put a—you can put that kind of use,the intense uses,anywhere on that property because that's the way--and I have read the PUD carefully. That's the way the current PUD says. So,honestly,to your best benefit,these kind of discussions at the next level—and it doesn't mean anything today that we do is locked in stone.All it means,it's allowing it to get to the next level to be discussed. That's your best opportunity to fix all this,including the cost sharing,which wouldn't be opened up for a public discussion without this happening. So to stop it today,I think,would be a detriment to the neighborhood. To look at it again in two or three months,and then if some of these things aren't worked out,it can be stopped then.But right now it's too premature to do that,and I would highly recommend that this board consider the changes on the screen in red and the additional cross out of the"except coffee shops only,"and we proceed to allow transmittal to take effect that way to the Board as a recommendation and then deal with the rest of these issues when it comes back on adoption and PUD,so... COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mark,I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that,is that a motion,Patrick? Or,first of all,does anybody else have any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then is that a motion,Patrick? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I think Stan wants to make the motion. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'll make it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Go ahead. Somebody needs to. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'll approve—make a motion to approve the transmittal with all the— CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The clarifications we just made? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Karen;seconded by Stan. Further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor,signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 4-1 with Ms.Ebert dissenting. Okay. Thank you-all very much. This is going to go to the Board of County Commissioners next, and it will come back for adoption in the PUD rezoning down the road. Corby? MR.SCHMIDT: Mr.Chairman,something to mention. Because the staff report,I believe,and Page 26 of 29 February 16,2017 hearing notices,maybe even the signage posted on the property,indicates a county board meeting date for this,I wanted to put on the record that that date has been moved. I believe it was March 28th.It's been moved to the April board date,their first meeting in April,not something in March. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But that will—the sign will be changed for the correct dates? Yes, Mike's saying. Okay. With that,ladies and gentlemen,thank you-all for your input today. We'll look forward to hopefully seeing this work out a little bit better by the time we come back in two or three months. MR.ANDERSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that gets us to the--back to our agenda,which we have new business,there's none listed,and there's no old business. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Wait,wait,wait.Can I add a new business item? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure,as long it's not one that requires a motion. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: No,a comment.When I get my electronic submittal,985 pages,okay-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I get mine electronically,thank God. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: --a lot of those pages,I mean,the last 500 could have probably been put down to a couple dozen,but this--usually they're in folders and I can look and see,hey, you know,this is starting to get repetitious,but this time they were all consecutively numbered. So I had no choice but to go looking through,you know,to see,God,when does this end? And,you know,at a certain point you drop to the very back and start working backward,and everything kind of looks the same. They didn't put it into folders this time.They usually do. This is the first time I've ever gotten this just all thumbnails. And even then it seems like rather than seven of us going through and pulling out redundant pages and saying,hey,you know,I've seen this before,I've seen this before,rather than seven people doing that separately,it seems like maybe a staff member... I'm used to a certain amount of redundancy. I'll see the same page in there four and five times,you know;no big deal,but this time was just a little much. And,you know,practically a thousand pages. You know,I'm glad I don't have paper copies. There's a lot of dead trees in there that just didn't need to die this time,and the poor bastards got sacrificed. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Did you get that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bleep some of that wording out,will you? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Asterisks. MR.BOSI: Stan,I spoke with the Chair as we were doing the packets,and the Chair had indicted to me basically to provide a memo that there was X number of objection letters,that there are form letters,that they basically were signed by the individuals,and that I was going to maintain the hard copies on file but to just give you a memo and an example of what the objection letter was. The printed material had already been--as I was engaged in this conversation,the printed material had already been done by our efficient administrator over within Comprehensive Planning. The next time you will have that where we won't provide 593 copies of the same objection letter that are signed by different individuals. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I know. MR.BOSI: We'll convey the number,but we won't provide all-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: The same picture of Einstein Bagels over and over,you know. But even then,at the start,the first 400 pages have a lot of redundancy in them on every project. And, you know,if somebody could just--you know,I don't mind seeing something a couple times,but three,four, five times the same page takes a lot of,you know-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only thing I'd like to add to Stan's comment,though,is that if you're going to do that,that's fine,but I'd like to be able to say I've got the letters from all these people. If you give me a sample letter,I don't know how many people I really got a letter from.At least leave it available electronically. MR.BOSI: Yes. Page 27 of 29 February 16,2017 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if we want to connect up,it's at the Planning Commission's site;we can look at them all. Fd rather stand here and tell these people I saw and read their letters. Even though they're redundant,I know there's a whole pile of signatures there,so that would be nice. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: If it's in a folder,separate electronic folder,but this time they were all consecutively thumbnailed,you know,so you just had to look at every one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well,that segues into a nice old business thing. I had asked years ago to please consider,Planning Commission members,converting to electronic,and I got nowhere with that at the time. I certainly wish you would consider it again. Some of the boards in Collier County are already turning to all electronic processing,and it saves all this. No one—this is such a government waste to prepare these,compile them,copy them,and,you know,they're not getting any smaller. So there's a few of you that,if you—if there's some way you could take a flash drive like Stan's suggesting,please call Judy Puig and let her know,then we're killing less trees,and we're doing a lot of things that are saving the taxpayers money,so... COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Go ahead. MR.SCHMIDT: We could flip the approach.Everyone gets the electronic versions. If you want to put your hands on a paper copy,we'll make one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,that's probably something—yeah,that's even a better way. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: New-guy question. So the flash drive,instead of getting this delivered,you get a flash drive delivered in the same kind of time frame and you just download it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan,I,and Joe,do that,and we use our computers,and it works just great. And if more of you could convert to that,that would really save us a lot of effort,so... COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Okay. I'm happy to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well,maybe Judy can poll everybody again one more time,and that way you haven't got to find her number. She can just—I know Judy watches these. So,Judy,please email the commissioners who get hard copies and ask them if they would consider electronic.And if they don't, please tell us at the next meeting so we can harass them. COMMISSIONER EBERT: No,Mark;I will stay with paper copy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There we go. I'm just kidding,Diane. You know that. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I know that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know how you are. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: No,he's not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That gets us through old and new. There's no members of the public left,so I doubt if we could have public comment. And is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Motion to adjourn. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Patrick,seconded by Stan. All in favor,signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're out of here. Thank you. Page 28 of 29 February 16,2017 ******* There being no further business for the good of the County,the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11:10 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ti\i'I tki4 MARK STRAIN.CHAIRMAN ATTEST DWIGHT E.BROCK,CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on Al' - 'I ,as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S.LEGAL SUPPORT,INC.,BY TERRI LEWIS,COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. Page 29 of 29