CCPC Minutes 05/04/2017May 4,2017
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Naples, Florida, May 4,2017
LET lT 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 Govemment Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain
Patrick Dearbom
Diane Ebert
Edwin Fryer
Karen Homiak
ABSENT: Stan Chrzanowski
Joe Schmitt
ALSO PRESENT:
Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager
Eric Johnson, Planner
Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attomey
Tom Eastman, School District Representative
Page 1 of29
AGENDA
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 9:00 A.M.,MAY 4, 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—April 6,2017
6. BCC REPORT-RECAPS
7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
8. CONSENT AGENDA
9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. PL20160000183: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier
County, Florida, amending Ordinance No. 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County
Land Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for
the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, by amending the appropriate zoning
atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real
property from the Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict of the Bayshore Drive Mixed
Use Overlay District of the Residential Multi-Family-6 Zoning District (RMF-6-
BMUD-NC) and the Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict of the Bayshore Drive
Mixed Use Overlay District of the Commercial Intermediate Zoning District (C-3-
BMUD-NC) to a Residential Planned Unit Development Zoning District for the project
to be known as Mattamy Homes Residential Planned Unit Development, to allow
construction of a maximum of 276 residential dwelling units on property located in the
northwest quadrant of Bayshore Drive and Thomasson Drive in Section 14,
Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida consisting of 37+/- acres;
and providing an effective date. [Coordinator:Eric Johnson,AICP,Principal Planner]
Note: This item is being continued to the May 18,2017 CCPC meeting:
B. PDI-PL20160000404: A Resolution of the Collier County Planning Commission for an
insubstantial change to the Wolf Creek RPUD, Ordinance No. 2007-46, as amended,to
add a preserve exhibit that revises the preserve configuration for Parcels 3B and 9 only,
for property located on the north side of Vanderbilt Beach Road, approximately
one-half mile west of Collier Boulevard, in Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26
East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 189± acres. [Coordinator: Daniel J. Smith,
AICP,Principal Planner]
C. CU-PL20130000320: A Resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County,
Florida providing for the establishment of a conditional use to allow a facility for the
collection, transfer, processing, and reduction of solid waste and an accessory use
of incidental retail sale of processed horticultural material within a Rural
Agricultural Zoning District with a Rural Fringe Mixed Use Overlay-Receiving Lands
(A/RFMUO-Receiving Lands) pursuant to Subsection 2.03.08.A.2.a.(3)(c)iv. of the
Collier County Land Development Code for property located at the northeast
quadrant of the intersection of U.S. 41 East and Riggs Road, in Section 20,
Township 51 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Eric
Johnson,AICP,Principal Planner]
10. NEW BUSINESS
11. OLD BUSINESS
12. PUBLIC COMMENT
13. ADJORN
CCPC Agenda/Ray Bellows/jmp
May 4,2017
PROCEEDINGS
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Good moming, everyone. Welcome to the Thursday, May 4th meeting of
the Collier County Planning Commission.
If everybody will please rise for Pledge of Allegiance.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. If the secreta4r will please do the roll call.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. Good mornrng.
Mr. Eastman?
MR. EASTMAN: Here.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Chrzanowski is absent.
Mr. Fryer?
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Here.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ms. Ebert is here.
Mr. Strain?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ms. Homiak is here.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Schmitt is absent.
And, Mr. Dearborn?
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Present.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Thank you. Just forthe record, Mr. Schmitt and Chrzanowski noted that
they had family matters they had to attend to today, so they couldn't be here. So that's an excused absence.
That takes us into the addenda to the agenda. We had three items on the agenda. We've had a request
for two continuances, which I'll read, and then ask for a motion.
The first request is for 98. It's the Wolf Creek PUD to be continued to May l8th. That's
PDI-PL2o I 60000404.
ls there a motion to continue that?
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Made by Patrick.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second byNed.
Discussion?
Bruce?
MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, we had asked that that be continued to June l.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It came through. It's on our agenda for May. We can change that to June.
MR. ANDERSON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Heidi, can we go straight to June at this date, or do we have to
re -- continue it to the next meeting and then the next meeting, do it twice, or can we just do it once?
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: No. You can continue itto June.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Because then I know the next one's being requested that, so we'll
just double check.
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So will the motion maker hold his motion for a moment?
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. The next -- that particular item, Item 98, was being requested now
to be continued to June lst. Now, is there a motion for (sic) continue to June lst?
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Again, the same motion maker and second. Discussion?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
Page 2 of 29
May 4,2017
COMMISSIONER FRYER: How many items willthatthen put on June l?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, a lot. We're going to talk about that in a minute.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: What is the second one that they want to put off till June? You said
Wolf Creek. What's the --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the first one -- we're going to take them in order. The first one is
Wolf Creek, and we're asking for -- we made a motion to continue that to June lst. Is that - now I'll call for
the vote.
All those in favor, signi! by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: AyE.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion canies 5-0.
The next one, to answer your question, is Item 9C, and it is being requested to move to June I st. It's
CU-PL20130000320, and it's for the Waste Recovery -- solid waste and accessory recovery horticulture
material processing center on Riggs Road and U.S. 41. So the request is to June lst as well. Is there a
motion?
COMMISSIONEREBERT: I make a motion to continue.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: [s there a second?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Diane, seconded by Karen. Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Allthose in favor, signifu by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye.
COMMISSIONEREBERT: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: AyE.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Motion carries 5-0.
Now, Planning Commission absences, and this is where we're going to discuss some upcoming dates
and talk about the June I st meeting. First of all, our next meeting is, what, 14 days from today, the I 8th of
May. Does anybody know if they're not going to make it on the l8th?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then we'll assume we have a quorum forthe lSth.
But then the June lst meeting is the one after that, and because of the Board's upcoming vacation
over the summer months, a lot of cases are trying to get on the last meeting the Planning Commission will
have before those can get to the Board before they leave. And so June I st has been backed up as a result, and
there were at six or seven, maybe eight at the time, and now we've just moved a couple more.
I looked at a lot of those. Some of them may resolve quickly; some may not. We can certainly plan
on being here the full day on June lst, which probably we normally would break around 4:30 or 5:00. Staff
has asked : we did talk, Mike Bosi and I, about a backup date in case June lst has to roll over to another
date.
This room is open on June 5th or June 7th. So I needed to get a weigh-in from the Planning
Commission members who are here on the June 5th date.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mr. Chairman?
Page 3 of29
May 4,2017
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I just sent you an email. I will not be here on June lst. Ofthose
two days, June 7th would work better for me.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ned?
COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm available both days.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Diane?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRATN: Tom?
MR. EASTMAN: I'm available.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karen?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: That's fine with me.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I don't -- either day I can -- we'll work with. So let's just -- since we
know we have a quorum on the 7th because everybody's acknowledged they can be here, we'll go with the
7th, Ray. So if you could book this room for the 7th, we'll start at our normal time; if we have to.
Now, on June 1st we may find that some of the cases move faster, and we can get through them all
that one day; if we can, that will be fine, too.
That takes us to Item 5 on the agend4 which is approval of minutes. The set of minutes that were
distributed were April 6th,2017.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Motion made by Karen. Seconded by?
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By NEd.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Allin favor, signifo by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Motion canies, 5-0.
And that takes us to BCC report and recaps, Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes. For the record, Ray Bellows. The Board of County Commissioners did not
hear any land use items at their last hearing.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
I don't have any chairman's report for today, and there are no consent items, so that moves us past 7
and 8.
*++We'll move directly into 9. Our first and only advertised public hearing today is 9A. It's
PL20 I 600001 83. It's for a PUD in the Bayshore overlay, Mattamy Homes Residential Planned Unit
Development on Bayshore and Thomasson Drive.
All those wishing to testif, on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the couft repofter.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Before we go too far, I notice there was a lot of people in the audience. The only case we'll be
hearing today is the Bayshore case that we just started. The other two have been continued to June I st. So if
you're here waiting for either the Riggs Road Recycle Center or the Wolf Creek Planned Unit Development
insubstantial change, neither of those items are on today's agenda any longer. They've been moved to June
I st.
So that takes us, then, to disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission for Item 9,{. We'll start
Page 4 of29
May 4,2017
with Tom at the right.
MR. EASTMAN: None.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Ned?
COMMISSIONER FRYER: I had communications with Mr. Yovanovich.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Diane?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah, just staffand - just staffatthis point.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. And I spoke with Richard Yovanovich and Wayne Amold. I don't
believe -- I have no communications with staffon this.
Go ahead, Diane (sic).
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I spoke to Mr. Yovanovich.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Patrick?
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Nothing to mentron.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we'll move right into the issue.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: This gentleman has his hand up.
MR. KRIST: I just have a quick question.
CFIAIRMAN STRAN: You'll have to come to the mike; identifo yourself for the record. This is a
little out of order, but I'm trying to convenience you, so...
MR. KRIST: I apologize. My name is Gary Krist. I live on Riggs Road; 11053 Riggs Road.
We understand now that we've been postponed. We were never notified by mail or anything, or
nobody in the neighborhood has been. All the signs for this meeting are obstructed by view. Nobody's able
to see them.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Well -
MR. KRIST: One of the signs has actually even been taken down; therefore, there's a lot of people
that would normally have been here and are not here to represent themselves because they had no way of
even knowing that this was happening.
Now, I understand that we've been postponed. I truly believe that whosever in charge here should be
required to send out letters to all these people to let them know that there is going to be a hearing.
CTIAIRMAN STRAN: Well, okay. Let's take your issues one at a time. Who's the planner for the
Riggs Road. Eric? Would you, between now and the next meeting, make sure everything's posted correctly?
I know you normally do tha! but if the gentleman feels it's not been posted on the site correctly, let's just
make sure it is.
MR. KRIST: I have photos.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Sir, we don't want to go that far yet until the hearing. So let me just try
to clear up some of your issues.
We'll get the - this is actually opportunity, then, to get this fxed between now and the lst. The
applicant can make sure that the people are -- or the staffcan make sure that every notification required by
law has been established. That will now be done. You will actually have more time now to reach out to
people who may not know. There is a certain radius that has to be notified outside the property. They're not
legally obligated to notifu beyond that. So we can only impose the law.
MR. KRIST: I understand.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So whatever that is, I'm asking the planner to double-check to make sure it's
done properly. And so between now and the lst, it provides another opportunity to make sure everybody gets
heard, and that's the best I can help you with today.
MR. KRIST: No, that's absolutely fine. As long as we can get notification out to people properly.
We appreciate it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll look forward to your discussions.
MR. KRIST: All right. Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Thank you.
Okay. Now we'll move into presentation by the applicant on the Mattamy Homes project.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Good morning, members ofthe Planning Commission. Rich Yovanovich on
behalf of the applicant this morning.
Page 5 of29
May 4,2017
With me today arc several people: Matt O'Brien from Mattamy Homes; Wayne Amold from Grady
Minor & Associates; Mike Delate fiom Grady Minor & Associates; I think Jim Banks -- there he is. Jim
Banks is our traffic consultant, and he's here on the project.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: So what position is he?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Today he is here as a traffic consultant, but he may offer some marketing
advice if we need him.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Our civic responsibilities and things like that. We would expect that.
MR. YOVANOVICH: He's a Renaissance man and capable of testifoing to a lot of different things.
I'm going to put on the visualizer - I think I got the right direction - an aerial showing the location
ofthe property. The property is approximately 37 acres in size. It's at the comer ofThomasson and
Bayshore. And you know I'm directionally challenged, and I'm really directionally challenged on that part of
town. So I don't know what quadrant of that comer it is, but it's -
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Northwest.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. I thought so. I didn't want to take any chances.
The property used to be developed with ar apartment complex that was razed a few years back.
There were 200 apartrnents on the property at the time. And the property is within the Bayshore overlay and
is intended to be redeveloped.
The existing zoning on the property -- |ll put a map up real quick for you - is both RMF6 for the
majority and C3 for a portion ofthe property.
The request is to rezone the property to a residential PUD on behalf of Mattamy Homes. Mattamy
Homes is currently developing in Warm Springs and is committed to developing in Southwest Florida.
They're a large home contracting developer and are committed to Southwest Florida and, in particular, Collier
County for future development options.
The request is to - the PUD would allow for up to 276 units. The PUD is a typical PUD that allows
for the full range of options: Stand-alone single-family, attached villas, multifamily. And Mattamy Homes is
going through focus groups right nov/ to finalize what options they will ultimately develop on the property.
Under the existing zoning, we would be allowed up to 214 units, so we will need 62 units from the
density pool that was established through the development ofthe Botanical Gardens, and I believe there are
388 units ofpotential density out there. I don't know ifany ofthose units have been specifically called for.
We'll go through some chaages in the PUD, but one of your staffcomments and conditions was that
we only get those 62 units for a seven-year period, and if we don't use them by then, we have to have those
renewed, and we'll show you how we incorporated that into the PUD.
The request is consistent with the overlay requirements. We're required togo toaPUD if we want to
use the density bonus units, we're required to do market-rate housing, which we're doing, and there are a
couple of other requirements. We're limited to no more than eight units per acre. We're at 7.46 units per acre.
So we're consistent with the requirements ofthe overlay applicable in the Future Land Use Element
to this property.
We've had multiple presentations to the CRA advisory board and did double duty by having that
same meeting serve as our neighborhood information meeting for the property. We've believe we have
addressed all ofthe comments or concems that have been raised through our public outreach and not aware at
this point of any - any objections to our project fiom residents. And, obviously, your staff is recommending
approval with certain recommendations that I'll take you through in a moment as to what our position is on
those recommendations, and then I'll take you through some changes to the PUD that we've made based upon
discussions we've had with members of the Planning Commission. Ard we've incorporated those comments
into the PUD and are prepared to answer any other questions that may come up as we go through the public
hearing today.
So let me - let's go through changes to the - let me first highlight for you, we agree with - ofthe
eight recommendations from your staffregarding the approval ofthe projec! there are only two that we don't
agree with. The first one is we would like the ability to have an interconnection with the Windstar
community if the Windstar community agrees to an interconnection.
Your staffhas said that we should delete the interconnection based upon a comment that was made at
Page 6 of 29
May 4,2017
the neighborhood information meeting, and the comment that was made at the neighborhood information
meeting is at the time we did not have a formal agreement with Windstar, so we didn't have any formal plans
for an interconnection with Windstar. We still don't have an agreement with Windstar, but we may have one
in the future, and we don't want to have to come back to amend the PUD master plan to allow for that
interconnection ifwe ever reach an agreement. If we don't reach an agreement with them, obviously there
will not be an interconnection.
So we would like to leave the interconnection on the master plan, and we'll put a specific note that it's
conditioned upon reaching an agreement with Windstar.
The other comment had to do with the, basically, size ofthe porches in the front offte homes. The
way we wrote the footnote, if we have a fiont-loaded garage - and I guess the picture's worth a thousand
words. This is - in the lower left is kind of an example of what we're talking about. What we had - what we
had provided is ifwe had a liont-entry garage that was set back the required 23 feet - because you have to be
23 feet back - we would like to be able to have the porch encroach up to l5 feet.
And staff said - and we had written our condition accordingly. Staff, I believe, is saying we can
only have a porch that's 50 percent ofthe width ofthe remaining facade excluding the garage, and we don't
see the need - why having a porch along the entire front ofthe house through this example would be an
inappropriate cond ition.
So we don't agree with that condition that we'd have to limit the porch tojust 50 percent ofthe
remaining facade when you exclude the portion ofthe garage.
So, you know, by way ofexample, ifyou have a 45-foot-wide house and the garage is 22 feet, they're
saying we can only have whatever 23 divided by 2 - I think it's I l -and-a-half-foot-wide porch. And we
would like to have a porch or entry feature along the entire remainder ofthe property.
I believe they have some concems about meeting the requirements for the landscape hee that you're
required to have, and we can make it fit, and we know we're conditioned upon making it fit. If we can't make
it fit, then we can't have the reduced setback. So we know we're obligated to do that.
And over the last year or two, whenever we asked for what staffbelieves to be reduced setbacks,
they make us do an analysis to show that all the required trees will actually fit on the lot. So we know we
have to make the required nee fit on the lot in order to get this reduced setback.
So those are the two things that we didnt agree with staffon.
I want to take you through some changes to the PUD and another exhibit I have that shows kind of
where the wall will beon Pine Street. And then, I think, through these changes, Iwill have addressed the
comments I received from anybody. But if I forgot anybody -- any comment, l'm sure that will be pointed
out to me. Hopefully I didn't.
Page 2 of l0 ofthe PUD is the first proposed change. And l've highlighted inyellowforme and for
you the strikethrough to some ofthe amenity area allowed uses.
One ofthe comments was -- these are clearly intendedjust for your residents, so the need for - you
know, that it be private and intended for a use was redundancy, so we were asked to remove those words. So
we have done that in the changes to those ltems 2 and 3 on Page 2 of l0 ofthe PUD.
Questions came up through this process or discussions about how many stories, how tall are the
buildings going to be for both the townhomes and the multifamily use, so we modified the maximum
building height section of the Development Standards Table to better clarif, heights ofthe building.
So if we're going to do a one- or two-story townhome, the zoned height would be 35 feet; tippy-top
actual height would be 42 feet. If we did a three-story townhome, maximum height would be42 feet zoned
or 50 feet actual. And those same standards would apply to any multifamily product we were to do in there.
There were questions about is there a possibility that we would do a two-story 42-foot-tall
multifamily or townhome, and the answeCs no, so we tried to better clarif, the heights for both the townhome
and the multifamily based upon questions we received.
And then we clarified a footnote, No. 3, as applicable to the drainage easement setbacks to clari!
that. You know, we could go down to -- because we now do those in separate tracts. We would now -- we
would be allowed to reduce the setbacks to, basically, zero in certain places.
I don't think we made any changes on Page 4. On the master plan, as I previously noted, we added
Page 7 of29
May 4,2017
the note under the potential interconnect that if it's agreed to by Windstar HOA, we could then have that
interconnection in the location on the master plan.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: There will also be a change on the master plan if you accept staffs
condition to limit the density units to seven years. So we'll do a cross-reference to the section in Exhibit F --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: -- on that page.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I want to talk about that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's finish with the presentation first.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I know.
MR. YOVANOVICH: We did address that a little bit later in the words, so if we need to do a
cross-reference on the master plan, we're happy to do that.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Correct.
MR. YOVANOVICH: We had provided an exhibit previously that showed the cross-section of the
road. And on that we had had a - we had an actual number distance for the building setback, but the building
setback varies depending on product type, so we wanted to eliminate any confusion between that exhibit and
the master -- I mean the development standards. So instead of saying, I think it formerly said 20 feet for
building setback, wejust say "building setback" because it does vary depending upon the product type that
we may put on the property from the setback to the road.
And then on the next page, which is Page 9 of 10, that's where we modified, in 28, the staffrequest
that we make it clear that we're limited to the bonus units for seven years, and there would have to be an
extension to go beyond the seven years if we don't use the bonus units by that time. I don't want to go too fast.
Has everybody had a chance to look at that? And I believe that's all of the changes to the PUD documents.
Another question that came was -- during discussions is "what about the wall along Pine Street?"
And we prepared an exhibit, because what we intended was there would be a wall along Pine Street until we
got to the existing lake. We would then go to a chain link fence with landscaping on both sides for this
portion right here. Windstar has a chain link fence with landscaping on both sides, so we wanted to make
sure we could show by exhibit where exactly the wall would end and where the chain link fence would begin.
A question that came up during my discussion with Mr. Fryer was a question regarding EMS and
fire. There's a fire station across the street. I reached out to Mr. Summers. I think he's a little bit busy
dealing with some other things, because Dan did not get back to me when I reached out to him. But I do
know that EMS -- obviously, there's an EMS impact fee, and they'll obviously provide service to this are4
but I can't tell you what their specific plans are at this time. But I did try to get that answer.
With that, again, staffs recommending approval. I think we've provided appropriate responses to the
two recommendations that we don't agree with staffon. We are not asking for any reduction in providing the
required landscaping under the Land Development Code. We will be providing the required landscaping,
trees and all, under the Land Development Code.
And with that -- did I miss anything? With tha! t think that's an overview of what we're doing, and
we can get into any more specific questions anybody from the Planning Commission or the public may have.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any questions from the - for the applicant?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Richard, did you speak with anyone from Windstar?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Did I personally?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. Did anybody contact them?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. We had multiple meetings with representatives of Windstar.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. That was just one of the questions I had. The other thing I'm
going to ask you about is -- because I have kind of two different plans. One of the plans is from Page 379 of
459, and it shows a little different layout where you don't have the RAs towards the back towards Windstar.
So t kind of have two plans in here. What are you putting on Bayshore Drive? Is there going to be a wall, or
is this going to be a fence? What is going to be there? If this is a gated community --
MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. It is gated, and it will be a wall.
Page 8 of29
May 4,2017
COMMISSIONER EBERT: It will be a wall. And Tomlinson (sic) Avenue is also a wall?
MR. YOVANOVICH: I was just looking to see. I can't see the exhibit bu! yes, it's a wall. I wasn't
sure * did we label that on there?
MR. ARNOLD: Yeah.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. My biggest concern, believe it or not, is delay out of this
50-foot right-of-way. And the reason for it is - l'm going to pull this out ofhere. The reason for it is l've not
seen one this way before.
Your 50-foot right-of-way, you have to be 23-foot to the sidewalk. There's actually 24 would be
between the building and the sidewalk. But you have the property line starting with the utility easement
rather than after the utility easement. You also have the four foot. So ifyou had to have a 23-foot setback, l0
ofthose feet are in the utility easemen! and you have another three feet out ofthe four in the public
right-of-way. I think you could probably move that sidewalk; do something different. This does not make
any sense to me at all.
And we're having a lot of problems with landscaping going into the utilities. And I can tell
you - and I believe Mr. Fry (sic) is here, thank goodness; he does not want arything planted within
seven-and-a-half feet ofthe sidewalk. That's right on top ofthe utilities.
MR. DELATE: Good moming, Diane. For the record, Mike Delate Ilom Grady Minor Engineers.
Typically, we have a four-foot setback or, excuse me, separation between the valley gutter and the
sidewalk, edge ofsidewalk, as we've depicted in here.
To your point about the utility easemenl a public utility easement, which is typically FP&L and any
other ofthe soft utilities, ifs required by code to have 10 feet on either side ofthe right-of-way. That's where
they put their utilities.
So even if you had a 60-foot right-of-way, you'd still have a l0-foot utility easement on both sides
where FP&L and other soft utilities go.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Wett, usually a property line starts after the 1O-foot utility easement.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, it doesn't. We've never had a property come in with that configuration.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I can tell you mine does.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: We've never had, on this board, a properlr come in with a configuration
where the private utility was in the public righrof-way. It can't happen. It doesn't happen.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, I can tell you - and I did go look yesterday at -- Mattamy has
beautiful homes. Nothing against the homes at all. But I looked at these porches on the homes, and that
bothers me that they would come out another five feel because that's barely five feet without the post holding
it up.
So then, to me, you only have a l5-foot, if that's what you'd want to call the setback. And I don't
know where you're going to put this tree, because if you have that porch out there, you're going practically
right into the utility easement on this. To me this could be designed a little bit differently. ['ve not seen that.
And now we do not allow an)thing less than a 50-foot right-of-way in Collier County.
MR. YOVANOVICH: That's not what I have.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's not true. That's not true at all. I mean -
MR. YOVANOVICH: You know, it has been a few - couple month since I was here last, but I
believe I've seen where we've done 40-foot right-of-ways; we've done 5o-foot right-of-ways when we're
talking about private road rights-of-way, keeping in mind that the pavement doesn't change within the width
ofthe righlof-way. It's always the same width ofthe pavement.
In this case it's - remember, we're talking about a redevelopment projec! an infill project in the
Bayshore area where Mattamy Homes, which is, you know, a premier builder, is willing to spend a lot of
money to put in a very nice product or project in ftis are4 and these are going to be nice homes.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I understand. I went and looked at the product. That's not my
problem, Rich.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Mrs. Ebert, actually, I do recommend that there be no canopy trees in a
utiliry easement, as canopy trees are inconsistent with the use ofutility easement because theyre growing in
Page 9 of 29
May 4,2017
and interfering with the lines, and a lot of developments were getting complaints.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Heidi, did you read Page l0 of the PUD? [f you'd look at Page 10, No. 5,
landscaping, they've already addressed the issue. Staffs already approved it.
So ['m just wondering why we're talking about items that have already been addressed and they
reduced everything in that area.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Because, Mark, we're having -
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I asked Heidi.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I had read the PUD. I didn't read it while we were meetingjust now, but --
CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: But that landscape -- this isn't new; this isn't anything new. It looks like the
landscape issue was addressed with staffand the applicant when they came through the process.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's why I'm wondering why your statement -- are you against No. 5?
Are you telling -
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I just noted a concern. I'm not familiar with the landscaping trees that are in
here, but I can tell you, also personal experience, I've had issues. So if you want to approve it, I've just noted
my concern. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But the canopy trees we normally see are oaks and items like that.
None of -- the canopy trees on this list are smaller-size trees. They were purposely put on this list to
accommodate just the issue that you have experienced. And without the species that are causing the
problems and these here, I'm not sure we have a problem after it has been reviewed and approved by staff. So
that's my issue with the --
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I just made arecommendation.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah. Heidi is familiar with this. I am familiar with this getting more
and more as the communities get older, Mark.
We have several communities -- and we can even talk to Ray. We're having problems with utilities
where the tree roots -- where all this stuff is getting in there.
I believe, Mr. Mclean, now there's only 50 foot? You don't go any lower than that; is that true?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if you think it's true, Matt I'd like to tell you -- referto the code and
tell me where it that says that in the code, please.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: It's a land rights issue.
MR. MoLEAN: Yeah. We -- Matt Mclean, for the record, Director of Development Review.
We constantly do get applicants that request right-of-ways of various different widths.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes.
MR. McLEAN: And there have been several within Collier County that have been approved that are
less than 50 feet.
Most recently, I am not aware of any that have been approved less than 50, but there are definitely
several that have, and the applicants do have the right to be able to request something less than that.
As far as the street trees are concemed, my understanding of that section of the Land Development
Code is that there is one tree required per lot essentially, but that tree is not necessarily required to be in the
front yard. It could be anywhere on that particular lot.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Because I have talked to Mr. Fry on this. I've also talked to Mr.
Smith. We have several communities that are having problems. It wasn't just Heidi's community. And what
our problem is, is they're getting so narrow. And Ray knows this, too. They're getting so narrow that they're
taking everything and planting right on top of the utility easements. And it's fine for the first three, four years,
and after that we're starting to have problems. Is that true, Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: Forthe record, Ray Bellows.
Yeah, staffhas been responding to various communities'complaints of trees overgrowing.
The attempt with this petition has been addressed, as Mark has indicated, in No. 5 on Page 10. We
have a list of smaller trees that will have potentially less impact on the utilities. The attempt at trying to
derive a setback with porch in the width of the facade was another attempt to help keep the area clear for a
tree in the front yard.
Page 10 of29
May 4,2017
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, are you familiar with - since we're using Heidi's project as an
example, are you familiar with the tree situation in her project? Have you been on site? Have you talked to
the HOA?
MR. BELLOWS: Not that particular project.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I have. The trees they're talking about there are not the trees in any
U -- PUE. The trees are between the sidewalk and the curb. They're out front. They're -- what's happening is
the roots of the trees -- because the code at the time didn't, apparently, require root barriers to be put in, so the
roots are going in and buckling up the sidewalk. Had they put root barriers in, they wouldn't have had that
problem.
I don't know why that didn't occur, but that is not the issue that Diane seems to be talking about,
because she's talking about trees in PUEs.
MR. BELLOWS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: And the complaints that I'm familiar with that you seem to be familiar with,
['ve gotten, too. And there's another project on 95 l. I forgot the name of the project. They had a similar
complaint, but it was just like Saturnia Lakes. They had the trees planted in the right-of-way. So I don't
know -- I haven't received any specific to the PUE, have you?
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I have in Milano. They have trees in the utility easement, and they were
supposed to go in the street.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You -- did you - has anybody else looked at that?
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I know staffis looking at it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, who's -
MR. BELLOWS: That was the one I was referring to.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Smith -
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: That was the one I was refening to.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: -- do you have some?
MR. SMITH: Hi. Daniel Smith, Principal Planner.
Currently, we have one; Marbella. They're coming in to remove all their street trees, and that -- the
way that was set up, it was supposed to be within the sidewalk and the curb. Two or three -- or three or four
feet isn't big enough for the oaks that they had planted. They ended up putting it on top of the PUE in the
front of the house, and now they have to remove them. So that's going to be coming forward as a PDI
shortly. I think it's in its second review.
That's a similar situation like this. And we did something similar --
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Wait. You said Marbella, and they were supposed to be street trees, but
they put them in the PUE. So they're not street trees, correct?
MR. SMITH: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So they are -- basically went inconsistent with their permit or their
SDP or whatever?
MR. SMITH: Well, the PUD does allow them to move trees if there's issues, let's say sidewalks,
which it was designed for only four feet, so it was in the ongoing truth that they were going to have to move
them, regardless.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Just a point of reference. You're saying "Marbella." For those
that are here, Marbella Lakes, Marbella Isles? There's a bunch of Marbellas.
MR. SMITH: I believe it's Ma6ella Lakes that's on Livingston, that project. I think it's about 10 or
l5 years old. Something around that. Built in200612007.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Marbella Lakes was started in 2009 by GL Homes.
MR. SMITH: Oh, okay,2009; I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Dan, before we beat this thing to death about other projects, we're
specifically talking about putting a tree system in that the PUD has referenced a number -- on Page 10, No. 5.
MR. SMITH: Correct.
Page l1 of29
May 4,2017
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: - that staffhas approved. Are you saying you don't, as a staff-- member of
staff, that was a mistake? Staffshouldn't approve this?
MR. SMITH: My question is, is there was an issue regarding the applicant didn't agree with a
condition, and that was 50 percent of the porch. I do agree with that 50 percent of the porch, because if the
porch goes the whole distance to that house, you're only going to have five feet for that tree, and even the
smaller trees, that's too -- that's going to be into the utilities at that time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But they can plant the tree in the back; is that correct?
MR. SMITH: Well, no. Based on the way the PUD is set up, they have a zero-foot setback if they
have pool cages. So what I don't want to run into -
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Actually, they have a zero-foot setback if they have a --
MR. SMITH: For accessory structures.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Well - okay. Show me that, please.
He said "accessory," Eric. That's on the bottom of that standards table. What's the setback for
accessory structures? Looks like it's 10 feet.
MR. SMITH: It says zero if it's a -- next to a LME and -
CHAIRMAN STRAN: No. Doesn't it say that if it's - it has Asterisk No. 3, and Asterisk No. 3
isn't applicable to the rear setback that's listed there, or is it?
MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Chair, for the record, my name is Eric Johnson, Principal Planner in the
Zoning Division.
According to the Development Standards Table, the rear setback for accessory structures is l0 feet;
however, the rear setback for principal structures is also l0 feet, with that little note, No. 3. And if we read
on --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Eric, I read all that. I'm just trying to go back to what Dan said. Dan said
the accessory structures and pool cages could go to zero feet. Does the table say that?
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Show me where accessory structures on that table can go to zero
feet.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Accessory, no. It's the principal. It's on the principal foot back (sic).
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Right. But accessory cannot?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: But the house can?
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I guess the principal can.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: I knowthat. I'm just asking - I'm tryingto understand what staffis trying
to tell us. They said accessory structures, pool cages, can go to zero feet. Show me that on the table.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I think that the asterisk is in the wrong place. I think it's supposed to be
under the rear setback for accessory.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. So I guess, then, we'll have to deal with that.
MR. SMITH: That's what I saw an),way. It's in there somewhere.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Oh, it is in there somewhere?
MR. SMITH: I saw zero. When I reviewed --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For accessories you saw zero?
MR. SMITH: It was either accessory or the main structure was zero feet if it's an LBE, an LME.
And that was my concern because what happens is, in this case, this happens to be Bent Creek.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Dan, you've got to use the microphone.
MR. SMITH: Okay. It happens to be Bent Creek where what they're doing is they're pufiing a 30- to
40-foot canopy tree within five, six feet of the pool structures, and that's one thing I'm trying to prevent. So
we're -- it's getting limited to the space for these canopy trees. I don't want them on top of the utility
easements. Those are going to become a problem within 10 to 15 years, so that's just my concern.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: And we are changing the trees, the different -
MR. SMITH: Yeah. I'm giving a recommendation for smaller trees. But usually I have l0 feet to
work with. In this particular case, with that porch I've only got five feet, so that's my concem.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: And I know Mr. Fry doesn't want us in his utility easements.
Page 12 of 29
May 4,2017
MR. SMITH: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else got any questions?
COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have a couple.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Go ahead, Ned.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you.
A number of my concems were resolved in communications with Mr. Yovanovich, so I don't have a
lot here.
But could you - could - Rich, could you say something about what the potential interconnection
between Windstar and the proposed development would look like before an interconnection actually took
place?
MR. YOVANOVICH: As far as what would that - how would it be - it would be - it would be
gated. ls that the type of information you're asking for?
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Does it look like it's preparing for such a thing, or does it look like
there may potentially never be such a thing?
MR. YOVANOVICH: I think we're going to know relatively quickly as we go through the site
planning for the property, which will be the next step, whether or not we're ever going to reach an agreement.
I would say, if I'm a betting man, and I am, I don't think we're going to reach an agreement but, you know,
you never say never until we have to do the final site plan.
So if we get an agreement, obviously, ifs going to be a nice, aftractive, well-planned and
well-thought-out interconnection between our community --
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. I'm confident of that.
MR. YOVANOVICH: It's just we don't have one ye! so I cant even show you what the potential
would look like because, again, I think ils a - not unlikely -
COMMISSIONER FRYER: My concem is a little more about what it's going to look like before
there is an agreement. Is it going to look like we're on the verge ofestablishing an interconnection, or is it
going to look like there could potentially never be one there?
MR. YOVANOVICH: It will be -- when we're ready to go, it will be we'll either have the
connection or we won't.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay, okay. So it wont look like a potential connection if you don't
get the agreement.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Thank you.
Also, with respect to the NIM, I thought some good questions were asked there by the neighbors. lt
was a little difficult to follow, and you explained to me how that comes about, that - the tapes are
transcribed. And l'm - but it was hard for me to identifu who was speaking for the development and who
were the neighbors -
MR. YOVANOVICH: Right.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: - in some cases. So it was a little bit confusing. But having said that,
there were good questions raised in there, and so my question this morning is, have you had - or has anybody
on behalf of the developer had contacs with the folks in Windstar - this was six months ago -- so within the
last six months to see if-
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: - to see if the changes you've made are satisfactory to them?
MR. YOVANOVICH: I think our last actual meetings with Windstar were in February, so they're
aware. I can assure you that the residents of Windstar are active. And I don't mean that with any d isrespect.
I mean, they watch out for what's happening in their community, so they're aware of what we're doing and
what we're proposing. And I think ifthey didn't tike what we were doing, they'd be here in droves.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: So tlrey potentially could be here this moming; could they not?
MR. YOVANOVICH: They may be. l'm pretty sure I know most of the people I've dealt with at
Page 13 of 29
May 4,2017
Windstar. I don't see them, but that doesn't mean they're not here.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Thank you. That's all I have.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Patrick?
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mr. Chairman, one quick follow-up question. So you keep
mentioning Windstar, and I know CalAtlantic is in there building multifamily. lt sounds to be - could be
potentially similar type properties within Windstar. I think they're the last new construction within Windstar's
development.
Have there been communications with CalAtlantic as a potential - Ijust - I don't know, but I can't
imagine them being super thrilled.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Wetl, CalAtlantic -
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I think it's Regatta Landing is what they're building there.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And ifs not actually within Windstar. It is a separately zoned piece of
property that reached an agreement with Windstar for interconnection, and - so what happened was that
project, who I know a little bit about since I actually worked on it. That project is - it's a separate project.
The issue really pertained to boat docks on that one, and Windstar and CalAtlantic reached an agreement as
to an interconnection of the projects. Although it's not within the Windstar PUD; it is within the Windstar
HOA. So that was all reached out. Have I had any conversations with CalAtlantic about this? I have not.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Thank you, sir.
MR. YOVANOVICH: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me go back to the PUD for a couple questions.
On the Development Standards Table, one ofthe questions I wanted to ask you -- as soon as you
want to pay attention.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm paying attention, I promise you. I can multitask.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: He can't tellyou up or down, but he's multi -
MR. YOVANOVICH: I can't tell, yeah, north, south, east, or west.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I dont want to be talking to your back while you're talking to somebody
else, so ifyou'd like -
MR. YOVANOVICH: I apologize.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under the accessory structures, the minimum rear yard setback is listed as
l0 feet, but under the principal structures, you have an asterisk that allows it to go to zero feet for the
principal, which is kind ofodd because generally your accessories are what go to the rear yard, and your
principals don't. Are you wanting to change those asterisks, or are you willing to - are you intending to live
by how that could be interpreted?
MR. YOVANOVICH: And I thought what I had said, which I probably didn't say, was that we need
to have a footnote that would allow both to go up to the landscape buffer.
CHAIRMAN STMIN: Well, you have a footnote. You just need an Asterisk 3.
MR. YOVANOVICH: fught. I need to do that.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah. He put it on the drainage easement, and the rear are all :
MR. YOVANOVICH: We need to add that.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: I know. And I was just going to say what Heidi said for me. You put it on
the -- in the example you showed us, you did it only on the one below the rear yard setback. You really want
to put it on the rea-r yard setback one, don't you?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay.
MR. YOVANOVICH: That was exactly the conversation Mr. Amold was telling me I needed to
clarifo before you asked the question. So he's going to pick my lottery tickets now that he can read your
mind.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On the staffrecommendations you have issues with No.2, and the other
one was No. 6, the potential interconnection. I think the interconnection; we've talked a little bit about. But I
Page 14 of 29
May 4,2017
have a question on No. 4 and No. 7.
In No. 4 you're asking -- you've asked for a deviation, but staff is saying Deviation 3 must be updated
to include a 15-foot-wide Type D buffer as minimum required where adjacent to right-of-ways, but No. 7
says the Type B buffer will be along Pine Street. Those two seem -- and, Mr. Sawyer, can you tell me if Pine
Street is a right-of-way. Just nod your head "no" or "yes."
MR. SAWYER: (Nods head.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, it is.
Mr. Johnson, why would we want a different buffer on 7 if it conflicts with No. 4, or does it? Can
you explain that?
MR. JOHNSON: For the record, Eric Johnson.
Mr. Chair, No. - Conditions of Approval 6, 7, and 8 were, what I fel! commitments that were made
by the petitioner at the neighborhood information meeting.
Mr. Arnold, at the NIM, said that they were - with respect to No. 7, that they were pretty committed
to having a wall be placed on the - along the west property line along Pine Street, so --
CHAIRMAN STRAN: It's not the wall. It's the reference to a Type B buffer where No. 4
references a Type D buffer. I just don't understand which one they would use -- supposed to use there. It
looks like a Type D, but it says a Type B. Wayne?
MR. ARNOLD: Mr. Strain, if I might, I'm Wayne Arnold, for the record, professional planner with
Q. Grady Minor & Associates.
And the reference to a Type B buffer, I think, is just simply a clarification. Under your code, a Type
D buffer does not necessarily require a hedge or any other opacity other than trees. And in this case, since we
were making a commitment to the wall for at least the portion of Pine Street between the like and southem
boundary, the wall in itself would create the opacity that's normally associated with a Type B buffer.
MR. JOHNSON: And, Mr. Chair, if I may continue.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure.
MR. JOHNSON: Okay. From what I understand, the code requires a Type D buffer, and Mr.
Arnold has said -- or I don't know if he said this, but the master plan proposes a Type B buffer, B as in bravo,
which implies that it's a greater deal of landscaping.
The Condition of ApprovalNo. 4 was something that Mr. Smith was proposing. And so if you have
any questions specifically about the wording in No. 4, I would have to really defer to him.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wel[, I'd like to know what the required buffer is along a right-of-way, A,
B, C, or D.
MR. SMITH: Daniel Smith, Principal Planner.
A D is required along the right-of-way; a B is actually more intense. So if they're going to -
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no. Let's stop there.
MR. SMITH: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: The required buffer along the rightof-way is D.
MR. SMITH: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: The applicant is - Transportation has knowledged by a nod that Pine Street
is a right-of-way.
MR. SMITH: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So they have to put a D buffer in.
MR. SMITH: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But staffs recommending a B buffer, but then where is the deviation to go
from a D to a B? They're asking a deviation to put the D buffer from 20 feet to 15, but I see no deviation to
go to the different buffer that's required by code.
MR. SMITH: They don't have to go to it because a B is considered a more intense buffer. So if you
just say it's going to be a D, that's fine, but during the NIM, from what I gathered from Mr. Johnson, they said
they would be willing to do a B. They don't need a deviation for a B.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Can you show me where in the code it says they don't need a
deviation to change the code? Because normally we ask them for those deviations. Do you --
Page 15 of29
May 4,2017
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows, Manager with Zoning.
The idea that there is an enhanced buffer over the minimum code requirements, we don't typically
ask for deviations for.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if you're -- they're required to put a D buffer along all right-of-ways but
they want to decide to put a B buffer in, we don't need any change to the code? Even though the code doesn't
specifically say that, it's an allowed deviation by right?
MR. SMITH: Let me answer that, please.
The code is a minimum D buffer. Anything above and beyond that they can do. So it's -- so
everything that has to do with these buffers are code minimum. tf you go above and beyond those -- and in
this case they're even talking about a wall which, with a wall, shrubs, whatever, it's up to us to make the
determination it meets those opacity standards.
So a D has a particular opacity standard. A B has a more opacity standard. As long as they're
meeting that minimum code D buffer, we're good; and they're proposing to do a B.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then why are we asking them to deviate from the width of the D
buffer in the deviation?
MR. SMITH: Because the code requires a 20-foot-wide because that's the way the code is. Anything
over 1 5 acres requires a 20-foot area. They want to go down to a I 5.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it's required to have a 20-foot area if it's a D buffer, but if they want to
go to a B buffer, it's considered an enhancement to a D, but it's not required to have a deviation, but it's not as
wideasaDbuffer?
MR. SMITH: No, no.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -
MR. SMITH: A 2O-foot's required regardless. One deviation is just to -- is to go from 20 to l5 feet.
That's one deviation. Now --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Even though the B buffer says it's 1S-foot wide, you're telling me that
20-foot's required regardless?
MR. SMITH: Anything over 15 acres, 20-foot is required.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the part of the D buffer that applies to the width is what we focused on
for the deviation -
MR. SMITH: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- but they can switch to a B buffer that's 15 feet and doesn't need a
deviation, and that's okay?
MR. SMITH: The B buffer plant material, that's what we're concentrating on.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Well, no. I'm concentrating on the language in the code. I'm sorry; I don't
read just the plant material. You're a landscape fellow. You like to look at the landscaping. I understand
that. But I'm trying to match this up to understand how we got here.
MR. SMITH: Right. How we got here is we're looking at code minimums. Code minimum is a D
buffer; 20 feet. They're asking for a deviation to go to 15 feet. They're going to do something above and
beyond what a D is, which is B buffer plant material. Forget about the 15 feet. That's a different situation.
CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we say a D buffer with B buffer plant material? Something to
tie it back to the code then.
MR. SMITH: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know how you -- I don't know how we are consistent if we don't
even know how to get there. And if we say it should have been a D buffer because the code requires it but
they've agreed to B buffer plantings, I'm fine with that.
MR. SMITH: I'm fine with that, too. But the width is 15 feet.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: So the staff recommendation will be a D buffer is required, but they're
going to install B buffer plantings.
MR. SMITH: At 15 feet, correct.
CFIAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, because they've got the deviation to go from 20 to 15 for the D
buffer.
Page 16 of29
May 4,2017
MR. SMITH: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Do you know why they asked for the deviation from 20 to 15?
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Are you asking me?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah. Well, they're --
CHAIRMAN STRAN: I mean, I haven't -- I can read it.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, theirjustification was the fact that this land was cleared and so
there was nothing there to begin with, and that's why they -- that's theirjustification, because all those
apartments were knocked down.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On the recommendation under No. 2, talking about this facade, how
we count the facade, I understand the argument about the spacing. I understand the idea that we've got a PUE
out front.
As far as how you count the facade, where did we come up with the idea that we just eliminate half
the house orthe garage portion and it's not counted as part ofthe facade? Is there a section in the code you
could refer me to?
MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Strain, if I understand the issue here, it's 50 percent of the facade will exclude
the garages, and the reason for that is because wherever you have a garage,you have a driveway, and
whenever you have a driveway, you can't put a tree there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well - so we're determining what a facade is based on where a tree could
go in front of one?
MR. JOHNSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Didn't you just say that's why that portion of the facade's not counted?
MR. JOHNSON: Chairman Strain, if you want we could - I could talk more about the reason
behind the 50 percent, and we could walk through that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But if your reasoning is because of the planting of a tree, I just
want -- I'm trying to understand, are you saying that - because I can't -- I couldn't find where the front of the
house, including the architectural articulation that we've shown -- that they showed us on one of the plans
doesn't meet the requirement of a front facade. I didn't see anything in the Bayshore overlay that says you
exclude garages when you count front facade.
Now, I'm just trying to understand how we got there, not regarding landscaping; landscaping is a
whole'nother issue. But from how we look at facades, did Peter, our architect - did Peter say that the front
facade is not counted ifit includes the garage?
MR. JOHNSON: I'm not sure Peter evaluated this project because it's not commercial. And I'm
not -- look, I don't think there's anything in the code about the facade as it relates to, you know - I don't want
to say - go ahead.
MR. BELLOWS: Forthe record, Ray Bellows.
The issue isn't so much the dwelling facade as much as the accessory porch with a reduced setback
where, if the tree was to be planted, it couldn't be planted in front of the garage because of the driveway so,
therefore, where the accessory porch encroaches closer to that utility easement, the concern was there
wouldn't be enough room for even the smaller tree.
Well, granted, it can go into the back, and that would normally work in a lot of cases, but this has that
caveat that it could go to zero.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: And, Ray --
MR. BELLOWS: That's where we were concerned.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that's the argument that should have been in the staff report, not making
up a precedent-setting establishment of how we now count facades. Because regardless of the reason, we're
looking atjust the facade.
So if you don't consider half that building a facade because it's got a garage door, then somewhere we
need to set that as the policy instead of - instead of saying what we really mean, which is, if we don't put this
close enough, you're telling this board, we may have a problem making - fitting the planting in without
intruding in the PUE. Even with the new plantings that staff, I thought, approved, now you don't approve
PagelT of29
May 4,2017
them. So somehow this isn't being clearly articulated as to your reasoning to this board, and I think it should
be.
MR. BELLOWS: Understood. And we had some language worked ou! then when we started
looking at how the tree would fit within there, that's when we started trying to -
CHAIRMAN STRAN: And the focus is the tree?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it's really not the facade?
MR. BELLOWS: Correct.
MR. JOHNSON: That's correct. It's not really the facade. We had to devise a condition of approval
that was tailored to this project, because this project is what we're looking at. We're evaluating the
development standards that are being proposed in relation to how it interf,aces with the public utiliff
easement.
When this project first started, they were proposing a right-otway that was 40 feet wide with
l0-foot-wide utility easements on each side. Now it's a 50-foot right-of-way with, I believe, 10-foot public
utility easements on either side of the right-of-way.
When you have a house with the front - the front setback's 20 feet, but for the things that were
identified in the asterisk, it could be reduced to 15 feet. Well, I 5 feet to the property line, and when you have
a lO-foot-wide public utility easement within, it really compromises the space where you could have that
requisite canopy tree. And that's really all I was trying to articulate.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just - I object to the issue of you guys approaching a definition of
a facade and how we determine what a facade is as an excuse to explain a problem with landscaping. They're
two different issues, and we need to stick to the landscaping issue, not the facade issue. Because you're going
to set a precedent, and then everybody's going to come in and have issues with it. We don't want to go there.
MR. BELLOWS: I agree. For the record, Ray Bellows. Bu! yeah, that wasn't our intent, and we'll
look at that language again. And that was -- we were really just trying to address the tree issue, not the define
facade.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Well, why did staffrecommend approval forthe PUD with thatNo.
5 on Page l0 there concerning the alternative landscaping where it says it could go in the utilities in the
setback? I mean, did you -- did you not know that was part of the PUD? It's on Page 10, and it's No. 5, in
order to avoid conflicts with utilities and sidewalks, the required canopy tree for an individual lot shall be on
the following list. And I'm familiar with some of these trees. They're less intense trees. They don't get to,
like, oaks trees, which cause the problem. They have lower -- less route intensity.
So two questions: If we're looking at altemative landscaping to what the code says, does that need to
be a deviation? Secondly, the PUE that seems to be the crux -- and I hear a gentleman by the name of Mr.
Fry (sic) constantly referred to. Who's he work for?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Uti|ities.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who's he work for from stafP Does anybody on staffknow?
MR. SMITH: Eric Fey.
MR. JOHNSON: Oh, Eric Fey.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know Eric Fry. I just want to know who he works for.
MR. JOHNSON: He's approaching.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What department?
MR. BELLOWS: He's coming to the mike.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Come on up, sir. I have not - I done run into you, apparently, very
much, so I don't know you. You work for?
MR. FEY: Public Utilities under Tom Chmelik, Engineering and Project Management.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And you work on what kind of public utilities?
MR. FEY: I'm in utility planning, so all water, wastewater, and IQ.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. And where do you put wastewater, potable -- well, all the
water -- where do you put all those, your utilities, do they go in the right-of-way?
MR. FEY: Can I just stop for a moment. I haven't been sworn, so if I could take care of that.
Page 18 of29
May 4,2017
(The speaker was duly swom and indicated in the affirmative.)
MR. FEY: So I just want to clarifu. Well, go ahead and repeat your question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you put your utilities in the righGof-way?
MR. FEY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Is the public utility easement that doesn't have the water, the IQ, and the
other things you just talked about within the right-of-way?
MR. FEY: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: No. The public - the PUE is within the right-of-way?
MR. FEY: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So it's not within the right-of-way?
MR. FEY: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So what's yourjurisdiction with the PUE from your department?
MR. FEY: None.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Thank you.
MR. FEY: Okay. And if I could just elaborate. You know, the original submittal on this
application, I think, had something less than 50 feet; maybe it was 45. I made a comment on it about
supplemental CUEs. That's one of the tacks that a lot of developers have taken lately, because the issue is,
we need at least five feet for maintenance. And that's not a code provision. It's just a practical matter. So
when they ask for right-of-way reductions, we're -- I am attempting to make sure that we get sufficient space
for maintenance while maintaining our seven-and-a-half foot setback from valley gutter, back of curb.
In this case, they widened the right-of-way to 50 feet which gives us a five-and-a-half foot space
from our seven-and-a-half foot setback to the right-of-way line, which is adequate for maintenance.
Now, as far as the seven-and-a-half foot setback from center line of utility to any proposed planting,
in this case canopy trees, you know, two feet of that is going to be on the property. That's not very much.
And given the change to the landscaping list, you know, I think the concern has been addressed, and public
utilities has no objection.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Thank you. It took a bit to get there, but I appreciate it.
MR. FEY: I should have come up sooner.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: You should have asked him first.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Yeah. Well, people were using his name, and I didn't know he was here,
so...
COMMISSIONER EBERT: He's here at all the meetings.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Diane, he may have been here for 50 meetings, but if I don't know his
name, I wouldn't know that's who you're talking about.
MR. SMITH: Just if I may, the - originally they had - I believe it was a 40 or 45-foot right-of-way
they were proposing. That's when that language was submitted. Because at the time I had 10 feet to work
with between the public utility -- or the private utility easement and the home.
Well, when they changed and did not -- weren't going for the deviation, they went to 50, the next
review was now they wanted -- it was going to be a bigger right-of-way, but now the front porches were
going to be only a l5-foot setback. That only gave me that five foot. So that's when my concern was is that I
need enough room, because even with five feet, even with those smaller trees, they're still going to get a
20-foot spread. And so you're going to -- within, you know, l0 years, you're going to be removing them, and
that's -- those are issues that I just wanted to be aware -
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You're saying we're going to be removing them. Why would we be
removing them?
MR. SMITH: Because they wouldn't have any room to grow.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, you're saying "we" would be. The count5/'s not going to be.
MR. SMITH: No, no, we wouldn't. The applicant would, or the owner.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why would the county - why would the applicant -- so the applicant would
be forced to remove them?
MR. SMITH: Well, what's going to happen is they're going to grow into the home and -- or the root
Page 19 of29
May 4,2017
structure's going to go into the PUE, and it's going to be an issue that we're having with a lot of other projects.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the PUE issue is by your private utilities, correct?
MR. SMITH: Correct.
CIIAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Do you have any letters or correspondence from them that you
could provide that show they have objections to these trees that are now on this list?
MR. SMITH: No.
CIiAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Thankyou.
MR. SMITH: A lot of the stuffthat's coming down, though, that's really how they're addressing it is
the smaller trees.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So then we're back to where this list is the list that you guys prefer.
MR. SMITH: Correct; that's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Thank you.
MR. SMITH: But at the time - I'm just letting you know at the time we had l0 feet. We're down to
five feet now, so...
CHAIRMAN STRAN: So now you're saying this list that's in the PUD is not applicable because
the review of the PUD that has gotten to us is not one that incorporated this, yet, it's in the document that
came to us today?
MR. SMITH: Under the condition about the porches. Once the porches were added, now there's
concem about room for trees. So that's why we wanted to limit those porches so they don't go the complete
length ofthe house.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But your room -- your concem now is that it could go into the PUE,
but you have nothing to provide us that shows the utilities who use the PUE have a concern about these. In
fact, most of those utilities will sign offon things even like sign monuments in their PUEs.
MR. SMITH: I know they will.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So ifthey don't have a concern,I'm just wondering why we've made --
MR. SMITH: I'm definitely doing this by a landscape definition, not by utilities or anything else.
I'm just telling you from doing this for 30 years --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In Florida?
MR. SMITH: Three-and-a-half years in Florida.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Thank you.
MR. SMITH: So --
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. As far as the master plan goes, Mr. Yovanovich, the RA area that's
up next to Windstar, if that isn't used as an interconnect, is that intended to be something else?
MR. ARNOLD: If I might, Mr. Strain, let me try to address that. I'm Wayne Arnold, for your
record.
We included two potential areas for the amenity are4 and we've referred to them as either residential
or amenity, and we can only have one of those by condition of your -- of our PUD.
But the reason we put in zur amenity area closer to our northern property line was really in the event
that we can somehow make an agreement with Windstar. [n some of our communications, they talked about
if we could create an amenity area that could be co-shared since we could potentially even share one access
point on Bayshore Drive, and that's why we put an amenity there, thinking that maybe we could locate one
closer to our property line that could service both communities.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: I'm fine with that. I just wanted to make sure that I understood that that
RA, if it were to go away, it would potentially be another residential lot.
MR. ARNOLD: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On your survey -- you submitted an ALTA survey, and I asked you
to check this out when we met. There are two areas on the ALTA survey that show easements overriding the
landscape buffer.
Staffs approved the landscape buffer, but I've not seen anything or heard any,thing that says those
easements are gone, so we'd be putting landscaping on top of easements, and we just heard a long story about
that.
Page 20 of 29
May 4,2017
MR. ARNOLD: If I might let Mike Delate fiom our office address that. He's been doing the site
engineering for Mattamy and can explain to you the two easement areas in question.
MR. DELATE: Good morning again.
Yes, both those easements would be accommodated with the final land plan.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What do you mean "accommodated"?
MR. DELATE: We would work the landscape buffer around the easements.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Well, did you look at the easement on the north of the ALTA survey? [t's
quite wide, so the landscape buffer's going to be pushed farther into the project?
MR. DELATE: Yes, it would have to be, because it's a pump station there, Collier County pump
station.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not just that one. I'm talking about -- there's a rather large easement along
the entire northem edge where it borders Windstar. It looks like maybe an FP&L or something goes over
onto your property. And by scale, I mean, the plan you gave us is an electronic version of the ALTA survey,
so it's hard to determine what the scale is, but it looks like it's as wide as the potential buffer that would go
there.
MR. DELATE: I should clarifz again.
Collier County utility easements, we would avoid the landscape buffer being within that easement, as
Eric had alluded to; Eric Fye. And as you alluded to do, FP&L sometimes accommodates, depending on the
type of landscaping that's proposed, to be contained within their utility easement.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I just blew this thing up a bit so I could read it. It is a sewer easement,
and apparently to the old pump station that was on the property.
MR. DELATE: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: And that's a -- I can't tell the width because of the way this ALTA survey
was presented. But based on the LMEs and the other things that are assumed to be -- this looks to be at least
20 feet or more wide, so you would be kicking your landscape buffer that further into the property.
MR. DELATE: I don't have that ALTA in front of me to look at, but my recollection is there was an
old pump station on the site that served the apartment that, obviously, has been abandoned, and the new
layout would accommodate a new pump station. And depending whether the property is platted or not would
determine if it's eventually going to be a Collier County easement or a private pump station.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's the only thing I have on the easements. Thank you.
And I think that takes us to the end of my questions. Yes, it does. Thank you.
Staffreport?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I add one thing before we get to it?
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Yes.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Because I forget to put it in my comments.
Initially we had asked for - and I just wanted to clarifo this for the record. Initially we had asked for
a deviation from the architectural standards so we could go ahead and have Mattamy do its product type. As
we were going through that process, we were told that the architectural standards in the overlay don't apply to
this project because it's not mixed use and doesn't contain a commercial aspect to it.
So I just want to make sure -- because we did ask for the deviation. We withdrew the deviation
because staff told us we didn't need it. I just want to make sure that I don't come back as I'm now going
through the process and find out I gave something up in the deviation that I didn't need to give up.
So I just want to clarifo on the record that the architectural standards don't apply to this project and
we don't need a deviation for that.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: 4.02.16.D, building types and architectural standards: One, purpose and
intent, the purpose of this section is to supplement the revisions of LDC 5.05.08 by identifiing and providing
design standards for the building types allowed within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area.
Standards are extended to attach the same importance to overall building design as is placed on the use
contained therein and to assure proposed development is consistent with the CRA.
What happens is applicability. Each proposed building shall be designed in compliance with the
standards of this section. And then they have general architectural standards, of which there's frontages and
Page2l of29
May 4,2017
facades, and that's what -- I tried to find the facade question in regards to whether we can count the garage or
not.
But as you go on in there, under facades/treatment, building gpe, house, and then under house it
talks about some building architectural standards. Are those the ones you're not trying to - that are
conceming?
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Mr. Chair -- and we'd have to confirm with Mr. Bellows, but this request is
to go to a PUD. It doesn't retain the overlay.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And that's fine. We just want to make sure we were safe.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: So...
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you're safe untilwe find a reason you're not. How's that?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, that's why we're going to have this record.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: No, that's fine. If it doesn't pertain to the PUD, that will take it out of the
mix. We're good.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: YEs.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Richard, may I ask a question. On the recommendations, you are
going to put in that l2-inch drainage pipe; you agree to that?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. And you are putting in the sidewalk on Pine Street?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I meant it when I said there was only two.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. I'm just double-checking so it's on the record.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Staffreport?
MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir. Eric Johnson, PrincipalPlanner.
The staffreviewed the documents submitted in your packets, or an earlier version. I did want to
point out that Pages 99 through 374 arc provided for your inspection as well as public inspection on the GMD
public portal. They were not included in this packet.
I wanted to clarif Page 9 of the staff report with respect to setbacks. There's a sentence in there that
says with the exception of the front setback, staffdetermined that the proposed standards would be
comparable and compatible with the aforementioned developments and relevant provisions of the LDC.
Really, it should strike out "with the exception of the front setbacks" because the front setbacks are,
in fact comparable and compatible.
Staffwas recommending, and continues to recommend, approval of the project with the caveat that
the facades exclude the garages, and that was due to the landscaping issue that we had talked about.
There are - so with respect to Chairman Strain's question to me about the facade, you know, it was
hard to answer those questions. So if I answered yes or no to them, I take them back. But there are eight
conditions of approval, three of which were from the neighborhood information meeting, and we
squared -- we discussed those at length.
Staffsupports all three deviations that are being requested. And I'm trying to think of anything else.
Nope. That's it.
Staffrecommends approval. If you have any other questions, I'll be happy to answer.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does anybody from the Planning Commission have any questions of
staff based on the staffreport before we go to public comment?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAN: And, Eric, I think I've asked everything I needed to ask of staff.
On the staffrecommendations, the No. 6, are you still insisting it be deleted or under the provisions
that it would be referenced only as a - if approved by Windstar, would the interconnection occur -- cure No.
6?
MR. JOHNSON: Sure. This - like I said, this came about from the neighborhood information
Page 22 of 29
May 4,2017
meeting. Since this constitutes a public hearing and the Windstar folks can come out and speak either -- you
know, whatever their opinion is, really, that's just -- it doesn't matter. It's not a staffissue as to if that remains
or stays. It's really up to the Planning Commission here.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. And No. 8, I mean, I understand it came up at the NlM, but did you
inquire of Matt's group of whether or not they could even blast anywhere on that site since there is some new
provisions that occurred -- I shouldn't say they're new. They're probably eight years old -- where blasting
can't be within a certain number of feet? I think it's a 300 (sic) radius of a structure or a road, and I think most
of this site would qualifo for that.
MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Chair, no, I did not consult with Mr. Mclean on that. I just was really
reporting on what was spoken about at the NIM.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. But I mean, at the NlM, if the public knew they couldn't blast there,
then it would have probably - by code, it would have made it easier to explain. But, I mean, it hurts nothing
to leave it there. I just was curious.
Okay. That's allthe questions I have.
MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Chair?
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Yeah.
MR. JOHNSON: I hate to bring up a dead horse here, but staff is still insisting on No. 2 with the 50
percent ofthe facade.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Well, staffmay be, but I -- I can't -- I don't think your reasoning to address
it through the facade argument is correct. I think that's going to establish a precedent that everybody coming
in here from now on is going to have their facade reduced because we've determined, because of a tree
planting ability, that we can't count the facade to make sure we don't plant trees, or we do -- we have room for
trees.
To me it's the wrong approach, but if that's what you guys are going to insist on, that's fine. We'll
deal with it on stipulations.
Richard, did you have something you want to add?
MR. YOVANOVICH: We'll wait till the normal. I just wanted to address the whole planting issue
whenever it's appropriate.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Diane?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question. Is this not a PUD?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a double negative. No, it is a PUD.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. And is not a PUD -- you keep saying "preceden!" but we've
been told a PUD is individual for that particular thing.
So going back and forth, what Richard wants, this is his PUD. To make precedent from some other
one, to me, is not correct. You don't -- to me it's not a precedent. This is this PUD.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you're entitled to your opinion.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Okay.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: I would like to hear some more about the planting, and t think Richard
was going to speak to that.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Just -- at the risk of being proven wrong, I'm not aware of anything in the
Land Development Code that says a private utility easement is an exclusive easement and I don't retain rights
to still use that portion of the properly.
So I believe I'm allowed to plant my tree, or whatever if I want, in that utility area, private utility
are4 unless and until Florida Power and Light or the telephone company or whoever else comes in and says,
hey, that's inconsistent with the use of our easement.
I could tell you, I'm sure I did when I lived in Berkshire Lakes, I'm sure I planted trees within utility
easements, because it's not like it's marked on my yard that says here's where the utility easement ends.
What we're -- the trees that we're proposing to plant have been approved by your staff never with the
condition it had to be within a certain area on the property. So I think we're still allowed to plant the trees
within the utility easement area -- the public utility easement are4 not the Collier Countlz, which your staff,
Page23 of29
May 4,2017
your utiliS, person has even said he doesn't see it as an issue anymore.
So I would like to just make it clear that we're going to plant the trees. We want to have options as to
what we can develop on the property. And in order to have the potential to do single-family, we need to have
the deviation we're asking for with regard to putting the porches in, because that's the type of product we want
to put in.
With -- when you -- when you -- and we think it will be a very attractive product. And you've seen
their product, and I don't think it's going to hurt anybody by us planting a tree that may either have roots that
go into the utility easement, a canopy that goes into the utility easement, and maybe we'll even actually plant
it in the utility easement. I don't think that's going to hurt anything or degrade the project or threaten the
utilities that will always be within the underground area of that utility.
So that's what I wanted to address as far as planting. I know it was brought up by Mr. Strain about
Florida Power and Light and others having no issues with that.
CTIAIRMAN STRAN: Richard, ['ve never had them object to any of that. In fact, they make it
clear you can do that, but if they have to come through and tear it up, you might have to replace your stuff.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Absolutely. We understand that.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: And they've routinely always allowed it.
Now, on the flip side, if they were to prohibit everything in a nonexclusive easement, I'm wondering
how that might be considered a taking, then we've got another issue on our hands in property rights.
MR. YOVANOVICH: We would be talking about a whole different set of facts as to people --
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah. I'm not really concerned about the taking issue, but I want to make
sure Mr. Fryer understands the issue.
The developer plants the tree in the utility easement which, as owner, he can do as long as it's not
inconsistent with the utility use. If the FPL says it's okay, then if it becomes a problem, it's the successor
owner's problem who must remove the tree and replant somewhere on his property.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll go to -- well, let's take a l0-minute break and come back at
10:33 -- and we'll go to public speakers as soon as we come back - so court reporter can have a moment.
(A brief recess was had.)
CHAIRMAN STRAN: If everybody will please take your seats, we need to resume the meeting.
We had left off with public comment, so, Ray, do we have any public speakers registered?
MR. BELLOWS: One public speaker; Maurice Gutierrez.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Maurice, please come up. And, for the record, if you could spell at least
your last name, Maurice.
MR. GUTIERREZ: Good morning. Forthe record, Maurice Gutierrea G-u-t-i-e-r-r-e-2.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Hold on. Mr. Yovanovich had something. I'm sorry to intemrpt you.
MR. YOVANOVICH: One of the things -- t just wanted to make sure before the public
speaks -- because we had initially asked for a payment in lieu of constructing the sidewalk. Staff
recommended --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: YCS.
MR. YOVANOVICH: - against that, and we've agreed with staffs recommendation, and we will do
the sidewalk concurrent with our site development. So there's no longer a request for that payment in lieu.
That was one of the conditions we had agreed to. I just want to make sure that was clear on the record in case
anybody public was concemed about that sidewalk.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. I had asked to get that on the record just in case -- I
know Ellie - and that is one person in my disclosure I forgot to mention. Ellie Soto had called -- is that
your --
MS. McEMN: McEwin.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: McEwin. I'm thinking of 40 yean ago, Ellie; I'm sorry. Ellie had let me
know that there might have been a problem with the sidewalks, but it's been, I think, resolved.
Page24 of29
May 4,2017
So with that, Maurice, please go ahead.
MR. GUTIERREZ: Well, thank you.
Besides being a property owner, currently I am chair of the MSTU as well as the advisory board for
the CRA there.
Primarily, here to thank Mattamy Homes for the presentation. When they did their public hearing,
the public was -- I mean, we had a packed house. Really interesting, very positive comments. The questions
that were asked were good questions, not negative questions.
And just for a quick summation, the MSTU will be moving forward with the improvements on
Thomasson Drive, which primarily include sidewalks, lighting, connectivity fiom our district all the way
down to Hamilton Harbor entrance.
I want to thank Mattamy Homes for the sidewalk, because now those individual property owners on
the west side of the properly will have a connectivity to the Thomasson area.
We had a meeting yesterday, and we were expecting plans 60 percent complete, but we'll be getting
them in June. It will include a roundabout, so I think their project is really going to dovetail into what we're
doing to improve traffic flow, pedestrian crossings, and things of that nature.
The landscaping of the roundabout will be handled by the Botanical Gardens. Again, another
improvement as well as their development.
The other thing I wanted to mention, we were informed yesterday -- we have been working on a
connection bridge from Sugden Park onto Bayshore through a footpath, and that will be located almost
directly across from the Windstar entrance which puts it in proximity to this project very closely. Obviously,
an amenity and a positive note for those residents when they go.
We received a federal grant confirmed to be distributed financially in October. So the MSTU is
juggling the 3- to $4 million we'll be spending on all of the sidewalks there on Thomasson on both sides, as
well as lighting and landscaping. And we were hoping that maybe we would be able to get a little financial
assistance to complete the bridge.
We have funding of $144,000. Estimated cost, per the drawings that we have received, is about
280,000. And other than that, that's really my only request to stand before you today, board members.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, I don't have that kind of money in my pocket to give you,
Maurice.
MR. GUTIERREZ: Butyou're also --
CHAIRMAN STRAN: We're not in a -- exactions like that we moved away from those quite a
while back. And if you guys work out a private deal with the developer, that would be great. But I don't
think it's this board's position to wade into that.
So as much as I -- and, by the way, you guys do a great job. You've got a great CRA, and I've talked
to you many times. I ceftainly like what you're doing down there. I don't know how we can help you with
that kind of an issue, so...
MR. GUTIERREZ: Okay. Well, I thought it was a good public forum to request.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think that when it gets to the next forum and you request, at least it
can be discussed when they set the budgets up and things like that. Maybe there's possibilities to help there; I
don't know. I don't get involved in that usually, but I know we can't -- we wouldn't be in a position to do
much with that.
MR. GUTIERREZ: All right. Thank you. But on behalf of the board members, the CRA and
MSTU, we feel this project is fabulous, great for the community, and thank you for the support.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chairman? Excuse me, sir. Before you leave.
MR. GUTIERREZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Did I understand you to say that you reside in Windstar?
MR. GUTIERREZ: No. I live offof Bayshore on one of the single-family home side streets.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Thankyou. Thankyou.
MR. GUTIERREZ: Windstar is quite well represented on the CRA board, just for the record.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you.
Page 25 of 29
May 4,2017
CTIAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other public speakers registered, Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: No other speakers.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody in the public who has not spoken wish to speak?
(No response.)
CFIAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. With that, Mr. Yovanovich, do you have any closing comments
you'd like to provide?
MR. YOVANOVICH: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we'll close the public meeting, and we'll entertain a
motion and then discussion. Does anybody have a motion they'd like to make?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I make a --
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I make a motion to approve --
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: -- PL20160000183 with the -- with the requirements of staffon the
back of it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a second to the motion?
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Point of clarification on the motion, if I may.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: How is it intended to treat the disagreement with respect to the llont
porch?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I don't have a problem with that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So your motion is to approve but subject to everything in the
recommendations as written; is that what you're saying?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Is there a second to that motion?
MR. YOVANOVICH: I think, honestly, then the appropriate motion would be -
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Rich, we're in a motion. Close the public hearing.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand.
CTIAIRMAN STRAIN: Let us work it out. Is there a second to Diane's motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, I'll entertain a second motion.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'll make a motion to approve without the Recommendation No. 2.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's the one involving the measurement of the facades?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. A motion's been made. Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Patrick
Now we'll go into discussion. As far as the motion goes, I agree with you, I don't think there's any
provisions in the code to support No. 2 based on the way it's written. At the same time, we've had testimony
clearly to say that those easements are not exclusive in the front. They're private easements. The Utility
Department doesn't have any jurisdiction over them. They've provided no letters of objections from the
Utilities saying that these easements can't be used, as, customarily, they have been for ages.
So from that perspective, I cannot see a problem eliminating No. 2 nor supporting the staff
recommendation in the PUD that included altemative landscaping for that very area. So I think the motion's
good.
There's a couple things we might want to make sure are included. The applicant walked through
some changes that they were making. Those changes, I didn't hear any objections. They were going to add
the seven-year limitation to the bones units as well as some other changes to the Development Standards
Table.
The Windstar interconnect was going to have a reference added to it on the master plan that says it
will be subject to the approval of the Windstar community, or Windstar HOA, whatever jurisdictional agency
or group there's there, and they were going to have a - they had a wall/fence plan that -- Richard, is there any
Page26 of29
May 4,2017
objection to adding that plan to the record, or to the packet?
MR. YOVANOVICH: We can do that. We'll refer to it appropriately as the - whatever exhibit.
CI{AIRMAN STRAN: And I think that would help understand where you're putting fences and
walls and all that.
And other than that those are the issues outside of the normal textual changes that were discussed as
we went on with today's proceedings. Did you have any,thing else, Richard?
MR. YOVANOVICH: I just want to make sure we talked about putting the footnote in the
appropriate setback.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: The No. 3 will go in those two locations, rear and LME.
MR. YOVANOVICH: We'll make sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Yeah, I think that's appropriate.
Anybody on the Commission first? Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: This, I suppose, is a legal question. I assume that the private
easements in question with the utilities follow a template.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Usually they're plafted.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. So they're part of subdivision plat?
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I don't know -- you know, when they're private utility, I don't know to what
extent FPL is contacted and they get an objection. I don't know ifthey review the landscape plans or how
that --
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. So that answered my question.
So if -- if it comes to pass that a tree is planted - and I like trees. I'm all about canopy trees. But if it
happens that down the road, after a tree has been planted, it starts to encroach upon and, perhaps, obstruct a
utility, then the Utility, as part of, presumably, the easement agreement, would say, you're going to have to
take that tree down.
Now, my question is, is there an ordinance, is there a law at this point that would require the owner to
put another tree in its place if, without that tree, there was nonconformity to the canopy tree law?
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: As our LDC is currently wriften, if they don't have one canopy tree per I
think it's 3,500 square feet, then they would not be in compliance and would be required to find another spot
on their property.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Or put a tree back in the spot where one was removed. FP&L and the
utilities -- and I've dealt with them 20 years of my career, putting in plantings, monuments, and everything
else in their easements. Basically, if they have a problem but if they have to go in and do a repair, dig
something up and that tree or that monument get crushed, destroyed, it's up to you to replant it. If the code
requires you to plant another tree, you could replant in the same location.
Now, the utilities in those areas -- everything's in either -- mostly -- yeah, all of it's in conduit that
I've ever done. It's quite deep. We put in all kinds of banks and conduits for both FP&L, Sprint cable, and
places like that. I've never known a problem. I've never seen where they've ever had to come in and tear all
this out. But they have that provision in case they do, and it's a rare occasion.
So the tree issues that we seem to be having mostly are those that buckle up the sidewalks because
they're put in the right-of-way where we allow a street tree program to go in. And the canopy trees and those
street trees, most of the time, are the big oaks, and the big oaks have roots that tear them up. And that is
what's occurring on quite a few projects.
And I know, based on testimony today, they have other projects where some of the PUEs have
problems. But that's a private element. It's not a public element in regards to the -- our public utilities, so...
COMMISSIONER FRYER: I wanted to be sure that if they -- Utility exercises its private right to
cause the removal of the tree, that the obligation to replant somewhere is continuing.
CFLAIRMAN STRAIN: And it is. We have to have -- if you take out the required amount of trees,
some have got to be put back in to meet that requirement.
Is that correct, Ray?
Page27 of29
May 4,2017
MR. BELLOWS: Yes, that is correct.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Anybody else on the Commission?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Eric, then Rich.
MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Chair, are we going to bring this back on consent agenda next time or, if
not -- because I just want to make sure that I have all the corrections and updates.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Well, I don't see a need for it unless - and the way we approach consent is
if we require it, it comes back. If we don't require ig then it doesn't come back. But why don't we tackle your
questions as soon as we hear any final comments from Rich.
MR. JOHNSON: Thankyou.
MR. YOVANOVICH: My only question is, in lieu of doing a separate easement for the wall plan,
do you mind if we just add the wall plan to our master plan?
CFIAIRMAN STRAN: I don't -- as long as the walls and fence areas are shown, I think that
clarifies what you're doing where. I don't have a problem with it. Does anybody?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAN: No, we're good.
Okay. Eric, what are your questions?
MR. JOHNSON: Okay. I just really want to make sure that I have all the changes that were going to
be to the PUD document.
I know that we talked about making changes on Page 2 of 10, striking out private -- the words
"private intended," "private intended." And then on Page 3 of l0 of the ordinance, there were some changes
to the maximum building height and zoned and actual, and then we're adding an Asterisk 3 under accessory
uses, minimum rear yard setback; is that correct?
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Under minimum rear yard setback accessory, we're doing Asterisk 3, that's
correct.
MR. JOHNSON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we're leaving the Asterisk 3 underthe minimum drainage easement
setback as well. That's where it was shown originally.
Just out of curiosity, Wayne and Rich, why do you need that line under accessory for minimum
drainage easement setback when it's really covered by your rear setback; is it not? I mean, Eric, that might
just take away any confusion in regards to the - and you have it up on your principal, too.
See, No. 3 says, the landscape buffer easements shall be located within open space tracts, and it
refers to the lake maintenance easements. And there it says, the structures set back on the platted residential
lot may reduce to zero feet where it abuts the easement.
So if you have that footnote, why do you need the lines?
MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Strain, the only distinction I might make is that the lake maintenance tracts are
platted separately, and so are landscape maintenance tracts -- or landscape buffer tracts, excuse me. There
may be instances where we have a drainage easement that is not a platted lake tract.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Understand. Okay. Sounds fine. You're right. Good clarification.
Thank you.
Eric, did you have any other -
MR. JOHNSON: I think I have everything.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Good.
MR. JOHNSON: No further.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
With that, we'll call for the vote. All those in favor with the changes we discussed -- first of all, is the
motion maker and the second comfortable with the changes we just finished discussion?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. All those in favor, signifi by saying aye.
Page28 of29
May 4,2017
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye.
CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-0.
Thank you, all.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That takes us down to 10, which is new business. There's nothing listed.
l l, old business, there's nothing listed.
12, public comment. Anybody members of the public here wishing to comment today?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nobody has acknowledged. Therefore, is there a motion to adjourn?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Make a motion to adjourn.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Diane. Seconded -
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: - by Ned.
All in favor, signiff by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're out of here. Thank you.
,F***,1.+t
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of
the Chair at 10:48 a.m.
COLLIER COLINTY PLANNING COMMIS S ION
ATTEST
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
These minutes approved by the Board on as presented as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF
U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT,INC., BY
TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC.
Page29 of aq