Loading...
CCPC Agenda 07/20/2017AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 9:00 A.M., JULY 20, 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 –May 18, 2017 and June 1, 2017 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS 7. CHAIRMAN’S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance Number 04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which includes the comprehensive land regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, by providing for: Section One, Recitals; Section Two, Findings of Fact; Section Three, Adoption of Amendments to the Land Development Code, more specifically amending: Chapter Three – Resource Protection, including section 3.05.07 Preservation Standards, to amend design standards relating to off-site preserves and to modify requirements for monetary payment and land donation off-site preserve alternatives; Section Four, Conflict and Severability; Section Five, Inclusion in the Collier County Land Development Code; and Section Six, Effective Date. [Coordinator: Jeremy Frantz, AICP, LDC Manager] 10. NEW BUSINESS 11. OLD BUSINESS 12. PUBLIC COMMENT 13. ADJORN CCPC Agenda/Ray Bellows/jmp May 18, 2017 Page 1 of 53 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, May 18, 2017 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Patrick Dearborn Stan Chrzanowski Diane Ebert Ned Fryer Karen Homiak Joe Schmitt ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner Eric Johnson, Planner Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney Tom Eastman, School District Representative May 18, 2017 Page 2 of 53 P R O C E E D I N G S CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the May 18th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If everybody will please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Will the secretary please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. Good morning. Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Chrzanowski? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Fryer? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ms. Ebert is here. Mr. Homiak -- or Mr. Strain? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ooh. Don't tell anybody. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ms. Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Schmitt? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And, Mr. Dearborn? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Present. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Addenda to the agenda; I have no changes that I am aware of today. Ray, do you have anything from staff? MR. BELLOWS: No changes from staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Planning Commission absences; our next meeting is June 1st. That meeting will be, I can assure you all, most likely all day. So I need to know if -- I know, Patrick, you already have -- you're going to be out of the area, so you've got an -- COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- excused absence. Anybody else not going to be here on June 1st? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: If it's all day, I won't be here. No, I'm just kidding. I'll be here. I'm retired now. These all-day events are -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll take a little time off for lunch for you, Joe. Geritol and all that. Okay. With that, we have a quorum for June 1st. Approval of the minutes; we were electronically supplied with our April 20th minutes. Does anybody have any corrections or changes? If not, is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Karen. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Patrick. All in favor, signify by spaying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. May 18, 2017 Page 3 of 53 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. BCC report and recaps, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. The Board of County Commissioners met on May 9th, and they approved the Tollgate PUD amendment on their summary agenda. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. That one took a while to get done. There are no consent agenda items. I do not have a Chairman's report today. ***We'll move right into the first advertised public hearing. 9A is Petition PL20160002736. It's a Development of Regional Impact insignificant change for Pine Air Lakes Development. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. For disclosures we'll start with Tom. MR. EASTMAN: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karen -- or Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: See. None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have none. Oh, I did talk to staff a couple times. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Oh, yeah; staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Nothing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karen. Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Nothing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Patrick? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we'll see if there's a representative's presentation. MR. ARONOFF: Yes, Mr. Chairman. My name is Daniel Aronoff, and I represent the applicant. What we're seeking, as you described, is an insubstantial deviation. We're not seeking any change in the entitlements on the property, the use of the property. All the concurrency requirements have been met. We're simply asking for an extension of time to the extent allowed that qualifies it as a non-substantial deviation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions from the board members? Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes, I have one. How many parcels are left to be filled? MR. ARONOFF: To my knowledge -- I don't know what the individual parcel lines are, but I believe there are two or three. In addition to that, there are possibilities of redevelopment of some of the existing parcels that may lead to either an increase in square footage or a reconfiguration of square footage, that being, you know, potentially a reduction of retail and increase in office use. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: If we didn't extend the time, what would happen? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, part of the questioning I was going to have is the most logical approach would have been to ask for a resolution for a buildout on that property, because they have such little area left to build. I was going to try to get some confirmation on that today. Instead they've asked for an insubstantial change to their DRI to extend it for four years, 364 days, to be below the five-year threshold, but they're going to still have to deal with the buildout resolution. According to the record, all the commitments have been completed. So I'm not sure why -- what's to be gained by this five-year extension when a buildout resolution would have been probably just -- if not easier -- just as easy to obtain. May 18, 2017 Page 4 of 53 But that's -- that's the other alternative, I would think, Stan. And if -- unless staff has another comment on it... COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I was just curious. If we denied it, what would happen? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that they'd be good until the end of the year. I believe they've got till December 18th. Between now and then they would either reapply for whatever reason they would need to address if we denied it, or they would have to come in with a buildout resolution to get it resolved so they could go on with their local processes and not have to deal with the State anymore. MR. BELLOWS: And, for the record, Ray Bellows. If a project does not get this extension, the county would not be issuing subsequent development orders for a DRI that has exceeded its buildout time period. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: So you'd have buildable lots and not be able to build simply because you ran out of time? MR. BELLOWS: That's why they have this extension process, because their DRI is based on time frames for commitments to be done. And if they -- and I think -- I concur with the Chairman, there's a -- with a DRI this old, they could have gone to a buildout resolution as well. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But there are some questions about what actually is left to build, and it involves both the applicant and staff. The applicant came in asking for this application -- with this application. The acreage of the project is about 149 acres. And they applied for -- well, they just applied for the project, Pine Air Lakes DRI, but then staff filled out a form, and I'll get to it here. And I can tell you what page it is in our packet. It's Page 124. But in the legal description -- there are two legal description references. There is one filled out, I believe, by the applicant, and it said the following: Legal description of subject property or properties, 114925, which is your township and the other information. Then it says, see attached Exhibit A, but also after that it says, Pine Air Lakes, Unit 6, Lots 1 to 2, Pine Air Lakes, Unit 1, Tract A, and also Naples Center Village Tract 2. If you go down to Exhibit A, it's the entire project, 148 acres. And then somebody added four folio numbers for different parcels there. One is owned by or was owned by Sherborne Towers LP; TT of Lake Shores, Inc., is another; Naples Associates Limited Partnership is another; and SREG of Naples Boulevard, Inc., is another. And the application was filled out with your name, Mr. Aronoff, but it's by Landon Companies. So I don't know how they're hooked into this at all. MR. ARONOFF: They're not. Landon Companies is a DBA that I work under. The applicant is not Landon Companies. The applicant is Land Management Services Associates, LLC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the Landon Companies is the agent for the applicant? MR. ARONOFF: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what the document I have in front of me says. It's on Page 112 of the application. So the Landon Companies is not the agent. You are the agent and as what entity? Because you've got several. You had Colt Farms; you've had Naples whatever; you've now got -- now I think it's Land Management or something like that; Land Specialties. MR. ARONOFF: I believe in our application that I provided a chain of title, and it shows that Land Management Services Associates is the applicant. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And that chain of title is what I've tried to track back all the way back to where Costco and the others signed their agreements with Naples -- well, I can tell you the names of them all here in a minute. My concern is I don't see you or your company's name on any of the unbuilt parcels when I go to the aerials and look at the spaces left to build. There's an area in front of TT, the Volvo dealership that's now under construction. Just north of that there's an area along the curvature of the road that has, apparently, it looks like -- well, it's Lot 1 of, I think, the Pine Air Lakes No. 6, and a piece of it's been built in the south corner. I think it's some kind of food wholesale place. And then next to that there is some vacant land. May 18, 2017 Page 5 of 53 That's the only vacant land that looks buildable on that project. Is that incorrect? MR. ARONOFF: I'm not sure. And as I mentioned to you, there's property -- existing property that's developed that is under consideration for redevelopment. But as to your question about ownership, what Land Management Service Associates, LLC, owns are the development rights, and the development rights -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What does that mean? MR. ARONOFF: -- under Florida are separable from the property. In other words, in a development of regional impact in Florida, on a particular parcel, development can occur as and to the extent that development rights have been allocated to that parcel. So there is an allocation that's been made of some of the development rights, the majority of the development rights in the project, and there remain development rights that are unallocated. Those rights are owned by Land Management Services Associates, LLC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have something that shows me they own anything? Because I've not been able to find anything that they owned within that project. And I'm just trying to understand how that -- your statement's -- and let me ask our zoning director. Nancy, could you put that map up north to south? It's east to west. Just turn it 180 -- 90 degrees. Well, that's the wrong 90-degree way. Go back. You must have Richard Yovanovich's style here, because that's how he gets lost on things. Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Directionally challenged. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, there's several parcels that, on this map, appear developable but are not necessarily developable; 29 is -- most of that parcel, if not all of it, is sold to TT Shores of whatever, which is, I believe, the Volvo dealership going in; 30 and 31 appear to be preserve areas. 21 is the parcel that seems to be open. On what basis are you representing the people on 21? MR. ARONOFF: I believe that -- and we provided the documentation that each parcel has named my entity through the chain of title, their attorney-in-fact. So I'm here as the attorney-in-fact, legally, for all the property owners -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. ARONOFF: -- for the 148 acres. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On Parcel 21, the entity that named you, that was the entity that was involved in it back before it went into foreclosure and receivership and was subsequently sold to two other parties. MR. ARONOFF: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So how do you represent those two other parties? How did it survive receivership? MR. ARONOFF: You'll have to look at the documents. It survived receivership. There was -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I did. MR. ARONOFF: Yes. There was no legal transfer of development rights. There was no extinguishment of the power of attorney in the foreclosure and transfer, so it survived it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, if the people in -- well, I'm not sure it survived your power of attorney. Ray, if the people on Parcel 21 came in and asked for a building permit wanting some square footage that may be left on this project, how would your department look at that ability to issue that building permit based on whatever square footage they asked for assuming it was still available in the project in the sense they hadn't reach their DRI or PUD maximum committed amount? MR. BELLOWS: During the pre-application meeting for the SDP, the preparation of staff would be to confirm the remaining unused square footage and compare it to the request. If it's under the amount of the maximum, then they would proceed with the SDP. Unless there's certain thresholds or allocations to retract -- some PUDs have limits on how much square footage can be built on individual tracts. I don't think that's the case here. And if it's a DRI and the DRI is past its buildout date, then we will not be issuing any SDP approvals until they get the DRI extended. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. When this project came in for its DRI and PUD, it was one larger project, and all the subdivision of the parcels was not allocated like it is today. Basically, it was a big blank May 18, 2017 Page 6 of 53 canvass. When the square footage was allocated through the DRI to a parcel, it couldn't have been to all these parcels, because they didn't exist. So it would have had to have been to the parcel as a whole. MR. BELLOWS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And so from the perspective of zoning, we still look it that way? MR. BELLOWS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A sub parcel is still a parcel of the whole, and the gentleman's argument that they have restricted the use of the square footage to specific parcels by his interpretation of the DRI, I think, conflicts with the basis under which the DRI was originally approved. MR. BELLOWS: There may be some legal issue and ownership interest of unused square footage. I'd have to look into that a little bit more. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And where this is going as well -- I had looked at the assignments that you have, or that you believe you're operating under. Some of them are consistent with the language that's in the various documents that you have with the people who bought properties there, but I found a few of them that had a different kind of language. And I'm going to read you one as an example. This is the one for Florida Motor Sports Park, LLC. Pine Air has assigned all development rights to Entertainment Center Limited Partnership and Airport Road Limited Partnership, a Florida Limit Partnership. Now, what I find is your chain of authority following the Airport Road Limited Partnership through Colt Farms, then through the current operation, but I haven't found how you've addressed the Entertainment Center Limited Partnership. That is an "and" not an "or" in regards to how that's handled. MR. ARONOFF: That's part of the chain as well. There is an assignment from Entertainment Center Limited Partnership to Airport Road Limited Partnership. I can provide that to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That will definitely be necessary. MR. ARONOFF: That should be in the chain that provided but, if not, I can provide that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I've -- MR. ARONOFF: Anyway, I can provide it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This was 320 pages. I thought I've read everything, and may -- I certainly could have missed it. Now, the company that was foreclosed on for Parcel 21, and then it went into -- there's a receivership deed that sold the parcel to EverBank, I believe, and EverBank sold it to Sherborne. Sherborne sold it to Boulevard Shoppes. Boulevard Shoppes did the two outparcels in front of Kohl's. Boulevard Shoppes, at the time they did those two outparcels, did sign an assignment and power of attorney to the entity that began all this. But since they purchased Parcel No. 21 on this map -- what they signed was in 2005. The receivership and all that went on in 2010. I don't find a new acknowledgment of theirs that they've assigned those rights or power of attorney for Parcel 21. Do you have one? MR. ARONOFF: Don't need it. The assignment of rights that were made on that parcel were not subordinate to any mortgage and, therefore, were not subject to any foreclosure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you don't believe they got wiped out through -- MR. ARONOFF: Absolutely not, absolutely not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'll ask the County Attorney's Office just to verify that or not. MR. KLATZKOW: I don't believe they get wiped out but, then again, we're talking about private agreements anyway. Having said this, is this really the route you want to go? I mean, you had mentioned a built out -- buildout agreements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the route that makes the most sense, but what I'm concerned about -- MR. KLATZKOW: Well, maybe that's the route that the Planning Commission just goes, and the heck with all the rest of the issues. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't have a problem with that. I don't know if the -- how much of a debate we're going to get into about that, but that would clean it all up. MR. KLATZKOW: It cleans it up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I absolutely agree with it. Would you have any problem with coming back May 18, 2017 Page 7 of 53 and doing this as a buildout agreement to finish it out in a better manner than what we're approaching it at today? MR. ARONOFF: We decided that we want to pursue the extension of our rights under the development order, and when the project is build out to then pursue a closeout. MR. KLATZKOW: And you can always say no to the application. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- and I agree. There's way too much confusion over the authority of what you're trying to do, the various parcels that were part of the original or referenced in the application. Some of them are a piece of a right-of-way; other -- they're not -- and I can't find authorization with the property owners of 21. I find no basis for your argument that the density or the intensity of the square footage is arbitrarily assigned by parcel. Now, there have been other cases where we've been presented with private contracts; that when someone has bought something, they've been allocated a certain amount of square footage. You haven't provided any of that kind of information to us, so I don't really follow your reasoning in that regard. MR. ARONOFF: Well, the information I can provide; it's all a matter of public record, the allocation development rights. And while I'm not an attorney, I would point out there was a 200 -- I believe a 2'16 Florida case that was firmed by the Court of Appeals and by the Florida Supreme Court that determined that within developments of regional impact, the right to develop on a particular parcel was based solely on an explicit allocation of development rights. And so what's happened on this property is there has been an allocation of a portion of the development rights by parcel. Those allocations are a matter of public record. None of them are subordinate to any mortgages and, therefore, are not affected by any kind of foreclosures. And while that may be confusing for you and for me reading it, it is the underlying fact, and I don't think it's a valid basis, in my opinion, to deny a request because it appears to be confusing. If I need to clarify it, that's fine. We can get a title report; we can do whatever you want to clarify. But it's there, and it's proper, and it's documented, and it's compliant with the law. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we've got two parcels left. Your commitments, according to the statements submitted in these documents, is that they've completed. I don't understand why this isn't going through a closeout for the buildout. You're arguing that you don't have to do that, although it is the most practical. I think there's a lot of confusion created over the chain in which your authority is acquired because of the various cooperations that have mingled with this project, and I don't understand why that was necessary. I'm not comfortable at all with what I'm seeing here today on the basis of your asking for it when I don't know how it's going to affect the properties that still are going to be impacted by it. MR. ARONOFF: But if you look at those documents -- and, again, I don't think there's a -- you know, you have a right to make whatever decision you make, but from where I sit, I would argue that it's not a valid basis to say, oh, it seems confusing to us; thereafter, we're just not going to do it when I'm telling you there is a -- we have the absolute power of attorney. I am here as the attorney-in-fact for every parcel in this property, number one. Two, I disagree with the statement or the implication that says that all that's left to build are parcels that are vacant. There are parcels that are built that can be reconfigured. There's been some discussion of reconfiguration that can involve both a reallocation of development rights and a reuse. MR. KLATZKOW: This is a never-ending DRI now. If we're going to be talking about redevelopment of existing buildouts, we're talking about the never-ending DRI. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's the point. It isn't a DRI process to expand -- say Costco comes in and wants to put an addition on. They don't need to be under the DRI to do that if you do a closeout. If the square footage is there, they get to use it, unless you've got some power that you have over them where they can't use it that we're not aware of. MR. ARONOFF: I do. I do in that example, because I am their attorney-in-fact, and they don't have a right to expand without an explicit allocation of development rights, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, do you -- where's that document? MR. ARONOFF: Well, with Costco -- the document with Costco, there's a public record assignment May 18, 2017 Page 8 of 53 of development rights to Costco of a certain square footage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've read that. I've got it. MR. ARNOLD: And there's a power of attorney that Costco granted to an entity in this chain of title that was made concurrent with that that gave this entity -- that appointed that entity the attorney-in-fact of Costco. So I am here before you, among other things, as the attorney-in-fact of the Costco property with all matters regarding the DRI. And so I think that, you know, to turn me down because you're saying you don't know who I am -- it may be confusing to us and we may need an interpretation, but my assertion to you -- and it's a matter of -- I'm stating it's a matter of public record -- is that I am the legal authorized agent of that property that stands before you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, there is some exceptions to that power of attorney. One of them is that you can't do anything that would be detrimental to their ability to proceed as the zoning allows them to. The zoning, as we've already heard testimony, would allow them to expand simply if there's enough square footage in this. Now you're telling us that isn't the case because you control that. But I've seen nothing -- MR. ARONOFF: Yes. And if you read the assignment of development rights, you'll see, I believe -- I don't have it in front of me -- that that point is clarified. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I have it and -- I mean, I can get it here in a minute. I'm not comfortable with the way this is -- all the information that is needed is here today. I would suggest that some of these issues should be cleared up. As far as your -- when -- in the assignment -- I'll read some of the -- MR. KLATZKOW: Could we just cut to the chase here, Mr. Chair. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. MR. KLATZKOW: Let's assume what he's saying is right, and we can always continue this, and we can get whatever documents would satisfy the Planning Commission, okay. For purposes of this, let's assume what he's saying is absolutely true. Are you inclined to grant the DRI extension, or do you prefer a different methodology here? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For the benefit of the people that are within this facility, they're not gaining by extending this. They're going to be gaining more by having this resolved so that all they're dealing with is a local issue and not potentially held up because an extension wasn't reattained four years, 364 days from now. So I'm not sure this is in the best interest of all the property owners to do this when they could basically do a buildout resolution and be done with it. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, then that could be -- that could be what you guys do here today. I mean, assuming everything he's saying is correct, okay, if you're not going to grant it anyway, saying the buildout is the way to go, then the rest of the conversation really is moot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- and I'm just one. But one of the clauses in your exceptions to your power of attorney, no actions regarding such governmental approvals or modification or amendment of the DRI by Pine Air or ARLP may materially or adversely affect the property or Costco's intended use for property as an ongoing retail enterprise. Well, if their intended going use would be based on how the market expands, that they intended to use square footage, you're telling us that that's not -- your representation of them wouldn't allow that. MR. ARNOLD: That's disallowed by the assignment of development rights. But I think the more fundamental point, which the County Attorney's raised, is if you're saying, gee, we're not comfortable with this because it's confusing, and you can give me a bill of particulars and say come back here and show us these things, and I have a list, and I either produce them or I don't, I'm very comfortable with that. On the other hand, if what you're saying is, to reiterate the point, assuming everything I say is correct, you're still not going to do it, then there's no point to that. But for you and I to sit here -- I mean, I don't know if you're an attorney. I'm not. And to debate the law is pointless. You know, I'm very comfortable saying the burden of proof is on me. Here's the list. Here are the particulars. Come back and show us or show the County Attorney and get concurrence. That I'm comfortable with. May 18, 2017 Page 9 of 53 But if it's -- you know, but I'm not comfortable saying, well, our legal opinion is -- the Board's legal opinion is that you legally don't have the right -- because my legal advice is that I do have the legal right, and I'd like to have the opportunity, if that's the issue, to put it together and come back to the county, and then you all can make up your mind, or the County Attorney, as to whether I'm correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't have a problem rescheduling this for sometime in June, but I certainly -- at this point, I'm not comfortable enough with it knowing -- not knowing all the particulars that I'm concerned about on this project, so... MR. ARONOFF: But is it fair for me to ask you, can I leave here with -- and I think this gets back to the County Attorney's question. Am I leaving here with everything's up in the air and I'm not sure what I'm supposed to prove, or do I leave here with something that says, look, we're not comfortable approving you today, but here's a list. Prove to us that these things are correct, and we are prepared to approve. That gets me assignment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't have a -- I mean, I've got about 20 or 30 different documents I've been reading that were supplied. I certainly have questions with some of the language in some of them and how it's done. It needs to be really vetted out a little more between the staff, the County Attorney's Office, and possibly yourself. For example, I've got a report from Comprehensive Planning that says, since this DO amendment petition is only amending the ownership of record and extending the termination date, I don't know what they are referring to specifically by "ownership of record." MR. ARONOFF: I do. They're referring to the transfer from Colt Farms to -- or Colt Partners to Land Management Services Associates, LLC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But ownership of what? MR. ARONOFF: The development rights. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you believe that the development rights are owned by your entity and no one else? MR. ARONOFF: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And contrary to what our Zoning Department said that they would allow if someone came in and asked for a building permit. That's a -- that's a part that I'm concerned about. MR. ARONOFF: Okay. But here's what I need to know. What I would ask you is either turn me down and say, look, we're just not doing it, and then I'll have to figure out what I do, or please give me a list and say, look, here are the things we're uncomfortable with. Address those specific things, but what I don't -- request of you not to put me in a position of is to say we're not comfortable and we can't tell you why we're not comfortable, but we're just not comfortable, because I don't think that's fair to me in terms, you know, either say no, go home, get lost, do whatever you do after a turndown, or here's the list; come back and prove it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just talked for half an hour about things I'm not comfortable with, and if you -- I mean, I could be more definitive or succinct; if I want to produce a list, I could do that eventually, but I can't do that sitting here today at a meeting like this. These questions should have been resolved before we got here today. MR. ARONOFF: Well, my position is that they are resolved legally. Yours is that they're not resolved in your mind. I'd be very comfortable if you gave me a list, you know, to respond to. I just need a target that I can shoot at. Do you know what I mean? Put yourself in my shoes. I need a target that I can shoot at. Either I hit it or I don't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If I was in your shoes, I would have done a buildout resolution and ended this so we wouldn't have to come back here five years -- four years, 364 days. Anybody in the industry knows that would have been a simpler way to go. So I'm not sure why you didn't do that, but it would have been a good thing to consider. MR. ARONOFF: Well, that's my prerogative. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It is, and it's mine not to agree this is the right way to proceed. So I guess that's where we're at at this point. I have no more questions. Anybody else have any questions of the applicant? Stan? May 18, 2017 Page 10 of 53 COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Just a comment. I've always had a problem with the concept of buildout because it denotes a finality that really doesn't exist. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: But I agree with everything you said, Mark. And if we were to vote, I would vote with you right now on this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My concern isn't that there's a finality to a buildout. It's simply acknowledging the State's out of the picture at that point and it stays handled locally. So any of the issues about timetables, square footages, and all that just remain our local issue and doesn't go back -- we don't have to go back and forth with a challenge. Remember Tollgate that just went through? That one fell into the trap of going through an expiration, and they had to get a quick fix to that, and they had to -- it held them up with some of their applications. So I'm trying to avoid that with this project. We don't need another example of that, and that's the only reason I'm going into this direction. I don't have any other questions of the applicant. Does anybody else? Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I concur with the petitioner in regards to the request, and I guess my confusion is, from a staff -- I understand your concerns, Mark, and I understand the questions being asked, but from a perspective of legally asking for an extension, does this meet the requirement for an extension? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. Staff is of the opinion that the applicant has the right to submit this application. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct, and he stated such. MR. BELLOWS: Don't ask them for approve the -- how they allocate their unused square footage. MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. But this is -- this is not a quasi-judicial type of situation where you've got criteria you're looking at. He's coming to you and asking -- he's got the right to ask you for this, and you've got the right to say no, we prefer a different alternative to this, such as a buildout agreement. You can do that. So, Mr. Schmitt, you're absolutely correct, okay. He has an absolute right to ask you this, and then it's up to you to say whether or not you want to grant it to him. It could be conditioned upon proof of ownership of the rights. We can continue it at that point in time, and Ms. Ashton and Mr. Strain and the applicant can get together and resolve that, or you can simply say no, we're not comfortable with this approach; we prefer a different approach. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Oh, then I agree. Thank you, Jeff. And I have no problem with that then. Could I propose that we, in fact, do that; that Heidi, the applicant, and Mr. Strain meet to discuss the specific issues and go over in detail, let the applicant decide whether they want to pursue this in the course he's now decided to take; or to go the route that Mr. Strain recommends and request a buildout? I agree, though, with Stan, in regards to buildout. Yes, it means that the state is no longer involved, but it really, essentially, doesn't mean termination of opportunity -- MR. KLATZKOW: There's no such -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- to request a building permit. MR. KLATZKOW: There's no such thing as built out. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It states, from the DRI perspective, we're just trying to get this out of the DRI -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: DRI, and I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- issue because they constantly come back and sneak up on various applicants, property owners, and everything else. And if we can get away from that, that's better. This one's reached that maturity stage where it can easily walk away from that; at least I would think so. MR. ARONOFF: But one thing I'd -- if I could, to correct, you said "sneak up." The rights that I claim that my entity has do not involve sneaking up on anybody. If I'm right, they're a matter of public record of agreements that people voluntarily signed. There's no sneaking up on anybody. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The sneaking up I was referring to is the date, the expiration date; just like Tollgate and some of the other projects in the county that have gotten caught up in not realizing they expired May 18, 2017 Page 11 of 53 on a DRI basis but they're fine locally. They come in for a building permit, all of a sudden one day they go, oh, my God, how'd that happen? And they scramble to try to get Tallahassee to respond quickly to let us go ahead and issue permits because the date snuck up on them. They didn't know that they were getting terminated. That's what I was referring to. Now, as far as your allocation of square footage, I don't agree with you. But if you've got documentation with the people that own these properties that support your position, that's outside of our purview. I just don't agree with your position that it goes parcel by parcel because we never intended that when we approved this DRI and PUD from the beginning. So I'm not sure how say zoning now is applicable based on your interpretation of it when that's not the intent we had. But that's a whole 'nother argument I'm not that concerned about. I'm more concerned about getting the right process done or some clarity on some of these other issues. I have no problem extending -- having a re-meet on this continuation until we've had a chance to sit down and go over all the issues, if that's what you'd like, but it wouldn't be until the second meeting in June because in the first meeting in June we have nine cases already. MR. ARONOFF: That would be fine with me. And can I just clarify one other point, that I am not aware of -- I reviewed the documents, I reviewed them not only with Collier staff but with the Regional Planning Council and an attorney at the DEO in Tallahassee, and nowhere did anybody suggest to me, nor did I see that there was any intent in the original documents that pertained to where square footage is allocated on the property. And, again, while I'm not an attorney, I can point you -- there is a 2016 Florida case that dealt with exactly the issue we're talking about which is a property owner in a DRI that had not been allocated rights, went for building permit, and the holder of the rights said you don't have the rights; you can't build. And the appeals court determined -- and then the Supreme Court refused to see the case so they implicitly affirmed it -- that the position of the holder of rights was correct; that that this is a property right of the holder of rights. MR. KLATZKOW: But that's between two private parties here. You're dealing with the county now. And when this originally came here, it was a unified vision of a development. And since that time it's been balkanized, to put it mildly, and so even if the developer rights were just stripped -- and now you have it. So whether or not an individual parcel owner can develop without your permission or without you assigning the rights, that's not our issue. MR. ARONOFF: I agree. I agree. MR. KLATZKOW: That's not our issue. MR. ARONOFF: Agreed. I agree with that. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I don't understand. You have the development agreement, and you have the extension, and you don't want to do the development agreement. And all I really got was that you just don't want to do it. Can you tell me the downside of doing the development agreement? MR. ARONOFF: I suppose, with the caveat that I'd need time to think through it. First of all, I'm not entirely familiar with what the buildout completion is but, fundamentally, where I'm coming from is that we are in compliance with our development order, we've made the investment and paid the money to meet the concurrency requirements and we, therefore, want to extend the rights that we have over this property. And when I say the "rights" we have over it, as power of attorney for all the property owners, because we fulfilled our obligations. And we are not asking the county to change anything about what's allowed on this property. So, you know, fundamentally, my position is we've met our obligations; we've paid for the things that we were required to pay for to meet the concurrency. There are still unallocated development rights. And when we paid for those items to establish concurrency, we did so with the understanding that it was for the purpose of having the right to build out, you know, the project using the square footage that was allocated. There's still unallocated unbuilt square footage square footage. That's why I'm here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If there's no other questions of the applicant, let's move to staff May 18, 2017 Page 12 of 53 report and any public speakers, then we'll wrap it up and decide what to do. MS. GUNDLACH: Good morning, Commissioners. Staff is recommending approval of this petition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nancy, in your review of the need for this extension, did you come up with a square footage amount that was still unbuilt or available to be applied to this particular project? And when I say "project," I'm not talking about individual lots. I'm talking about the project as we originally looked at it. MS. GUNDLACH: We do have some staff records that show the square footage, and I'd be happy to share that with you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are they updated? I mean, I looked at the same records, and they didn't have the Volvo dealership there that I could tell. Maybe if you found that they do, that's great. You're talking CTS, right? MS. GUNDLACH: I'm talking CTS and Property Appraiser's, and I do not know if they're up to date or not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the Property Appraiser's doesn't have the Volvo dealership on it yet because it's not been CO'ed, so you won't see the -- I think it's 28,000 or 23,000 square feet on this dealership in the totals that I looked at late yesterday in and CTS. So I guess the question is, you have a square footage idea, or you could have a square footage by the next meeting of what's available on that site after -- against the total; is that correct? MS. GUNDLACH: Could do that, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that would be helpful to know, and it would be helpful for the applicant because it might have bearing on their decision to go for a buildout versus an extension. There's two thresholds for buildout, and one of them is a percentage, and the other one is by application by meeting commitments and things likes that. So they may be able to get either one of those accomplished. And does your buildout remaining comply or is it consistent with what the applicant believes they have, or do you know what they have? Do you know what the applicant's idea of the amount of square footage left is? MS. GUNDLACH: Yes. They submitted some documents. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you in agreement with their number? MS. GUNDLACH: I'd like to confirm that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Could we get a copy of the last yearly PUD monitoring report for this project? It would have everything in it, right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I'm not sure that's -- I'm not sure staff's in agreement with it because that's made -- those are done by the applicant, so we need to -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'd be curious to see what the applicant thinks he has. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree, but we ought to get all of that information as part of this analysis. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I think the other option we can do to help verify this is check with the Regional Planning Council. They have a DRI monitoring process, and they might have some square footage allocated and remaining that we could reference as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And isn't every one of these buildings there as an SDP? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So every single square footage on that project is in the list of SDPs, 99 percent of which seem to be CTS. The only one I couldn't find clearly was the TT Shores, which is the Volvo dealership, so... And that might be off a little. And if our numbers are different, we ought to resolve why. It would be good to know. MS. ASHTON: But you'd like approved SDPs as well as pending SDPs, correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, if they don't have the square footage left to build, we've got a May 18, 2017 Page 13 of 53 different problem altogether, but it would be good to know what amounts are there. Okay. Anybody -- is there any public speakers registered? MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any member of the public wish to speak on this item? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I would like to suggest that we have a motion to extend a -- continue this until the second meeting in June if the applicant so agrees. MR. ARONOFF: I agree, and I request -- will we have the opportunity to talk between now and then to see if we can resolve -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would hope that you and I can get together rather quickly, not -- obviously this week's almost over. Either within a week or two I would like to sit down with Heidi Ashton, yourself, and me and possibly Nancy or Ray and try to figure out the missing pieces that I'm not enough familiar with to feel comfortable with. MR. ARONOFF: Okay. I appreciate that very much. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And I make a motion to continue this to the June. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second meeting in June, which would be the -- MR. BELLOWS: Fifteenth. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- 15th of June. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Patrick. Discussion? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I just have a question. It may not be pertinent to this particular motion, but I wanted to ask it anyway, and it comes up on Page 5 of 6 of the staff report. It says, staff recommends approval of the DRI/DO amendment with the understanding this amendment will not adversely impact, et cetera. My question is, do you mean "with the understanding," or do you mean "on the condition that"? And if you mean "with the understanding," my question is whose understanding? MS. GUNDLACH: Staff's. It's this paragraph right here. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I think that statement was intended to imply that staff would be verifying that all commitments are ratified and that there is no adverse -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: So you mean "on the condition that"? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Maybe you want to clarify that or rewrite it. MR. BELLOWS: I think that's a good idea. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Ned. Okay. That was discussion. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. This one's continued to the second meeting in June. Thank you. ***And that brings us to our last remaining item for today, Item 9B. It's petition PL20150001776. It's the Addie's Corner Mixed-Use Planned Development on the northwest quadrant of the intersection of May 18, 2017 Page 14 of 53 Immokalee Road and Collier Boulevard. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. If you intend to talk today, please rise and get sworn in. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. We'll start with Tom again on disclosures. MR. EASTMAN: No disclosures. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you did get the emails, right? MR. EASTMAN: Other than those that are part of the public record. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, a lot of emails and a long conversation with Mr. Yovanovich. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Emails. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Emails. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had three meetings with various resident groups, two of them may have been the same group. There's been so many of you I've met; I just don't know -- can't remember everybody. But I've had three resident meetings, I've had one or two meetings -- well, one meeting with the applicant, a couple phone calls, talked to staff, and that's -- I think that's about it. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I spoke to Mr. Yovanovich and emails. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Numerous emails to Collier.gov email address. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Patrick? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: A few emails, a lot of emails, and a quick conversation with Mr. Yovanovich yesterday. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I, too, received all the emails. I think everybody else did, too. Some are in the packet, and some came in too late. And with that, the presentation by the applicant. Rich? MR. YOVANOVICH: Good morning. For the record, Rich Yovanovich on behalf of the applicant. With me I have several people who can answer any questions that you may have, or at least I hope we can answer any questions you may pose to us. David Genson and Dan Waters, Steve Sammons, all from Barron Collier Companies, represent the owner of the property as well; Wayne Arnold with Grady Minor; Norm Trebilcock is our transportation consultant; and Bruce Layman also, with the Barron Collier Companies, is our environmental consultant. The property I've put up on the visualizer, it's currently zoned the Addie's Corner PUD. It's outlined in yellow. The Tree Farm PUD is immediately to the east. We're on the north side of Immokalee Road fairly close to the intersection of Immokalee Road and Collier Boulevard. The current PUD is -- it's approximately 23 acres in size. It's currently zoned for commercial, retail, office uses as well as group housing, including senior housing on the property. We're in the urban area. We're within Activity Center No. 3. And as the Commission -- Planning Commission knows, the activity centers are where the more extensive development is intended to occur in Collier County under our Growth Management Plan. We're requesting some changes to the existing PUD that will add a residential component to the property. We'll create -- and I'll put the master plan up here, which will, essentially, create two development parcels on the property. Formerly we just had one big, large development parcel on the property. The parcel closest to Immokalee Road is where we'll be limited to retail development and group housing development and office development, and we are reducing the overall retail component from what was originally approved at 135,000 square feet down to 75,000 square feet. The other parcel, which is Tract C, is where we intend to build a multifamily project. That multifamily project will be luxury apartments. It will be a luxury apartment complex on that property. Our initial request was for the maximum of 16 units per acre, which would allow for up to 349 dwelling units on that property; however, we're pretty far along in our site development planning process, and we are prepared to reduce that request to a maximum of 250 units. Now that we've done our site planning, 250. So now we have a better idea of the mix of one bedrooms, two bedrooms, and three bedrooms and what we really can fit within the development standards that we're proposing for the property. May 18, 2017 Page 15 of 53 As I mentioned, the PUD already allows for retail, office, and group housing, and the current PUD allows for an actual height of 65 feet. We are not increasing the actual height. And based upon conversations that we've had from various residents within the Esplanade community, we have -- we have looked at, basically, our product type and what do we need from an actual height standpoint for the multifamily component of the project. And what I want to -- we've heard two -- what I would classify as two primary concerns related to our project. One, we don't want to see you; two, we think you're going to make -- create a traffic problem up on Immokalee Road, and I'll address both of those, and our consultants will be there. But the "I don't want to see you" component is -- although I understand it, I don't think is reasonable and certainly not legally enforceable. Based upon the current PUD allowable buffer on the west side of the property -- you threw me off when you already criticized my directional challenge during a petition I wasn't involved in. I just made sure I got my directions right. On the west side of the property, and the height that's currently allowed in the PUD, which is 65 feet actual height, this is what we could build today with everything remaining in place, and this is the view that you would see from Esplanade. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you make it any smaller? MR. YOVANOVICH: I could -- yeah, could we zoom in. Hey, I'm three for three in lining it up right. Okay. So if you're in Esplanade and you're looking west to east, this is -- this is a 65-foot-tall office building that's currently allowed as a matter of right with the preserves remaining in place exactly as it is. We have -- we have looked at what we really want to build on the property now that we're far along in our process and want to give you some renderings of the product type that you'll see and the current architectural plans for the buildings. Now, as you can see -- and I know you can't see, but the number that says the actual height, I believe, is 51 feet, 6 inches for actual height of the structures we've just put on there. Now, I like a little room for error, so I think we're prepared to reduce our actual height to 55 feet from the 65 feet that's currently in the PUD for purposes of the multifamily project, which is a reduction from what's already there today. Now, we are making some modifications to the PUD master plan, including modifying the preserve to be consistent with both the Land Development Code and our actual permitting through the South Florida Water Management District. When the original PUD went through, it was more, I'll just say, speculative in nature. You had a property owner who had hired another company to go through and come up with what is a reasonable plan for development on this property because it's in an activity center, and that was the 135,000-square-foot plan. Now you have an actual developer who owns the property who's gone through the development process and come up with a site plan and is meeting all of the required Land Development Code provisions with regard to both native preservation and with regard to water management and through -- with regard to all of the state and federal permitting process that we're required to go through, and that's the modifications that we're making to the PUD master plan that is identified in this document. On the west side of the property, we are shortening, if you will, the length of the preserve, but the portion of the preserve that will be going away will not have a building in it. It will have the parking field in it. So you won't see it. You'll still have the buffer along the west side of our property that will shield the parking area that will be in the preserve area that's going away as part of the actual true-up and actual permitting plan. And I know I have an exhibit that shows that. But, of course, I don't have it easily handy. So what I want to do is also put up an aerial that will show our closest structures in the Esplanade to where this project is. The home with the red line showing, that's -- that home is over 800 feet away from the building on our plan. And I've done a lot of mixed-use PUDs that both allow single-family and multifamily in it. I've never had a development standard that says you need to separate multifamily from single-family by over 800 feet. When you look at master plan communities like Pelican Bay, Fiddler's Creek, Esplanade, they all have the ability to do both single-family and multifamily, and you will have multifamily adjacent to single-family. May 18, 2017 Page 16 of 53 I've never seen a requirement that they be 800 feet away for them to be deemed compatible, but we are over 800 feet away from the nearest single-family home in the adjacent property. And Wayne will take you through some examples of other communities where you have single-family. And I would point out that even within the old Esplan -- it was Mirasol when I did the PUD, but it's Esplanade now. So if I say Mirasol, I apologize, because I go back. That project also allows for multifamily in it, and it allows for multifamily up to 75 feet. It allows 75-foot structures within Mirasol, and they don't have an 800-foot separation requirement between single-family and multifamily. So that project could -- and could have been developed with multifamily within it and was deemed internally compatible to have both multifamily and single-family within the PUD. So I know there are people who are going to say that they think we're incompatible with them because we're putting multifamily within 800 feet of a single-family home and they can now somehow see us and that somehow makes us incompatible, which is not factually or legally correct from a planning perspective as well. We have -- based upon the reduction in the height that we're talking about going down to the 55 feet actual height, based upon our commitment, which we're not going to take back because we were negotiating with our neighbors about an enhanced buffer, we were also willing to do some enhanced plantings on the Esplanade side of the property by their berm. What we had proposed between our plantings on their side and our enhanced buffer -- this is what you would see. I would submit to you, even if we don't do the enhanced plantings on their side of the property for whatever reason, if we're not given the authority to do that, our enhanced buffer will be far superior with the reduced height and the planting buffer than that option which currently exists today. So we believe that what we're proposing is better than what exists today from a visual standpoint for the neighbors, is compatible with what the neighbors -- with the neighborhood next to us, and from a planning perspective, as evidenced by your staff's recommendation of approval, meets your code, your Growth Management Plan, and your Land Development Code. Now, moving on to the second major issue that we heard was transportation. We have an existing PUD that allows for 135,000 square feet of commercial and retail development, and I'm -- we'll go through the PUD. I have some changes to make to that. But in going through, you could see that we're actually -- by reducing the square footage down to 75,000 square feet and putting residential in there, we are actually reducing the peak-hour trips by 227 trips, peak hour. So we're reducing traffic by what we're proposing. Now, clearly, there's no traffic there today from this project because it's not developed, but from what was approved, we are reducing traffic. And we are still subject to concurrency management, and we will go through the concurrency management review that is necessary when we go through and pull our building permits or our Site Development plan, actually, because we pay a portion of our impact fees up front at site plan review. And if there's not capacity left on Immokalee Road, then we won't get approved. But as we stand here today, we meet all the transportation stipulations or standards in both the Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Code, as evidenced by Mr. Trebilcock's report that's in your report and record and as evidenced by the review of your staff. So we believe we have answered their question about traffic impact on the roads now and in the future with our development. We had the opportunity to talk to some of the planning commissioners, as evidenced by the disclosures, and we were made aware of some, I'll use the word, ambiguities as to how the Development Standard Table and other portions of the PUD could be interpreted, so we have some modifications to make to the PUD document, and I'll try to walk you through them. I think we've got them all in yellow. And so starting on Page 7 of 16, Exhibit B -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have in the -- we have a package of 396 pages for this staff report. Within that staff report are three versions of Exhibit A. Are you in the first version, the second version, or the third version? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well -- May 18, 2017 Page 17 of 53 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know why we keep getting multiple versions if they're all the same. My assumption, then, is they must be different. I can't -- I'm not -- I'm going off the first version. So I just want to make sure we're all on the same page, because in the future I would hope that if they're just repeating version after version to give us 400 pages for a review that it's not -- they don't need to do that in the future. So what version are you on? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, the version that -- when you and I met -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I used the first version. MR. YOVANOVICH: Is that May 8th? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: May 8th, 2017, yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's the version that we modified. What I'm putting up is actually dated May 17th, because that's the revision date that we'll submit to staff showing the changes from the May 8th version. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. After today there may be more, but... MR. YOVANOVICH: So then there will be a -- are we on the 18th? We'll be on the May 18th version at that point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: So we're starting with Exhibit B in the May 8th version. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Excuse me. We -- it looks like it's on Page 30 of our electronic. And as you say, it refers to revision of 5A -- it's Page 7 of 16. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: But this is not what you're going to be talking about now? MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm going to show you a strikethrough and underline to that version so you'll see what we're proposing to change. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Anyway, I think we're all on the same version, same page. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: There you go. Caught you. MR. YOVANOVICH: I still think it was passing. COMMISSIONER EBERT: We always get a laugh from you. MR. YOVANOVICH: We are changing -- we're eliminating in this Development Standard Table a reference to a footnote double asterisk that's really not applicable to the commercial development and eliminating a few other references to footnotes that really aren't applicable to the proposed development. We're modifying the very first footnote to hopefully make it clearer as to where we're measuring the setback from the lake control elevation, and that is in your table under footnote -- the single-asterisk footnote. So hopefully we cleared that up as to the actual measuring point for the setbacks. We are clarifying on the next page Footnote No. -- or I think those are five asterisks to make it clear that it also applies to the lake maintenance easements, not just to landscape buffer easements for measurement purposes. We have -- Tract C is also on that page, and those are the development standards applicable to the residential component of the property, Tract C. We added that Footnote No. 5. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, actually, you only put the asterisk in front of that. MR. YOVANOVICH: Oh, is that right? There was a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The asterisk was missing. MR. YOVANOVICH: Was it? Thank you. On the minimum setback from the PUD, we increased that to 20 feet -- 25 feet from 20 feet to be consistent with the other Development Standard Table. Likewise, down by the amenity area, we similarly increased the setback. And then Footnote No. 5 we also added the reference to lake maintenance easements and deleted, in what is Roman Numeral V, some wording that just wasn't necessary for explaining what -- we basically -- we're prohibiting outside amplified music under this table. We will need to go back in this table, and based upon what I just said a few minutes ago as far as the building height, to limit the actual height for multifamily down -- from what's there, 65 feet down to 55 feet, May 18, 2017 Page 18 of 53 and we'll have to modify the zoned height to the right distance. But I think what's really important to people is how tall is the building really going to be. So we'll modify both of those standards under the multifamily height to address the 55-foot commitment I made for actual height. The master plan is not highlighted because we're taking something away; that's why there's not a highlight. Way back when we did this PUD originally there was a requirement for us to show an interconnection between this project and Esplanade. We are proposing -- based upon comments we've heard from others -- and, frankly, it's just physically impossible to do -- the interconnection between Esplanade and this project on the master plan, so we just are eliminating that change. And then, finally, we are -- there was also a written commitment regarding that very same thing that was on the master plan in Exhibit F, and we are eliminating the language regarding the west connection. In this case it was referencing the older Mirasol PUD. So those are changes to the PUD documents that we're proposing based upon conversations that we've had with different planning commissioners and also in response to comments from our neighbors, including, you know, through meetings and email conversations. We are asking for a few deviations. We are removing the deviation relating to parking. It's not necessary at this point. So the other deviations have to deal with removal of trash and things like that that your staff is recommending approval on and not unusual deviations for multifamily products. So, with that, I believe that's the overview of what we're proposing. Mr. Arnold can take you through other examples of proximity of multifamily to single-family. If you have questions of Steve Sammons about -- regarding the landscaping and the buffering, he can answer any questions you may have regarding that. Norm Trebilcock's here to answer any questions you may have regarding transportation. Mr. Waters is the civil engineer. We could answer any civil engineering questions you may have. And Mr. Genson is the jack-of-all-trades and can answer anything that the rest of us can't answer. So, with that, I believe -- I'll have Wayne get up here briefly, and we can answer any questions you have. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chairman, I need a clarification on the amendment. MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure. COMMISSIONER FRYER: The last one, Mr. Yovanovich, that you mentioned, that's Deviation 6, parking. MR. YOVANOVICH: I can't remember if that's 4 or 6. Let me look real quick. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Four is dumpsters. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it's No. 3. MR. YOVANOVICH: Is it 3? I knew it was -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Proposed Deviation No. 3 is for -- MR. YOVANOVICH: That's No. 3, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Three is out? MR. YOVANOVICH: Three is out; 6 is still in. That's the one that's near the rec facility. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's a normal one. MS. ASHTON: Mr. Chair, may I ask a question as well? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: You mentioned 250 dwelling units. Is that a change you're making now or -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We will have to make -- yes. I haven't made that yet to the document, but we'll have to make that change as well. Thank you for reminding me. I remembered the height; I forgot the number. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Wayne? MR. ARNOLD: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Planning Commission members. I'm Wayne May 18, 2017 Page 19 of 53 Arnold, a professional planner with Q. Grady Minor & Associates. And Rich mentioned the issue of compatibility with our neighbors, and he showed you the exhibit indicating that we're over 800 feet way from our nearest neighbor. And in taking you through that, we had offered -- and you can see on our conceptual master plan we have a tiered buffer approach, and we've increased the buffer width in certain places and had hoped to reach some consensus with our neighbors to be able to put landscaping on a portion of their property to help achieve the view that Rich demonstrated that we've created. But -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Back up just a minute. You said that the view that we were shown -- MR. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- the one that obscured quite a bit of building -- MR. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- was only if you can put landscaping on the Esplanade side of the property line? MR. ARNOLD: Yeah. It demonstrates that there would be enhanced landscaping on their proportion of the property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have you got that conceded to by the owner -- the developer of -- MR. ARNOLD: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- because it won't be the individuals. It will be the developer. MR. ARNOLD: I thought Mr. Yovanovich mentioned that, but they did not concede to allow that to happen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that whole exhibit, then, is moot? MR. ARNOLD: No. I don't -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. How are you going to accomplish that kind of buffer, then, without having -- MR. ARNOLD: Well, I don't think we are required to to make ourselves compatible. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why'd you show us that buffer then? MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Strain, what I showed you -- and I made it very clear. I said, we're going to do our enhanced buffer, which will be greater than the 65-foot example I showed you with the buffer that's required today. And I said we're willing to go on to the Esplanade property and do some additional plantings if they'll let us. I said if they won't let us, it will still be a better buffer, as we're proposing through our enhanced buffer today, than what exists today. So I wanted to show you the willingness on our part to go and do additional plantings to address concerns that, frankly, I don't think we need to for purposes of compatibility. We will continue to work with the appropriate property owner within Esplanade to see if we can do those enhanced plantings. But I just wanted to show you how we've -- how our willingness has been to go onto other people's properties and do enhanced plantings. We're not focusing ourselves on just our own property to address concerns. That was the only reason I showed that exhibit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll let Mr. Arnold finish his presentation, but we will have to have some more detailed discussion about the buffer. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. One of the things -- before I get started -- and Rich mentioned this as well, but the Esplanade PUD currently allows for multifamily dwellings in addition to single-family dwellings, and their zoned height for multifamily dwellings within their own community is 50 feet with an actual height of 65 feet. And as Mr. Yovanovich mentioned, with our reduction, we will be less than their own internal standards for development of multifamily dwellings, in addition to it being over 800 feet away. But one of the things -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: May I -- excuse me. Just so I am clear on the 800 feet that you're referencing, there is a depiction, an aerial view on Page 4 of our electronic materials that has the lots numbered, and there's a Lot 8656 that seems to be the closest to the Tract B. Is that the 800-foot distance you're talking about? MR. ARNOLD: The 800-foot distance is the one depicted on the exhibit that's on the visualizer. It shows the corner of one of the residential buildings in our community to your right, and then the cross-section May 18, 2017 Page 20 of 53 line shows to one of the residents. I believe it's on Amour Court in the Esplanade. In looking at that, you have obviously two landscape buffers that -- as you proceed west, you also have their entrance road, part of a water management lake, a golf fairway and golf rough, plus a lake separating our two projects. So it extends over 800 feet between the two structures. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I -- excuse me. But what I'm looking at has a Lot No. 8656, and it appears to be the closest, most proximate residential lot to Tract B. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's one of these over here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And this is 8656 right here. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: The building right here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, the building's down here. This is a preserve. COMMISSIONER FRYER: No, no. I understand. So you're talking from Tract A? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, he's talking from Tract A. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Gotcha, gotcha. Thank you. That clarifies it. Thank you. MR. ARNOLD: I apologize. But one of the things that, you know, it seems like more recently we've heard from folks that they don't want to see anything outside their community and I don't think, from a compatibility standpoint, that's fair. As we've mentioned, we are in an activity center. It's the most intensive land use designation that we have with regard to having mixed-use projects. You already have an existing PUD that has an entitlement for much more retail and office than we're proposing, but we also have other good examples in our community of mixed-use projects where we have varying heights to other residential types. And I like to go to Pelican Bay as an example because it's a large master plan community. It also has a variety of dwelling unit types. It has commercial components. But one of the examples I like to look at is probably around the Ritz-Carlton on the north end. And in that exhibit, what's being depicted is an example showing you distances between the Ritz-Carlton building, which is just under 200 feet tall, and also the Trieste at The Colony to single-family homes within Pelican Bay. And I loaned Mr. Yovanovich my glasses; otherwise, I would read you -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The building that you're looking at at the Ritz, though, isn't that their outside -- I mean, that's not a 200-foot building there. Isn't it the towers at 200? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Correct. MR. ARNOLD: It is, but the more appropriate here is to look at the Trieste building, Mr. Strain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know, but you just mentioned -- I thought you said in one breath that the Ritz-Carlton was at 200 feet. The building towers may be, but the arrow is not pointing to the building towers. That's all I'm trying to point out. MR. ARNOLD: Correct. And it doesn't say 200 feet. It indicates that that's about a 184-foot separation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And isn't there a plan to put a tower in front of that building? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is anybody objecting to that? I mean, isn't there a big tower going to go up there? So -- are you having any problems with that at all? MR. ARNOLD: I'm not aware of objections related to that project but, nonetheless, it's an example of, obviously, a really high-quality project and, obviously, residential components that are much closer proximity, and I know for a fact you can see the towers from the residences. Another example in Pelican Bay shows you proximity from other highrises that are much less than the 800 feet we are. And I've labeled the condominium buildings that are along the mangrove fringe in Pelican Bay and showing you that those are significantly less than the separation that you would see between the Esplanade and the proposed Addie's Corner project. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: If I can make a comment. And I'm just going to speak here personally. I don't think the last two examples you showed are really apples-to-apples comparisons based on May 18, 2017 Page 21 of 53 the project you're trying to do. Specifically, the time frame when these things were done -- I believe the Ritz was '86 -- and those things were happened (sic), therefore, out there. And, like Mark said, that building you referenced was a much lower building. I believe that's the Ritz spa and their sports facility. It's a couple stories tall. I don't think either one of these are apples to apples, to be quite frank. MR. ARNOLD: Well, I'm not sure you're going to find an exact apples-to-apples representation because, again, we're talking about a project that's outside the boundaries and within an activity center where we already have heights that are greater -- approvals for greater than we're proposing today. And I don't think it's fair to say that we shouldn't see our neighbor almost 800-plus feet away. And what I'm showing you are, you can have proximity of buildings in closer. They seem to work just fine, and they're within the same community. That's the comparison I'm trying to make. Another example is something that's not residential per se, but it shows you that you can have taller buildings within close proximity. And that's at Glen Eagle off of Davis Boulevard. That's Terracina Grand. It's a four-story over parking senior housing project showing you the proximity to single-family homes within the Glen Eagle's project. I think that's a pretty good comparison, and I think they're very compatible. Another example showing you the Aston Gardens project up on Immokalee Road and Livingston. You have multifamily projects abutting neighboring single-family homes that are a couple hundred feet apart. Again, I don't think anybody would argue that those aren't compatible. So I think from our perspective, being over 800 feet away is a very compatible relationship with our neighbor given the fact that we already have approvals, we have landscape buffer enhancements that we've proposed. And another example is the Arlington, probably, another senior housing project down in Lely, and it shows you that there's about a 570-foot separation between the tower building there and the nearest single-family homes that are not part of that senior housing community. Again, I think anybody who's been down there would understand it's a very compatible relationship. So I show you those examples to demonstrate that -- the separation that we've achieved and the orientation of the building. You saw on the visualizer that (indicating) as an example on the product that's going to be built at Addie's Corner -- and keep in mind that the orientation that we showed you on the cross-section, one of the buildings, the narrow end of that does face them, so you're not seeing the bulk of the building. You're seeing the shortest end of the building. So from my planning perspective, it is a compatible relationship, and we're proposing is compatible. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. By the way, at 10:30 we'll be taking a 15-minute break so the court reporter's fingers can take a rest. MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Strain, may I? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me finish. And then I didn't know if anybody wanted to have any -- ask any questions of Wayne before he sat down, but since you're already up there, what was it you wanted to say? MR. YOVANOVICH: I just wanted to put up an example of -- or rendering of the landscape buffer assuming we don't get the ability to plant on the Esplanade property, because I think that you want -- I think you all want to see that. And it was actually prepared by Waldrop Engineering, who is representing the residents at -- Taylor Morrison, which is the developer of Esplanade. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If Taylor Morrison is represented here today, then at some point during this meeting I'd like to get confirmation from them whether or not they're even going to allow additional plantings -- MR. YOVANOVICH: And I'm assuming -- this rendering assumes no plantings outside of the boundaries of our property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay? It's the bottom. I don't know how well you can see that on your monitors. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I get the point. You've got some rather tall trees in there, and their canopies are decent. So is that 40 years down the road, or how quick is that going to be? MR. YOVANOVICH: The taller trees are the ones -- we've sited the building so we can save them May 18, 2017 Page 22 of 53 that are on our side. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And they're slash pines? MR. YOVANOVICH: What's that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're slash pines? You're staying outside their canopy area -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. We -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- in order to do construction so you're not going to destroy them? MR. YOVANOVICH: So we don't kill them as part of our construction process, to use lawyer terms instead of maybe a landscape architect terms. MR. SAMMONS: Steve Sammons, landscape architect with Peninsula Engineering. The taller trees that you see in there are the existing slash pines. We did go out. It's in a -- anywhere from 15-foot-wide to 30-foot-wide swath of existing vegetation that we plan on saving. There are Palmetto underneath it, but several taller slash pines. When I say "taller," 40 to 65 feet tall. They are slash pines, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And this view here, what do you expect that opacity is as you've shown it here today? MR. SAMMONS: We do have supplemental planting on the Addison Place side of 24 additional sabal palms anywhere 25 to 35 feet tall as well as some canopy trees, 15, 16 feet. So at this time I would tend to say, you know, starting out around 75 percent opacity. Now, initially, when you plant sabal palms, we plant them what they call cigar cut, which is the top fronds taken off, and that's just for survivability. Within, say, six to eight months, depending on planting conditions, those heads do fill out, and it's a, you know 10-, 12-foot diameter head on top of those. We would stager the heights of these sabal palms to create, basically, a green wall through there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What this plan seems to indicate is that up to, say, the top -- almost the top floor or pretty much part of the top floor, you're going to have an opacity, based on the plantings you're going to put in, of 75 percent or better; is that a true statement? MR. SAMMONS: That is our intention, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that would occur within how many months after planting? MR. SAMMONS: I would say six to eight months typically the heads will fill out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mr. Chairman, question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Steve, how many of the existing trees you're trying to leave on the project? Do you have a number of how many of those super-tall trees that are there now will be left or will survive the construction? MR. SAMMONS: We have -- it was in the range of 15 to 18 trees along that border there. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Currently existing? MR. SAMMONS: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Look at the drawing, or the image, rather, and I see on the left third of the screen where there is about 100 percent opacity, is that the existing Tract B? MR. SAMMONS: That is the existing preserve area. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Is that a photograph or some other representation? MR. SAMMONS: This is from the photograph, right. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. MR. SAMMONS: This was actually created by Waldrop through a computer simulation program taking portions of the actual photograph out, correct. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So if we were standing there today, that's what it would look like except it would extend more to the right, perhaps, another one-sixth or so of the screen? MR. SAMMONS: The preserve area? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes. MR. SAMMONS: Yes, yes. May 18, 2017 Page 23 of 53 COMMISSIONER FRYER: So there's 100 percent opacity at present that extends maybe one-sixth of the computer screen to the right that would be removed or trimmed down? MR. SAMMONS: Currently it's 100 percent, you know, all the way down. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah, but this depicts both Tract A and B, does it not, or is this just Tract B? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. It's preserve tract and the residential tract. MR. YOVANOVICH: If you're talking about the current -- the existing master plan, there was the preserve and there was a Tract A. Now we're talking about a preserve, a Tract C -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Understood. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- and a Tract A. I want to make sure we're all -- so Steve's -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: I get that. What my question is, though, is that -- so we're looking at this imagine. And, first of all, it's at least partially a photograph. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And my -- so my question is, is this image, is this confined to the current Tract B, or does this depict what Tract B would look like with a little bit of Tract C or some of Tract C also depicted? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, I think what Ned's trying to ask is is the new preserve the one reflected in that photograph, which I -- MR. YOVANOVICH: The new preserve is what's reflected in the photograph. But what's important for that photograph is the building that's in that photograph is in the development area of the current allowed development footprint. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Understood. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. I just wanted to make sure we're on the same page. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Again -- now we have a new image, but -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm just showing you that's the current master plan. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Keep that one on there for a moment. Tract B extends maybe a third or a quarter of the combined -- excuse me, the -- okay. Now -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Now, this may help you to show you what is the yellow. Do you see the yellow on there? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yep. MR. YOVANOVICH: So you'll see the amount of the impact of the proposed parking field in the currently identified preserve area. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Does the yellow area circumscribe the currently -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- allocated Tract B? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. So what you're seeing is we do have a portion -- and I could scale it if we need to. I don't think that's 160 feet -- of what's being removed for -- of preserve area that's being removed for the parking, if that helps. COMMISSIONER FRYER: It does. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: It's a lot. MR. YOVANOVICH: I think that's what you were trying to figure out, but I'm not -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's exactly what I was trying to figure out. Thank you. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Could I ask -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Real quick. When you remove all the exotics from the preserve per code, will it affect the opacity? MR. SAMMONS: To some degree; at a lower level, I believe it will. There is some Brazilian pepper in there and some ear leaf acacia but at the lower level, typically. But we will be supplementing, as I mentioned, some other canopy trees down below, and there is existing vegetation within the Esplanade buffer on their eastern property line that helps with that as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, gentlemen and ladies, let's take a break for 15 minutes. May 18, 2017 Page 24 of 53 We'll be back at 10:45 to resume. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Everyone please take your seats. We'd like to resume the meeting. Okay. And I believe we left off with -- the applicant was -- did you guys finish your presentation to this point? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then we will move to Planning Commission questions. And with that, where do you want to start? Any members of the Planning Commission have any questions to start with of the applicant? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I have questions when staff presents. I think that would be more appropriate to ask the staff some of the questions I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that leaves me, and I certainly have some, so... COMMISSIONER FRYER: I will follow you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You don't have to. I always let you guys go first. But if you want me to start, then, Richard, proposed Deviation No. 6, off-street parking distances. Part of your justification was that you're going to have a system of connected pathways. I'd like at least to show conceptually where you're planning to do those on the master plan. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. We can add that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: You want to show him, Wayne? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We could show you where they are, or we can just -- but we will add them to the master plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I want -- you can show me, but if someone wanted to look at your master plan in the future, I may not be next to them when they look at it. So just show them on the master plan. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm content you're going to do what the language says. I just needed to make sure it's shown so there's no question about it in the future. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In this it -- in the actual PUD, Exhibit A, Page 4, on the bottom of Page 4, you have an underlined added language, "Tract C, permitted residential principal uses, parenthetical, if only residential dwelling units are constructed in Tract C." Can you explain why you have that "if only" language in there? I mean, I think I understand it, but I want to make sure everybody else does. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: What page are you on, Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm on Page 4 of 16 of the PUD. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Four of 16. MR. YOVANOVICH: I think we wanted to have the opportunity to do both multifamily and group housing on Tract C, because those were our options. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: If I could chime in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: The way they've represented it, it's going to be either multifamily or group housing on Tract C but not both. MR. YOVANOVICH: Then we need to take the "if only" out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could we say that better? Because where you -- the way this is worded, you could put a mixture up there, and I'm not -- that's why I was trying to find out. Are you -- only residential units are constructed in Tract C. Well, you could construct some residential units; you could construct some group housing. Are you saying it's got to be one or the other? MR. YOVANOVICH: So we should just say Tract C -- Heidi's right, it is an either/or. So I think May 18, 2017 Page 25 of 53 what we're saying is these are the two options, either multifamily or townhome. So I think the word we had to come up with -- if we choose the option of residential -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You don't have -- MR. YOVANOVICH: -- we just need that word. We don't -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If anywhere in Tract C you put a unit or units, then that's what all of Tract C will be. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the clarification I'm trying to understand. Also under Tract C, A, dwelling units, multifamily, and townhouse. I've heard discussions, I'm not sure from whom at this point. It may have been you guys. It may have been the residents. I thought -- were these planning to be apartments? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But that's not what you're saying under dwelling units. You're just saying you're going to do multifamily, but instead of condo you're going to do apartments, but you still could do condo if you wanted to. In the townhouses, you could still do fee simple if you wanted to. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. Right now what we're permitting through the process is an apartment complex. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. All I'm trying to clarify is that you still could do condominiums, you still could do townhouses. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: With the height limitations that we've identified as modified. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But the townhouse -- you may not do four-story townhouses, of course. But if you did that, you could even do a fee simple product based on how we describe townhouses. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The product that you showed -- could you put that rendering back up, if you don't mind, while we're talking about the product. You don't have parking on the ground floor? MR. YOVANOVICH: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I noticed in the Development Standards Table, which is the next question -- and that's on Page 8 of 16. And you can leave that up, because I have a couple questions from that. You don't -- typically, we see a minimum square footage for a residential unit. Did I miss that? MR. YOVANOVICH: I think if you -- we're on Page 8 of 16, correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: If you look about a third of the way down or halfway down on the first table -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, yeah, yeah. There it is; 750. MR. YOVANOVICH: Seven fifty -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that's the number I used anyway. Okay. You've already -- okay. You've dropped the density down to 250? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What I had done, previously to knowing that, is calculated, based on those exhibits that you had sent out, the size of these buildings. And I was wondering how you were going to get 349 units in them. Now I understand. There's a lot of people here today, and there may be a lot of people at the next meeting. The issue is not so much the buildings to the east, and I think there's three of them over there on your concept plan, but the building to the west. So let's talking about that for a minute. First of all, you've agreed to silhouette it with the narrowest part of building facing west. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The building -- and I can't read this plan. I tried to scale it on another document you gave us, or that was included in the packet, and it looked like by the -- by the 9-foot parking May 18, 2017 Page 26 of 53 spaces, by the quantity, was about 250 feet long from end to end, is that correct, and about 90 feet wide? MR. YOVANOVICH: According to Mr. Waters, he thinks you're fair. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm fair? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A thousand feet long and 200 feet wide. MR. YOVANOVICH: Now you're wrong. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now I'm wrong. I was wondering how far you'd go with that. Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Those are his words. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, one building -- and that would take out I don't know how many units per floor or mix it around. Would you consider, especially to the benefit of the folks that are here that might help you as you move forward with the processing of this project, to reduce the building that -- that one building, not move it, to the east? I know that is a question that you've already been asked and you can't do that. That's your prerogative -- reduce that one building two stories and keep it at a two-story building with an actual and a zoned height? And that would probably -- that may help -- and we'll hear the public testimony. That may help with a lot of the concerns you've got all these people here for today. And I also know you all are involved in a lot of projects in the area, and these kind of things happen frequently. So if you're willing to do that, it would be something I think this board would like to entertain. MR. YOVANOVICH: We cannot do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You what? MR. YOVANOVICH: We cannot do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, we'll hear public testimony and see where it goes from there, then. Let me move on down the road and see what other questions I have on the table. On the buffer that you have between the two properties on the west side, is there a wall or a fence already on the Esplanade side of the property line? MR. YOVANOVICH: My understanding, it's a fence and berm, not a wall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The plantings that you were talking about putting there is -- how sure are you that Taylor Morrison would or would not allow that? How far have the discussions on that occurred? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I don't -- I don't -- I've not been personally party to those discussions. I don't know what the likelihood of success will be for those enhanced plantings from Taylor Morrison. I mean, we'll continue to work with them and talk to them about it. But I wanted to show you -- that's why we put the other exhibit up to show you, just assume it all breaks down and they say no, it's a better buffer than exists under the PUD today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, the situation there is you would pay for those additional plantings -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- on the Esplanade side of the property. They would have to maintain and irrigate them, right? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In those enhanced buffers -- let's assume we're talking about two of them, the one that you'd have their cooperation on and the one that you wouldn't have their cooperation on. Both have been referred to as enhanced buffers. We're looking at an opacity of 75 percent, I think was the discussion. The height of that opacity would need to be understood. And why are you looking at a three-segmented buffer situation? Why won't you just do one standard buffer all the way from Immokalee Road, or wherever your property starts, to the edge of that preserve? I noticed it's kind of broken up on the plan and -- MR. YOVANOVICH: It gets wider as we go further north. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, until you get to the parking lot; then it gets narrower again, I think. MR. YOVANOVICH: I think -- and Dan can correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as footprint area for the project, that's what we have, you know. May 18, 2017 Page 27 of 53 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you just agreed to a 25-foot property line setback -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- as a minimum. So you've got 25 feet, but you're not using 25 feet. MR. WATERS: Good morning. Dan Waters, for the record. What we did was, after the neighborhood information meeting and we heard the concerns from our neighbors, we took a hard look at our land plan and, just anywhere where we could keep land at existing grade -- because the intent was to save the tall vegetation that was there, specifically the pines -- we pulled back our berms and the areas we were going to fill and added culverts and did things like that to try and save as much as could of the existing. So the reason you see that change size as it moves up is it was a function of our land plan and a function of how high we had to fill in certain areas and what infrastructure we had to install in those areas. So we went through it as best we could and saved as much as we could. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have a plant list, both size -- either by caliper or by container -- and species as to what you're enhancing the buffer with? MR. WATERS: I think Steve Sammons has that, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who is Steve Sanders (sic)? He works for? MR. WATERS: Sammons, our landscape architect. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, the guy that was just up here. Okay. MR. SAMMONS: Yes. Steve Sammons, Peninsula Engineering. In the renderings that we have put forth here, we do show, I mentioned earlier, it was the 24 sabal palms that were different staggered heights; eight at around 24, 25 feet; eight at around 30 feet; and eight at 34 to 35 feet. In addition to that, we also did show 10 canopy trees 16-foot overall height and probably a 3-inch caliper on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SAMMONS: And that was on the -- on the Esplanade property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was on the Esplanade? Okay. Now -- MR. SAMMONS: I'm sorry, I'm sorry. On the Addison Place property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Facing Esplanade. MR. SAMMONS: There were positive discussions about enhancing the buffer area on the Esplanade property. There was discouragement against placing additional plantings in the golf course property. And that was in earlier discussions with the landscape architect for Esplanade. They said there was a lot of effort and thought in the design, in the initial design, of the golf course plantings to create the views down the corridors as well as playability of golf balls, errant golf balls in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The location of these buildings really, though, is not adjacent to the golf course. It's adjacent to that lake, right? Wrong? Put the aerial back on. We'll take a look at it. MR. YOVANOVICH: Here, let the lawyer do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You don't have any of these plantings adjacent to a golf course. They're all on the east side of that roadway, which is not the golf course. MR. GENSON: Mr. Strain, for the record, David Genson with Barron Collier. We looked at two different areas of plantings within the Esplanade property. You can see them. They are clouded on this drawing. We see one that's in the golf course. That's the one that was objected to by Taylor Morrison. The one that's closer to the property line is something they felt that we could work on and possibly do something there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then since I have built some golf courses and I know how finicky golf course architects are, I can understand why they'd be concerned about additional plantings on their golf course. I had no idea that that view you showed was reflective of something probably 100, 200 feet away from the property line. It looked like it was lined up along the property line. Have you talked to Taylor Morrison about enhancing the buffer from where the preserve ends now all the way to Immokalee Road on their side of the line, not out in the golf course, but up on the east side of that roadway? And I'm just wondering why you wouldn't have. May 18, 2017 Page 28 of 53 MR. SAMMONS: Yes. There was positive discussions on enhancing that length of buffer, yes. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: On the lake. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But the only thing you've got is positive discussions? MR. SAMMONS: There were no commitments as far as amount of plant material, size of plant material. We would need to further that discussion. MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Are you talking about this? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, that seems -- I thought that was what we had been talking about -- I had no idea that your rendering included something way out in the golf course. I mean, that is -- I can understand their concern about doing that. The golf course plantings are usually very carefully selected by the golf course architect in their locations and stuff, so... COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. But there's no golf course there, but you have to maintain a 20-foot clear area around that lake for maintenance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: But there's no reason that couldn't wind in and out, and you could put some pretty big trees in that whole area all around that lake, both sides. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And there are some there now. If you look on the lake about a third of the way down on the right side, there's some trees shown in this aerial right here, so... MR. YOVANOVICH: And, Mr. Strain, obviously, I think our focus was up near the houses and how that was going to impact their view for the building. We certainly can go back to Taylor Morrison and focus further south on the berm as well, buffer area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you know, there's going to be, I assume, a lot of discussion from the speakers concerning how to buffer their view. And I don't disagree with you about your rights in regards to what you can do now and what you could do. But the style of building you're offering is a little different than what could go there if that building wasn't there in the sense that, first of all, it's a more architecturally, probably, embellished building, so it will look better. The problem is, they don't want to see it. But the function of that building's going to be different. It will be a 24/7 operation, not a 9-to-5 office building. That may have a different reflection in regards to balcony lighting, things like that, things you wouldn't have in an office building. From that perspective, looking at a more compatible level for that building closer to the property line should be a consideration. So I wouldn't ask you to not consider that before the day's over. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I'd like to add one comment. So your points are valid, and I appreciate Mr. Yovanovich clarifying. So I also think -- and I haven't heard anybody talk about this yet. We keep referencing that home and those homes there. I think almost as important and based on -- I'm sure we'll hear testimony later today -- every owner in that community drives in and out of that main entranceway. And it looks like, just from this aerial, you know, part of that view of a community -- obviously, I know when I drive into my community, it's neat to have what they see now, which is nice trees, wooded view. So I think -- again, per Mark's comment, I think it's critical that you all get with Taylor Morrison to really do as much as we can along that side so when every homeowner comes in and out of the Esplanade, if you see that main drag there, we try to block that view as much as possible and try to keep as many trees and nature views. I'm sure that's why a lot of them probably purchased in Esplanade. So I think Chairman Strain's comments and everybody's feedback, that's critical. I would think Tailor Morrison would hopefully be allowable with that, I would hope. May 18, 2017 Page 29 of 53 MR. YOVANOVICH: And we don't have any problem with that. I mean, we're fine with doing that. The focus we were -- we were getting from the comments and the emails were, we don't want to see the buildings. And it was from the homeowners. And that's our focus. We were trying to address that, but we certainly could focus on some enhanced landscaping on Taylor Morrison's side for the drive in. And we're happy to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we'll have to -- after we hear public speakers, we may end up getting a little bit deeper into that issue. So let's -- let me see where else I've got issues. Exhibit F, Page 38. Did we already -- did you already address No. 2, dropping some language? Yes, you did. That was -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I thought we did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- the roadway. Right. Okay. All right. I wanted to make sure I didn't miss anything. I also have a letter here from Wayne Arnold that was to Eric Johnson dated June 13th, 2016. And it was a -- about the MPUD, and it said, this development plan would be an option to the currently authorized plan, but that's not what's happening. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. We have -- we have modified it to say this is what you will get. We are -- we're reducing the square footage on the commercial retail site, and it's not just a new option. It's -- this is what we would like. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The zoned maximum height that you're proposing now is what? I know you said actual, I thought, 55. Did you come up with a zoned? MR. YOVANOVICH: I haven't come up with a zoned yet, but 55 would be the actual for the multifamily. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. In the preapp -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right now it says 55/65, so -- zoned versus -- zoning and actual, so we would go to 45. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's good, because in the preapp you said the following: Add residential component to residential dwelling, multifamily, and townhouse; proposed 16 development units per acre; PUD document is in modern form; either all commercial or all residential; proposed maximum height of 45 feet. So I think the 45 feet you've just said matches what you started out with, so that's a good move. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Mr. Strain, the ALF on that site can go to 65 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it would be a .60 FAR. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. That, I think, is the questions I have for right now. We will certainly probably come back, and you'll have time to rebut. Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. I'm going to ask questions. Did you want to go -- I'll ask questions of the petitioner. Mr. Yovanovich, regarding the existing zoning, you have a right today to go into that property and build in accordance with the existing zoning; is that correct? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That existing zoning, did it precede any existing zoning on the -- what is now called Esplanade? So that's always been in existence prior to any zoning for the Esplanade? MR. YOVANOVICH: I have to go back and look, Mr. Schmitt, because -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a touchy question -- MR. YOVANOVICH: -- the Esplanade -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Oh, I know the Esplanade goes back to the Mirasol and many, many -- MR. YOVANOVICH: -- which was probably originally approved prior to Addie's Corner, but it was litigated -- May 18, 2017 Page 30 of 53 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- for quite a while, and we ultimately resolved that litigation with what is now the Esplanade PUD. And, quite honestly, I don't remember which one I did first. I don't remember if I finalized what's now Esplanade before I did Addie's corner. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: My point of questioning then is in regards to any representation by the developer or marketing of homes of Taylor Morrison, any person who came to purchase those lots, they -- it should have been disclosed to them that that property was not going to be a preserve, that it always was intended to be developed. Do you -- I'm not saying you would know whether they knew that, but there was never -- it was always the intent to develop this piece of property. So a homeowner who built, I would have expected, that in some form they should have been informed that that property was planned to be developed. And I think there's a perception in many of the emails that I read that in some way people were giving the impression that this would always be a preserve. MR. YOVANOVICH: And, as you know, that's not an unusual assertion that people make. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: I wasn't present for any of the conversations, so I can't testify as to what anybody says. I could only tell you that this property is in an activity center. It's in the urban area. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's always been intended to be developed. This is actually property that was intended to have the most intensive development because it is in the activity center. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: So what homework or due diligence the individual property owners did to verify what was being said, if it was even said to them, I don't know. But we run into this issue all the time. Someone -- you know, some told me that that was always going to be there as trees. And I go, well, that someone didn't own the property if they really said that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's my point. MR. YOVANOVICH: You know, we're always here trying to deal with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Some clarification. First of all, Addie's Corner was approved in 2011. Esplanade was approved in 2014. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just pulled the PUDs. Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So there's your difference in time frame. But, second of all, when Addie's Corner was approved, it was approved on a master plan with a certain area shown as preserve. They're changing the preserve. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's probably caused more confusion over what really was preserve and what kind of preserve we're talking about. And as we saw by the yellow lines, the preserve was more extensive, even though only a small part of it would have affected the -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- western side facing Esplanade. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And I understand that. Thanks for clarifying that. Because it -- and I do have -- certainly have compassion and understanding of trying to buffer the development but, at the same time, my concern is, sort of, the last one in has to suffer the pain and agony of trying to accommodate everyone else that's already there to begin with. And I believe somewhat that's the case here. We're forcing someone who has development rights, or there's a perception, in my view -- I'm seeing somewhat of a perception the last developer in is being forced to accommodate and modify its development plan because they're the last one in the -- to sit in the chair, so to speak. MR. YOVANOVICH: I agree. And it's harder and harder as everything becomes infill; everything. We have a neighbor almost everywhere now to where we -- you're right, the last guy in is -- has to accommodate, to the best they can, what's around them, and I thing we have. I think we have done that. May 18, 2017 Page 31 of 53 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, I would encourage -- I mean, I'm waiting to hear what the public has to say. But, of course, I think part of this would be to enter into some kind of an agreement with Taylor Morrison. Is that a CDD there now, or is it strictly controlled by Taylor Morrison? MR. YOVANOVICH: I believe there's a CDD. I don't know what portion of the -- who really controls this, but I believe that Taylor Morrison has the ability either way to address. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So it would be -- most likely be the CDD you would have to enter into an agreement with for these -- it would most likely be the CDD you would have to enter into an agreement with. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, we can get there, is my point. If it's a CDD, we'll deal with the CDD. If it's the developer, we'll deal with the developer. If it's the HOA, we'll deal with the HOA. I think that if the parties are willing, we can get there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The CDD is still controlled by the developer. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It is. The CDD is still controlled by the developer. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: They don't control -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If it is, I don't know. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Do they control all the positions on the CDD? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I was wondering. I don't know how many board members the CDD has now that they're at large. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't know the answer. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: But for clarification, again, you all have been open and said many times today, with permission from Taylor Morrison, you're willing to go in there at your cost -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: -- and do -- and fill that in with trees and everything to beautify the views of the Esplanade residents? MR. YOVANOVICH: Whoever the appropriate entity is, we're ready, willing to go do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I think most of my questions have been covered. I want to join with those who have expressed a concern about the loss of the preserve. I understand the strict legal requirements and the expectations and that there was a basis for the technical or theoretical basis, at least, for residents of Esplanade to identify what the future might hold for them with respect to this area. I get all that. But I'm not sure that I have a total sense of high confidence that enough discussion took place between the developer and the residents of Esplanade. It seems as though some of these issues surely could have been resolved with a little more discussion, particularly as it relates to Tract B, the preserve. So I wanted to join with those who share that concern. Also, I do appreciate, though, the reduction in the number of units and the height limitation. I mean, you should be given credit for making those changes. The right-of-way is to be reduced in width from 60 to 50 feet. Is that -- is that something that's necessary to the development? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: It is? MR. YOVANOVICH: But everything will still be there. I mean, this is -- if I can, it's a pretty standard deviation. The pavement stays the same width. The utilities are basically in the same locations. The county utilities are in the same locations. It's just a -- it's just something that for -- basically for private roads has become pretty standard. COMMISSIONER FRYER: But the width of the individual lanes will -- MR. YOVANOVICH: All the same. That does not change. COMMISSIONER FRYER: The width will be the same? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir. May 18, 2017 Page 32 of 53 COMMISSIONER FRYER: The shoulders that will be reduced? MR. YOVANOVICH: It's really where you put the utilities along the sides of the road. It's how you calculate where they are, whether it's within the right-of-way or in a separate easement. And we do sidewalks on both sides. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm just thinking about older drivers like me who are not getting any younger and the need for as much road as possible. MR. YOVANOVICH: We're not cheating you out of any area of fluff. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Along a similar line, I guess it was Deviation No. 6 having to do with parking and the -- it made reference to a walking distance of 300 versus 600 feet, if memory serves. Once again, we older folks tend to be able to walk less distances. Is that baked solidly into your -- Deviation 6 is baked solidly in your needs? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. And it really deals with the recreational facilities. And, yes, that, again, is another one for these smaller, more compact projects that we reduce the amount of parking required. I'm comfortable that you will be able to walk from your unit to the rec facility. I picked out a nice one for you and -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Let's say -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We do have a gift policy, so you need to be careful. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Give me a $4 one then. MR. YOVANOVICH: Oh, he's paying. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have a number of other questions, but I think they better relate to the first 21 pages the staff report, so thank you. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question for you, Richard. You really aren't the last guy, are you? Isn't one to the east of you, which is Tree Farm? MR. YOVANOVICH: There's an existing Tree Farm PUD on the hard corner, if you will, of Collier Boulevard and Immokalee Road that will be coming in, I'm assuming, sometime in the future to actually develop, and then there's property to the east of 951. That's a nursery that will be coming in through the process. So we're not the last one, but we're probably right on the edge of what's pretty close to unzoned in the urban area at this point. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else anything of the applicant before we go to staff report? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Eric, do you have a staff report? MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir, Mr. Chair. For the record, Eric Johnson, Principal Planner. Staff reviewed the documents that were submitted in your packets or an earlier version. Staff is recommending approval of the petition. There are four deviations that were requested. Staff is recommending approval of those; however, on the last page of the staff report, where the recommendation cites Deviation No. 6, that actually should say Deviation No. 3, which I guess becomes a moot point if No. 3 goes away. But staff is recommending (sic) of the project. So, again, to reiterate, staff recommends approval of Deviation No. 3 as worded in your staff report, and that's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any questions of staff? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I believe it's been clarified that the word "or" on Page 1 of the report having to do with the permitted uses on Tract C is not going to be a mix of the two; it's going to be one on the other -- one or the other. Will that -- in subsequent paperwork, will that be better clarified? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I would expect, with the amount of changes we're talking about, this will come back on consent on June 1st, and all that clarification should be there at that time. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Good. Thank you. May 18, 2017 Page 33 of 53 Then -- let's see. There was a reference in some of the emails to the maximum number of dwelling units allowed at present under the current zoning on Tract A, and many writers of emails asked that it be -- that the current 200 unit zoning be carried forward. Where does that 200 number come from? MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Commissioner, if I understand your question, it's related to something that's in the emails, that the people were requesting 200? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes. MR. JOHNSON: The subject property has an allowable density of 16 dwelling units per acre. I honestly don't know where the 200 comes from. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That answers my question. Thank you. The traffic analysis I see was based upon facts in existence in reports that were dated 2014 and 2015. Is there a way of projecting, based upon prior trends, what the circumstances are going to look like in 2017? I realize these are five-year studies, but the supportive material references dates that are, you know, really three -- two and three years old. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to have a lot of fun in October. The Capital Improvement Element for Collier County -- the Annual Update and Inventory Report is a document that a lot of our concurrency is based on, and it occurs at -- usually we see it in October every year, and we'll have all information like that on every element in the GMP, including roads and parks and Sheriff's Office and everything else. But a lot of the -- what's happening on the roads and concurrency and the traffic counts come from that document. And I'll let Eric elaborate. But you haven't been here yet to have to go through one of those, and they're quite interesting, but they're real data orientated. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So until we have that, though, we're stuck with the 2014 -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, actually, we should be using 2016's. They were the last year. So, I mean, your discrepancy is something Eric can address. But I just wanted to explain to you about the AUIR. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Understood. MR. JOHNSON: Sir -- Mr. Commissioner, I'm going to have to defer that question to our Transportation Planner. He's in the room with us, and he can come up to the podium. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And I'm referring to Pages 4 and 5 of 21. MR. SAWYER: Yeah. For the record, Mike Sawyer, Transportation Planning. We did -- staff -- when the petition came in, we were still within the AUIR at the time of submittal. Normally that's what locks in the project when it gets submitted. As we go forward with the project, unless there's a real fine limit or a real fine issue as far as the number of trips that we still have available on the road network, we normally wait until we get to the end of the review, we confirm that the AUIR at that time -- which we did. The numbers that you're looking at are the 2016 AUIR numbers, which are the current numbers that we've got this year. So important -- and that's why we put this in here is to show that currently, right now, we have got that capacity on those adjacent road segments, so... COMMISSIONER FRYER: I think the residents may differ with you on that point, but -- MR. SAWYER: I can appreciate that. I can tell you that we have been watching this particular road segment quite closely. COMMISSIONER FRYER: The paragraph that I was concerned about and that caught my eye, it says, in evaluating this project, staff reviewed the applicant's traffic statement for consistency, Policy 5.01 -- using the 2014 and 2015 Annual Update and the AUIR. Should you have said the 2016 AUIR? MR. SAWYER: For more clarification, I should have, yes, you're correct. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's what confused me. MR. SAWYER: Yes. Staff apologizes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Accepted. Let's see. On Page 8 -- I suspect this is just a typo, but I did find it confusing. About four lines down from the top of Page 8 there's a sentence that ends with the phrase "Tract A would be reduced to 9.2 acres and a new Tract C would be 4.32 acres." Is that correct? MR. SAWYER: I'm sorry. I think we've gotten past transportation. I will be glad to come up again. May 18, 2017 Page 34 of 53 COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. I think I understand. As far as I'm concerned, you've covered your material. MR. SAWYER: Thank you, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you for your help. MR. JOHNSON: Okay. I'm looking at the master plan. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And the fourth line down, just from appearances, Tract C looks like it's more than 4.32 acres. I thought it was supposed to be 9.82 acres. MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Commissioner, I'll have to look at that more closely. If it was a typo or a mistake, I -- but according to the master plan, Tract C is supposed to be 9.82 acres. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Right. MR. JOHNSON: Tract A is supposed to be 4.32 acres. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. So that's just a typo, then. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The numbers are reversed. MR. JOHNSON: Oh, yes; yes, they are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could be the tracts are reversed. MR. JOHNSON: No. I think -- yes, Tract C is 9.82 acres. The staff report says Tract A would be reduced to 9.82 acres, so it's reversed. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I go to, it looks like, Page 9 now. And my question -- and I find the difference between zoned height and actual height somewhat confusing. I think I have a handle on it, but the way it's frequently expressed seems to mislead, at least me. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'll give you an off-the-record clear explanation of that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I lived it till I have battle scars from it. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. The maximum height would be 65 feet now reduced to 55 feet which, as I said, I think is a good thing. Are there any 55-foot buildings within a mile or so radius of that location, or would this be the first? MR. JOHNSON: Well, Mr. Commissioner, I'm not sure. When I looked at the other developments, Tree Farm has a zoned height of 50 feet or three stories, and Esplanade, you know, 50 feet with five stories, and there's a -- there's a note, includes under -- includes of underbuilding parking. So I really don't know. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. I mean, I grant you that in many cases the permitted height is higher. MR. JOHNSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: My question was, is there a building with actual height that has gotten that high? MR. JOHNSON: I don't know. How far out are we talking? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I just threw out a mile radius, but whatever you've got. MR. JOHNSON: Zoning Manager and I can't think of anything offhand. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but we just can't put our finger on it. Mr. Commissioner, I don't think there is a building that tall that's existing. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I don't think there is either, but I just wanted to be sure I wasn't overlooking something. I think all my other questions I have either covered or have been covered by others. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, would you mind wandering up to the microphone again? MR. SAWYER: For the record, Mike Sawyer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have a note at the top of Page 6 of the staff report at the end of your section. It says, staff notes that Immokalee Road is projected to fail the required level of service past the current five-year plan projections. But right now, and for this project and for the vesting that this project was provided, I believe, by some of the DCAs or other language involved, they are below the threshold they previously were approved for. So the project is producing less traffic, especially now that they dropped down May 18, 2017 Page 35 of 53 to 250 units, than they were previously approved for; is that correct? MR. SAWYER: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. When Immokalee Road fails -- I know that we are under construction or -- I try to avoid that crowded area. So I haven't been up there for a while, although it's just two miles from my home; I go every direction but there. We're widening the canal there. I don't know if that work's complete, but that's being done for a proposed overpass; is that correct? MR. SAWYER: That's the eventual thinking that we currently have, and we do have some preliminary layouts so that as new developments come into this area, we are able to consider what right-of-ways we may eventually need to accommodate that. We don't have anything -- honestly, I don't have anything with me, nor do we have anything in the office right now. We do have a consultant that is looking at it; very preliminary. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, your statement that it's going to fail within the next five years, wouldn't we be obligated to address that failure and correct it? And if the overpass is the correction for the failure -- and it takes, what, two or three years to build one of those. So what's your timetable on all this? MR. SAWYER: I can tell you -- we don't have a projection for the overpass currently. I can tell you right now that the intersection improvements that we're currently doing at the intersection of 951 and Immokalee, those are going to be completed mid September of this year. Once those are in place, we should -- you know, we will be taking traffic counts like we normally do on a monthly basis finding out what effect those changes are going to have on that road -- that road system itself. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're saying that those changes that we're doing now may prevent the statement that you put in this staff report? If that's the case, then why did you put it there? MR. SAWYER: It's in there just simply to demonstrate that we are aware that this is a -- that this is a busy area of the county; that there are a lot of -- there is a lot of development that's occurring, and we are quickly using up the capacity that we have remaining so that staff is looking at alternatives whether they're minor operational changes that we can make or major expansions of the existing road system that we've got in that area. It's -- honestly, it's just a cautionary tail, if you will, that we're aware that everybody's concerned about this particular area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think you ought to consider how you reword -- because this is very proactive. It says, "is projected to fail." You really mean it could fail if the continued improvements we're making aren't continued to be made, and that you also could have put in the fact we have an ultimate solution; I believe the overpass is that. Anyway, I was -- I read that, and I was a little surprised at the tone. The other issue -- MR. SAWYER: Point taken, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pardon me? MR. SAWYER: Point taken. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The other issue I have is, see this map in front of us? See the entrance to Esplanade onto Immokalee Road? I can't see what's on the bottom of that. Is that a full median opening? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: No. MR. SAWYER: No, it is not. They do have -- I believe they've got a left-in at that intersection and, otherwise, they've got a right-in and right-out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you scheduled at all for any type of consideration of a traffic signal there? MR. SAWYER: At this point, no. In order to consider a traffic signal at that location, it would have to meet a minimum of a half-mile distance from the intersection of 951 and Immokalee. I think they're pretty close to that. I think -- I'm not positive. In rough numbers, I think they're about 150 feet short, which, if it were to meet warrants, would not be -- we would not have a hard time overcoming that distance. I think one of the key issues of considering a signal at that location is that the community will have a May 18, 2017 Page 36 of 53 secondary access over -- directly on 951 and be able to get back to the intersection of 951 and Immokalee where we do have the existing signal. I think because of that, that in and of itself would certainly be taken into consideration for any kind of warrant study that we would do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There is a -- I mean, I was -- this has nothing directly involving Addie's Corner, but it's something that, since you're there, I want to just mention to you. There's been expressed concern over our standard to force people to do U-turns, which I -- as you know, that's not something I think is a smart thing to do, but we still do it. And the people in one of the developments to the south side of Immokalee Road are forced to make a continuous line of U-turns in front of Esplanade, which is causing some problem for Esplanade folks to get in and out. So if your -- if your department has an opportunity, maybe you could look at some of that and see if there's a way to relieve that effort. MR. SAWYER: We will certainly look at that operationally, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Mike, when you measured that half mile, is that from center of intersection to center of intersection? MR. SAWYER: Correct, center line to center line. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Google Earth says you're about 2,510 feet. So you are just a little short. But I would call that a half mile. MR. SAWYER: I would agree with you. It's very, very close, and that's why I said I think it might be a little close. But, honestly, if we were looking at a warrant study for that, that wouldn't be -- that wouldn't knock it out automatically. That's too small of a distance to really knock it out -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. MR. SAWYER: -- in and of itself. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Slide rule works, but calculator doesn't. MR. SAWYER: Exactly. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question for you. MR. SAWYER: Yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Did the BCC just approve kind of an emergency thing where we're going to maybe extend Vanderbilt? Did they approve that to go forward right now to help relieve the traffic on Immokalee? MR. SAWYER: Yes, they did. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. MR. SAWYER: And we are currently working on getting that initiated. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. So that this is another method of getting the people to the Estates area because -- MR. SAWYER: Definitely. That would be a parallel corridor for us -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. MR. SAWYER: -- and it would actually enable us to go past 951 which, if you look at the number of road segments that we have got going east and west, we've got Pine Ridge, which only goes so far, basically 951, then we get to Vanderbilt, and being able to get Vanderbilt further east would help as far as getting traffic east. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But to get Vanderbilt east, you've got to take out people's homes in the process of doing that. So I just wanted to make that point, because it's nice we have a six-lane Immokalee Road, but when we have to put roads in that take out people's homes, that's a whole 'nother argument. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I know that's true. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's not that simple as, just, we're going to throw another road in to offset Immokalee. We're going to take out people's lives to do that. MR. SAWYER: Those roads are never simple. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of Mike? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Staff? Patrick? May 18, 2017 Page 37 of 53 COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I have a question. And I think for everybody here, for their benefit, I've heard you all reference -- I heard you reference some improvements to the intersection of 951 and Immokalee Road, correct? MR. SAWYER: Yes. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: In the essence of time, is it too complicated to maybe ask what those improvements are and how they're going to improve the intersection in regards to the Esplanade people and all those off Immokalee Road? MR. SAWYER: Not at all. In fact, I actually have one of our inspectors, senior inspectors, here that can also help explain the project itself, and I've got a diagram I can put up. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Please. MR. SAWYER: If you look, basically, everything that's in yellow on there is the new improvements. You can see, primarily on the north side of Immokalee, the bridge itself is being widened, and we're adding lanes. There will be a dedicated right-turn lane to get you west on Immokalee. As you're heading north -- I'm sorry. As you're heading south on 951, there will be through lanes and dedicated -- a dedicated left also. We're also improving, you know, traffic going north onto 951 as it goes north of the intersection. The canal, as you can see, is also getting reconfigured. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Is that the yellow, Mike, I'm seeing there? What's the highlighted yellow part there? MR. SAWYER: Correct. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: The canal? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else? Okay. Go ahead, Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I know 951 is going to go north. How far north is it going? Do you have any idea? Because it's going to go through Esplanade, through their preserve. It will be connecting up to Logan at the county line, I believe. Do you know how far back that is? MR. SAWYER: At this point I don't have a configuration. I don't have an alignment -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. MR. SAWYER: -- for any of that yet. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I know. It's been a big -- everybody's thorn. MR. SAWYER: There's a number of different thoughts right now as far as how that connection -- how far it's going to go and how it actually is going to work within the road segment. It will go north. Right now, the only thing that I've seen for sure is having that back access for Mirasol to get them -- I'm sorry; Esplanade. I'm old school also. I was involved with the project when it still was Mirasol, so I apologize -- for Esplanade. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Very good. Thank you. MR. SAWYER: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Mike. MR. SAWYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the last thing I'd have to mention is, Eric, when you do your staff reports -- and, especially, 400 pages is a lot to read for all of us. I do have to read it when you issue it, unfortunately. The redundancy is a problem. You repeated documents multiple times. In fact, you repeated the PUD strikethrough on Page 24, Page 129, and Page 203. All we really need is the last one, the one that is the last one that you're basing your staff report on. The history of how that was acquired, I don't really think it's necessary for this board to see it, so -- if we want it, we can ask for it, but it might save some trees if we can -- or at least some trees for Diane and Karen if we can cut back on the May 18, 2017 Page 38 of 53 amount of time we repeat the same document. MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Chair, I routinely email the petitioners that page of items that are required in the CCPC packets, so that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that doesn't -- what has that got to do with my question? MR. JOHNSON: The effort here is to reduce the amount of paperwork that's duplicate or anything like that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But just don't send us three copies of the same PUD anymore. MR. BELLOWS: We'll do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we will move to public speakers. Ray, do we have any registered public speakers? MR. JOHNSON: Yes, we do. Actually, I'm Eric. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. Ray usually calls them out, but if you want to, go right ahead. MR. JOHNSON: Our first registered speaker is Jody Ressler-Tatro followed by Frank Tatro. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Please come up on either microphone, identify yourself when you get to the mike, and if you have a -- your last name, if you could just spell your last name. Sometimes they're not very simple, so... MS. RESSLER-TATRO: Hi. My name is Jody Ressler-Tatro, and that's R-e-s-s-l-e-r hyphen Tatro. I actually don't live in Esplanade. I live in The Quarry, but I want to thank you all for the opportunity to hear from the concerned citizens of Collier County regarding the development of Addie's Corner. While I'm aware that progress waits for no one, how one defines progress is something that can be debated, and it sounds like you've debated it quite a bit up to this point. I recognize that development and growth is inevitable, and I am fundamentally not opposed to it in general as long as it occurs in a thoughtful manner and what I hope will maintain the traditional different over-here feel and appeal that really drew so many of us here to Southwest Florida versus the east coast of Florida. It's this community character which I think distinguishes Naples from what I think is the perceived egregious overgrowth occurring elsewhere in Florida where there seems to be a disregard for, in many places, community betterment. As county commissioners, I know that you're challenged with the very difficult decisions that are going to help shape Naples both in the short term and the long term and that these decisions are going to impact generations for years to come. I have to tell you, with that said, I'm very encouraged by what I heard this morning about the really thoughtful questions that you've asked of the developers, and I will tell you that I especially loved the question you -- that Commissioner Fryer asked about, are there any other 55-foot buildings within a one-mile radius because, again, it speaks to where I'm going. I'm not going to belabor the points of things related to traffic, infrastructure, congestion, and what I think is a lot of green space that we're losing, because I know that you're already aware of all of these points. These are quality-of-life issues that impact those of us who live along Immokalee Road dearly, and I think they're going to impact the people that are going to ultimately reside in Tract C. What does concern me is that the developers have seemed to ask for a number of revisions or deviations over time, and I understand why they're doing it, because they're trying to optimize their return on investment. And I guess in some respects I can't deny them this opportunity, but I feel like in some ways it's irrespective of whether their proposed development is really a good fit with the character of the surrounding neighborhoods. The maintenance of the neighborhood character and the integrity is incredibly important to the overall perception of neighborhood quality, and it's important to our property values, and it's important in terms of the ability to attract residents to the many residential communities that reside either before Addie's Corner or those that are going to be on the back end of it. And, you know, an optimal proposed development would, in my mind, integrate plans that would ensure compatibility with the neighbors that were -- that were there before them. And I know that that word "compatibility" was debated quite a bit this morning. May 18, 2017 Page 39 of 53 But, rather, I guess what concerns me is that the developers have opted to press forward with designs for multi-level buildings and that I feel like they're trying to shoehorn into a parcel of land to really maximum the return on their initial investment. I feel that the height and the -- the height of the structure, even though they have reduced it, is inconsistent with the current architectural makeup of the surrounding area. I feel -- you know, they want to reduce the width of the streets. I know that that was something that you all brought up. And I have to tell you with the number of residents and the commercial development that's going to be going on there and the age of many of the people that reside in Naples, it's so congested I worry that that's going to endanger many of the people that are going to be traveling there, and particularly the residents that are going to reside in Tract C. You know, I was concerned when I saw the deviation online about how they want to -- they'd like to remove dumpsters, which is, again, a concern for me, and I think it speaks to a lack of disrespect for the tenants that are ultimately going to reside in those properties. I understand they want to build vertically, because if they were to build horizontally, it would not afford them the same number of doors and, again, it would impact, negatively, their bottom line. While this creates greater value for them, I feel it's going to have the opposing affect on those of us who reside around them. We're going to have more noise, we're going to have more traffic, and all of those things in the short and long term are going to impact our property values. So I began by saying how Naples evolves in many ways is going to rest in your hands. It's a big job, and I applaud you for doing it, and I feel really comfortable with you sitting behind the bench today, but I implore you to please have the courage to say no to these multi-level structures in the midst of the many nearby neighborhoods of single-story homes. I urge you please to strongly consider against the requested multiple revisions and, in doing so, I believe you're going to be sending a message that while Naples is open to growth and development, please don't think you can try to rework suboptimal acreage into something ill-suited for an area because of a personal need to recoupe investment. Thank you. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Could I -- (Applause.) COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: -- say something? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Please. I've got to ask you not -- to refrain from clapping, please. Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: You know building vertically is better sometimes than building horizontal because you take up less area for water management. You shed less water. More water goes into the ground and into the groundwater table. And the bit about roads, what you're talking about, the street, the road right-of-way is the legal definition of the road, but it's not the street. The street is the paved travelway. They're not going to change the paved travelway. There's no safety here. What they do is they move the road -- they narrow the road right-of-way, and they put -- what would be the sidewalk and the utilities, which would sit in the road right-of-way, they put them in easements on both sides of the road. So, geometrically, as you're traveling down the road, you don't really see a difference. But legally -- when you look at what's on the piece of paper, it looks, legally, like there's a smaller area, but there really isn't. Just, you know, so you know that. MS. RESSLER-TATRO: No. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And we have to take that into account. MS. RESSLER-TATRO: Thank you for that clarity. I will tell you I absolutely know that you can take up less land building vertically versus horizontally but, again, in order to do that, you would reduce your -- if you were to build horizontally, clearly, in this small parcel of land, you would not be able to fit in 250 units. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Well, these are apartments, too. And there's a lack of May 18, 2017 Page 40 of 53 apartments in this community that is sorely needed. People -- when I was getting out of the military, the first thing I did was rent an apartment for a lot of years till you save enough money to buy a house. MS. RESSLER-TATRO: I did as well. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And you don't have that down here, and that's -- everybody's complaining. So, you know, where are we going to build apartments? This, to me, is a perfect spot for it. But that's -- you know, everybody has their own opinion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Miss, I have one comment to ask you. You know, if they weren't here today, they could go into the Building Department tomorrow and get a permit to build a 65-foot-high office building or commercial building. They're asking to put a less intense use on the property. They're asking to put a 55-foot-high apartment building. And you're opposing an apartment building, but you're okay with the commercial? MS. RESSLER-TATRO: I'm really not thrilled with any of these highrise buildings because, to the point that was made, I feel like it's going to change the existing surrounding area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, ma'am, it's something that occurred in 2011. That horse is long out of the shoot. We can't take away property rights. And now we can cooperatively try to get a better situation. But you're already dealing with something higher than what's being requested today at an intensity that could be higher than what's requested today. And I think that's the piece that seems to be missing in the conversations and the emails I had. Just like your development had a right to put your home there, that was their property rights. So we've got to deal with what the law allows us to deal with, and we've got to work within that threshold. Sometimes we can get compromises that make a better benefit, and that's what we're trying to do with our questions today. So I just wanted you to be aware of that. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: One statement of clarification. You mentioned that The Quarry has no highrise buildings, but -- MS. RESSLER-TATRO: They do. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- the development -- you do have highrises. MS. RESSLER-TATRO: Well, we have two-story buildings. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Two-story buildings. How tall are the buildings next to you, then, in Heritage Bay? They're four or five stories, are they not, in the back of Heritage Bay? MS. RESSLER-TATRO: Yes, they are. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. MS. RESSLER-TATRO: They're four. Three and -- they have -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: They tier, three and then go to four. MS. RESSLER-TATRO: They have three, and then in the middle it's four. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Eric, would you want to call the next speaker, please. MR. JOHNSON: Sure. Frank Tatro, and then that's all the registered speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. TATRO: Thank you for this opportunity to speak. I'm going to be extremely brief. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to identify yourself and spell your last name. MR. TATRO: I'm Frank Tatro, and I live on Quarry Drive in Naples. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How do you spell your last name? MR. TATRO: T-a-t-r-o. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. TATRO: The landscaping that's being proposed as a buffer between the Esplanade and the new tract, why don't you put all the landscaping on your property? Maybe you might have to knock off a few May 18, 2017 Page 41 of 53 apartment units, but I think it's terribly unfair to burden the Esplanade with the maintenance and the planting of landscaping on their property. Why don't you put it on your property? Traffic; I appreciate the studies that have been done but, gosh, guys, you don't live up there. It is just woefully inadequate. And with the development that's being proposed across the street where the Pelican Nursery is, you have a nightmare that's going to get nothing but worse. You have 250 units, 500 cars, excuse me, plus all the commercial traffic. I'm not a traffic engineer, but, you know, common sense and sheer logic tell me you've got a problem up there. And I request that the county go back and revisit the whole traffic situation and look forward. You have miles of backup at that intersection now. It takes 40 minutes to get from that intersection to 75 in the morning and during rush hour. I don't consider that acceptable, and I just don't think the development is going to certainly improve any traffic situation along Immokalee Road and Collier. And for the sake of brevity, I'll just emphasize some of the points that Jody made where the character of Naples is changing fast. When I came down here 10 years ago is not what I see today, and it's affecting property values, it's affecting desirability and, long term, I think Naples is in trouble. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I've been here since '81, and I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've been here 40 years, and I agree, but there's certain limitations that we're bound to on this particular board, and we have to judge on that alone. So with that, are there any other registered speakers? MR. JOHNSON: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there any members of the public who have not registered but still would like to speak? Sir, come on up and use the microphone, identify yourself. Either one. We'll get you both. MR. BURDETTE: Okay. For the record, my name is Tony Burdette. I'm with Taylor Morrison. I also happen to serve on the homeowners association. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Have you been sworn in? MR. BURDETTE: And I was sworn. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Were you sworn in; yeah. MR. BURDETTE: And just, again, we want to support the project, and I know that the homeowners do as well. And you're going to hear from several of them, I'm sure; and they're reasonable folks. But I think there's been a lot of communication; I'm not sure that it's been necessarily with the right folks. I know that the statement was made that Barron Collier had engaged the services of Waldrop Engineering, which is our engineer, but that wasn't just -- till just a couple weeks ago. And, in fact, the models that they put together we just actually received on Tuesday. So we really haven't had a chance to review them thoroughly and make the appropriate decisions. And, you know, we're not against, you know, working with them to develop in a project and increase the buffer or do what we need to do in order to make the project viable for both -- for, I should say, all of us, including the homeowners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're saying that you would let them work on your property to install more enhanced landscaping, your side of the property line would be irrigated and maintained by you all? And I know the area outside the golf course, not the east side of the roadway. Is that something you're willing to consider? MR. BURDETTE: I can't commit to it today, but it's not off the table. The other thing, too, is -- just so -- through my counterparts over there, I didn't plan on being up here today to speak, but -- they did hire counsel to represent them, and he was delayed. Through travel arrangements, he got stuck in Iowa. So I apologize. Normally this is not something I would do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, you're doing fine. I just want to -- MR. BURDETTE: I wanted to represent the homeowners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think you being here and expressing your willingness to cooperate, that's May 18, 2017 Page 42 of 53 something we've been looking for, so... MR. BURDETTE: Sure. We just want to have an opportunity to go through your plans a little more thoroughly, get a written agreement in place so that everybody's comfortable with the outcome, again, including the homeowners. And, again, they're reasonable folks and you're going to hear from a lot of them, and they have probably reasonable -- very reasonable concerns. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. BURDETTE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Normally we take a lunch at 12 o'clock, and we're close to wrapping this up. So I would like to ask the Board to -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Stay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- consider, let's go through some more public speakers, we'll take a break for the court reporter for -- after that, and then we'll come back and wrap it up, if that's okay with everybody. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other members of the public? Yes, sir, come on up. MR. MILLER: I put a thumb drive in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got to use the mike, sir, when you speak, so... MR. MILLER: My name is Sam Miller. I live on -- my wife and I live on Amour Court. And I just want to find the thumb drive that I put in your computer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MR. MILLER: I first want to thank the many Collier County employees that have been very generous with their time, extremely quick in responding to our questions, and very helpful in their explanations on subjects that were all new to us. I also want to compliment the two Barron Collier employees that I have been dealing with. They have been very professional and pleasant in our efforts to resolve these differences. Unfortunately, our interests are different, and we haven't had much success in resolving this. I would like to give a little bit of history on how we've been trying to resolve these differences. It started with a picture taken from the back of our home, and I can put that picture on the projector. So that's what we see currently. We did a rendering that was without the benefit of their architectural drawings, and that rendering showed four-story buildings rising above the trees. It also didn't have the benefit of the actual elevation, so it was very rough. And Barron Collier responded with a sketch taken after a visit to our house that -- their two employees came to our house twice for purposes of trying to resolve this. And the sketch that was done, likewise, was just a sketch. I don't think it had the actual elevations of the property or the architectural drawings in any detail. So the one thing that we did agree on was that we would have landscape architects from both sides work together to produce something that was considered independent and accurate. And it took the actual elevations from the landscape architect who designed Esplanade, along with the architectural drawings that Barron Collier provided to that landscape architect who works for Taylor Morrison. And so what we think we have in the renderings that I will show are what I believe both sides feel are accurate and independent. And I do want to make -- take exception to one of the slides that was presented by the attorney for the applicant who I must assume may not have been aware of the understanding that we had. And it was a sketch that -- if I may put this on the projector. I would ask that you not place a lot of weight on that because I don't think it had that same concurrence of independence and accuracy that will be in all of the slides that I will present. As Mr. Burdette stated, we did not receive these independent accurate renderings until 48 hours ago. There hasn't been adequate time to review those within our community. I would like to address three areas of primary concern. The first is the entranceway into Esplanade. We hope to have an ample buffer from an apartment complex that is the first thing that residents will see when they enter our community. We're concerned that a visible apartment complex staring down in our May 18, 2017 Page 43 of 53 community may hurt the continued development of it, of this community that we've invested in. A second request is that we maintain the beautiful wooded view similar to what we currently enjoy. We're not expecting everything to stay exactly as it is. We understand we have to accept some changes. We are just asking for some consideration, some compromise. We also want to maintain the quiet enjoyment of our house without excessive noise and light. We understand that Barron Collier may have met the minimum requirements of your code, but we also understand that when requesting a change to new zoning it's not always necessary to accept the minimum, and we hope you will ask for somewhat more than the minimum. We sought the guidance of members of the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners who, likewise, were very considerate to us. It was recommended that we attempt to negotiate with Barron Collier, which we did. There was discussion about stepping back the buildings away from our border. Although Barron Collier employees that I have had conversation with have been very cordial and professional, they have been uncompromising to this point. We are appealing to the county because, without your intervention, we fear we will suffer the effects of the minimum requirements. Barron Collier has proposed a narrow buffer that ranges from 15 feet to a small stretch up to 30 feet. The weighted average of that buffer is 21.9 feet; 21.9 feet, that might be one or two rows of trees. That won't provide very much screening. We were told that their original site plan with the buildings that were shown was based on 349 units. Now we're told that they only are requesting 250. If their site plan had room for 349 units and now they only want 250, can't some room be found for some setback or some increased buffer? We're also concerned because these units will be apartments. In general, renters don't take the same pride as people who own their own property. Sometimes their music played is loud, and that's one of the reasons we're concerned about the properties being close to us. We hope Barron Collier can have a profitable project without buildings hovering over our community. They are requesting to reduce the preserve from 8.85 to 3.45 acres with over five acres being cut down and used for buildings. Can't some of that five acres be used for some additional buffering? And I understand the term -- well, I understand more about your definition of preserve than I did a year ago. And we now know that the preserve wasn't really a preserve because what you call a preserve, it wasn't finalized, so we've been told. Without offending the board that I'm appealing to, I do ask you to accept some responsibility for the current definition of "preserve." The Webster dictionary says preserve means to save. So maybe we should have known that a preserve didn't mean a preserve. But, please, change your definition so more people aren't victimized by something as confusing as your current definition of preserve. And, hopefully, please take that into consideration. Barron Collier has pointed out that they have the zoning currently for commercial and retail and have told us that that's better; it's better that we have residential than commercial. In some regards, that may be true. In others, a business -- an office building that closes at five o'clock would be better for us. But, regardless, it might be better for Barron Collier as well, or why else is Barron Collier requesting permission to build apartments? With their request to change the zoning to apartments should come some compromise, we would hope, and that they consider the concern of their neighbors. So far the only concessions that we've seen are very minimal. Thousands of trees will be cut down, and we understand 34 trees will be planted; 24 sabal palms and 10 buttonwoods, and we understand that their chance of survival, of the existing slash pines, is between 30 and 50 percent. We also understand that a lot of plantings -- or the slash pines will be in a lower area that will not get the full benefit of their height because they will be covered by a berm. I will show you the -- we had sent a -- this drawing to the Planning Commission and, as a courtesy, a copy was sent to Barron Collier where we made the request that this one building closest to our property, which you see right here, be moved back further east. We were told that that won't work for them. May 18, 2017 Page 44 of 53 This particular drawing is an aerial view, one of the drawings prepared by -- through the joint collaboration between the two firm's landscape architects, and you can see the three buildings to the rear and the one building that's closest to our property. On this next slide you can see that this particular area where the building was was positioned back with the other three. In this slide -- and I'll zoom in for clarity -- you can see the difference between the building that is right on the western boundary and these two buildings to the left that are set back further east, which is why we made the request that they move the one building back. I mentioned earlier one of our concerns is the entrance that -- to our community. And this is our security gate. And when you drive in with the current landscaping that's there, this is what you're going to see, and we're quite concerned about it. The next slide with some enhanced buffering will show much less of those buildings. Again, we're not asking not to see their property. Sure, we'd prefer not to, but we're being realistic, and we just don't want to have it be offensive to us. We aren't happy with a 61 percent reduction in what we thought was a preserve in perpetuity, and we're not happy that our zoning may change from the quiet atmosphere for senior housing to allow renters. If you do allow these changes, we ask that the tall buildings, clubhouse, and the pool be moved further from the property line so that they look smaller and less dominant. We're only asking for a reasonable compromise. Most of us have spent our entire working careers to be in a position to purchase properties we could safely invest in. We now fear our properties will lose value, and we may lose the quiet enjoyment that we now have. Regarding the issue of traffic, I understand that you deal with what the current zoning allows, but when the traffic engineer for the county says that Immokalee Road is going to fail within five years and there's no plan on how to cure that, how can you allow a project to proceed knowing you're going to create a traffic nightmare? I don't understand that. So we request a setback in any reasonable manner that you deem fair. It could be to have a buffer of, say, 100 feet. We would be willing to have some accommodation where within the first 250 feet of depth that one residential building would be limited to two stories instead of four. It's not what we really want, but we're trying to be reasonable. We also ask that the landscape buffering be deeper and continue along the entire western property, not only to shield the homes that are on Amour Court, but so that everybody entering our community doesn't have to stare at these new tall buildings. We also hope that the sound in which -- the hours in which amplified sound are permissible can be restricted. We ask you to put yourselves in our position. Please make your decisions based on how you would feel if it were your home and your community. We thank you for your consideration. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Just one note. The current PUD doesn't allow any, any outside amplified sound, so it's doesn't matter that we're trying to restrict it. It isn't allowed to begin with, so... MR. MILLER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Anybody else? Diane? Well, we're going to take a break as soon as you're done then. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, no. I was going to wait for all the speakers to be done, and then I was going to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There may be more. COMMISSIONER EBERT: That's why I was holding off. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd like to give Terri a break. Ten minutes work for you, Terri? Okay. Till 12:25. We'll resume with public speakers, if there are any, at 12:25. (A brief recess was had.) MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mike. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Ray was kind of wondering in the crowd. May 18, 2017 Page 45 of 53 If everybody will please take their seats. Thank you. We left off with speakers from the public who had not had an opportunity to speak but still wish to. I'll still extend that to anybody that would like to speak. If you could just raise your hand. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We've heard all of our public speakers. And with that, we'll -- Ms. Ebert wanted to make a statement at the end of the public speakers. So, Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I also live on Immokalee Road. I live in Olde Cypress. Immokalee, to me, is also as bad as you say it is; it's dead. In the morning we have traffic backing up as far as the high school to town center. I have been bothered by this for a long time. The county is now speaking with the State as to exits going north on I-75, so I know that's in the works. Naples has had rapid growth. We actually wanted to take 951 and go straight north all the way to Alico Road to the airport. Lee County at this point does not even want to speak. But we just need more routes going north; north/south. The other thing is, because of all the gated communities, we don't have through streets to take care of some of this traffic. So you only have so many avenues to go on this. But let me tell you, I moved here in 2000. Immokalee Road, east of I-75 was a two-lane road. We went through 10 years of building the road wider and wider. And in reading -- I had to kind of laugh, because in reading some of these notes, you wanted Immokalee wider. I don't know, unless you're going to take Esplanade and take some of their property or go -- we cannot go any wider than what it is. There is an overpass that is planned way down the road when they have the money, maybe. But road -- Immokalee Road is not good. Right now they are doing Vanderbilt to help try and relieve some of the traffic off Immokalee. The BCC, I believe, just okayed that to start going back. That's been on the books for a long time. That's going to take a while. It's not going to be here soon. You also live -- and the people in Esplanade and the other areas, you are in the Cocohatchee Slough. Water is very important there, as to the flow of water and everything. So I just want you to be aware that we do live through some of this because we are very much affected by it. Everybody -- you're right, everybody says, oh, that's going to be preserve. Well, the problem is, you don't know when you take out the exotics, and those must be removed. Taylor Morrison could have maybe not gone and cleared their property right to the very boundary. They could have left a little bit of preserve down there. I don't know. But as it turns out, Mirasol was 100 percent preserve before they even started it. So each community will have their -- their problems. And it's not that we don't care, because we do. We look at this -- but people moving will be going east. You are going to have a lot more people moving east. We don't have that much property anymore that can be developed. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we'll go to the applicant. Richard, do you have any -- you have an opportunity for rebuttal, if you'd like. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't know that I want to do a rebuttal. I'd just quickly like to summarize. We have taken seriously all the comments and feedback we've gotten from our neighbors, including looking at can we relocate the one building that they seem to want us to relocate, along with the clubhouse, further to the east. There are limitations in the development of that property, including commitments that are made because the county wants interconnectivity between the Tree Farm PUD and the Addie's Corner PUD, so there's the one shared bridge that will be on our property. So we can't simply just move things because it does -- it has a domino effect on the proposed development of the site. So we have taken that into consideration when we received that feedback, and we simply can't accommodate it. If we could, we would. Path of least resistance makes sense. We are committed to enhancing the landscaping on our property, our property, above and beyond that's required today. There's a 15-foot landscape -- I think it's a 15-foot-wide Type B required buffer in May 18, 2017 Page 46 of 53 today. We clearly are willing to do more than that with enhanced landscaping on our side of the property. We are also happy to hear that Taylor Morrison is willing to work with us in enhancing the buffer all the way up from Immokalee Road along the property line further north on the property. I think that's a good thing. It doesn't exist today. If you leave it alone, you're going to have a retail commercial development on that corner, and you're going to drive in that development, and you're going to have a worse buffer than you have today, and a taller building. So I think there has been a lot of good that has come about by this proposed change. One, residential will be less intense, we'll have better buffers than you have today, and you'll have lower buildings. I think that's a win-win for the community. And the sense is, you know, we're all saying when we moved to Collier County. It has changed dramatically for all of us since we moved here, and some of us have been here a lot longer than others. But the reality is, there is a shortage of apartment complexes in Collier County. That's a reality. I've done probably three this year in front of you all, or at least two this year, and it's only May. There's a shortfall, and we're providing -- and we're addressing a need that needs to be addressed. These are going to be -- this is a Barron Collier project. Barron Collier does very nice projects. I don't think you can tell me a single Barron Collier project that you can say has been an eyesore to this community. They don't do that. They are here before us. They're going to be here long after us. They're going to own this project. They're not here to just build it and get rid of it. So this is a Barron Collier project. It's going to be a nice project, and we're committed to working with our neighbors to enhance the landscaping, clearly on our property, which we can control, but as well on the property next door, which we don't control. But we're ready, willing, and able to work through an appropriate enhanced buffer plan. Your staff's recommending approval. We do meet the Growth Management Plan. We do meet the Land Development Code, and that's the standard that's applied. It's a legal standard, and we've met our burden, and because we've met our burden, we're entitled to rezone our property consistent with what our request is, and we hope the Planning Commission, with the changes we've made and the commitments we've made to the enhanced buffering, will recommend to the Board of County Commissioners approval of our project. And with that, we'll answer any further questions you may have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any further questions of the applicant? Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Yovanovich, with respect to the preserve and buffering -- and that's where my focus is. MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And I should preface my comment by saying I commend you with respect to the reduction in the number of units and the height. I think those are important steps forward. And I also get it with regard to the location of the buildings. But I would strongly, strongly urge you to see if there's a way that you can enhance the buffer, even if it means planting on Esplanade property, if they permit it, along the east side of Esplanade Boulevard to create -- to improve the quality of life that otherwise, I think, it's fair to say, would be reduced somewhat. We heard from a gentleman a little earlier who indicated that there was a real good chance that that might happen. Could you say anything further about that from your perspective? MR. YOVANOVICH: We're absolutely -- I hope I made that clear. We're absolutely committed to that, and I heard Tony say they're committed to it. And I'm sure -- I'm sure we can reach a reasonable plan for a planting plan for the buffer on the east side of Esplanade. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rich, I have some notes that I made during the meeting that, instead of going into a discussion, we'll just keep the meeting open, and we'll discuss those right now if you are so inclined. May 18, 2017 Page 47 of 53 MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, I'll still do it anyway. MR. YOVANOVICH: You're the Chair. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was just going to see if you don't mind. Number one, we're going to -- the density will drop to 250. Number two, the actual height would be 55 and zoned 45. I have another add-on to that in a minute or two. The massing, in all of the orientations you've been showing the end of the building facing Esplanade. I know no one's really noted that too much, but that's important because it's a heck of a lot different than 250 feet of a building facing Esplanade. So the building that would go on the western end of Addie's Corner's PUD would be subject to its end facing the Esplanade project, not its wider massing. MR. YOVANOVICH: That is fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The enhanced buffer with Taylor Morrison, I know that that hasn't all been worked out yet, but it would be reasonable -- would it be reasonable to expect the time frame of that to be between now and the time you got before the Board of County Commissioners? MR. YOVANOVICH: I can only speak for one-half of the equation, so I have to look out into the audience. I don't want to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Shake your head "yes" or "no." MR. YOVANOVICH: -- put any unreasonable -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have to come up to the speaker -- mike if you're going to speak. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I don't want to put any -- I can't speak for half of the equation. MR. BURDETTE: I'm going to go over here. Tony Burdette, for the record. I would like to have that agreement in place before the meeting with the Board. MR. YOVANOVICH: Sounds like that's a yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because if we could make that recommendation, you could take that to the Board. It would certainly help the Board understand what that's going to be, because I don't know what it's going to be. MR. YOVANOVICH: Look, I know there will be certain people right behind me that will be whipping me pretty hard to get it done, I just don't -- I don't control half of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The opacity and the height, the number of added trees, and the number of canopy trees, those details for the current buffer that's on -- that's required to be on your property -- and you're right, it's a smaller buffer than what you're putting, so you're automatically providing an enhancement. But the word "enhancement" has different connotations to different people. So I would like the word "enhancement" detailed enough on consent so that we know what's being locked in as a minimum, and that would mean you'd have to specify -- now, you've got -- your standard buffer already has trees, so -- I think it's 30 feet on center or something like that, plus hedges, plus whatever. And the enhancements are things on top of that. And I'd like to know what those are so that they can be locked in for the next meeting, because they're voluntary. I know they're above and beyond the code, but you've already agreed to do something. MR. YOVANOVICH: I agree. And I thought -- what, a cross-section we would show? We'll do a cross-section and quantities. And do you want us to say this is what -- in this cross-section and quantities, this is what's required and this is what's in addition? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would show that the enhancement's there. MR. YOVANOVICH: Got it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've also committed to an opacity. That opacity needs to be in that, too. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: That was 75 percent; is that what I heard? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what he (sic) heard, but it was not consistent with code. And, in fact, the code is 80 percent but only six feet high. MR. YOVANOVICH: Six feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're 75 feet high -- 75 percent up to the height shown in those diagrams. May 18, 2017 Page 48 of 53 So you need to make sure that whatever you put there for plantings can meet all that. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I'm with that. Now -- but, again, Mr. Strain you asked him how long, so you're going to want a period of time for it to achieve that, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Code also has a time period of one year. MR. YOVANOVICH: I think it's a year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And he said six or eight months or something. MR. YOVANOVICH: So the year should be safe. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the year would be adequate to get you the capacity that would protect the view. MR. YOVANOVICH: And that's what I was thinking. I just wanted to make sure I didn't need to come back with something shorter. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. We wouldn't -- I would suggest that we accept the stipulations to the PUD that were read into the record earlier, the step-by-step text changes we talked about. We're going to remove Parking Deviation No. 3. You withdrew that. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's going to be -- the pathways are going to be shaded in on the master plan or something to show that -- where you intended to put pathways. The clarification on the Tract C uses that you and Heidi and I talked about during the meeting, that needs to be just tweaked a bit. The other question I asked you I'm going to ask you another time just for consideration, to reduce the western building height, that one building that's in question, to 30-foot zoned and 35-foot actual. Is that not -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We can't do it. We've looked at it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I can't force you to do it. MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand. And if we could, we would. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it was something I was suggesting as a compromise to get to where we need to. MR. YOVANOVICH: If we could, we would. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And those are the notes that I made from the discussions during the meeting. I think that covers everything. Patrick? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Yeah. Chairman, quick question from what you said; clarification. We keep referencing the 55 feet, and I've heard them mention 45 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Forty-five zoned, 55 actual. The way you measure height in Collier County -- it started, unfortunately, a while back, and we have a zoned height which is from the slab to the -- usually it's either the highest habitable portion of the inside floor or the eaves of a ridged roof or a sloped roof or something like that. Actual is tippy top; from the very, very ground level all the way up to the top of a flagpole, if they've got one on top of the building. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: So for clarification, they're stating they're going to be within the 45 feet -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For zoned. It will never exceed it, and the other -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Tippy top. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- architectural embellishments -- COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Okay. But 45 from the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And the embellishments won't go past 55. Okay. Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Just for clarity, in some cases, as I said to Ned, the zoned height will start at BFE, base flood elevation, for -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, yeah, assumingly the first floor slab. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The first habitable floor. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, the actual height starts -- what ends up happening is actual height can actually start at a lower measuring height. May 18, 2017 Page 49 of 53 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's correct. Actual height is -- (Multiple speakers speaking.) MR. YOVANOVICH: That's why we do the actual, so when you're driving by, okay, that doesn't look like 55 feet to me -- COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: And to use the -- MR. YOVANOVICH: -- or 45 feet in the zoning category. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: To use a very legal term, the tippy top; from the bottom to the tippy top. That's your term. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I just -- for further clarification, for everybody that's confused by this, I want you to know when Mr. Schmitt was administrator here, that's when it started, so... COMMISSIONER EBERT: When the problems started. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's when the problems all started. MR. YOVANOVICH: I think you were the Chair of the Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, you're right. He made me do it. That goes back a ways, doesn't it? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Well said. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions or comments from the panel? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, Eric? MR. JOHNSON: Yeah, Mr. Chair, sorry. So just for clarification, it's not the will of anyone here to -- or not anyone, but the Commission -- to reduce that western building to 30 feet zoned and 35 feet actual? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's -- I guess it's not a matter of will. I don't know how I could tie that into the code as a demand. And if they're not willing to do it voluntarily, it's something that I think is an iffy push. The Board will hear -- will know this is on record. They can discuss it if they want to. And they have a little different way of approaching things than we do. MR. JOHNSON: Okay. And then I know that there was some discussion about the landscaping that's going to be on the Esplanade, and their landscape architect said that they were going to have 24 sabal palms. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's on the -- on their side. That's on the Addie's Corner side. They mentioned they would -- when we talked about the quantity of enhancement, I thought they said they were going to have 24 sabals and 10 canopy; is that correct? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So it wasn't the Esplanade side. It was the Addie's side. MR. JOHNSON: On the Addie's side. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're going to embellish that with some more detail by the time they come back on consent. MR. JOHNSON: Okay. And it was my understanding that eight of those sabal palms were going to be 30 feet tall, eight of them were going to be 35 feet tall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're going to come back with that. That's not -- I'm just -- all I'm suggesting to you is that the opacity and the height and the descriptions of that buffer will be provided on the consent for a final review. MR. JOHNSON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Subject to what they said today. So I'm not -- as far as those details, they might actually get better than that. I doubt if they'll get worse, but they might get better. MR. JOHNSON: All right. Thank you. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: One more point of clarification. So as we're talking about these trees and these numbers, I think it's critical that we also make sure we're on the same page. It was told by, I May 18, 2017 Page 50 of 53 believe, their landscape architect there would be 15 to 18 of those really tall existing trees that will continue -- the pines that will also -- not including those other numbers, that will be left there as well as the additional stuff. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: So you've got 15 to 18 more trees that are already there that are all -- I don't know the heights, but I would imagine they're pretty tall. MR. SAMMONS: It's a range. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can't -- MR. YOVANOVICH: It's a range. It's a range in height, yes. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. That commitment, the way we laid it out was to try to preserve as many of the existing tall trees as we could. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that detailed schematic will come back as an exhibit on the consent. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Okay; okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anything else from anybody? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we'll close the public hearing, and we'll entertain a motion. Does anybody want to make a motion? If you do, consider making it subject to the stipulations we just discussed, or otherwise. It's up to you all, whoever makes the motion. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'll make a motion that we approve subject to the stipulations that were entered into the record by Mr. Strain and, with that motion, I recommend that this come back for review on consent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Consent. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second made by Stan. Discussion? Richard, did you have something you wanted to -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Just timing. The consent would be June 1? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The June 1st meeting. You'd be first up on the June 1st meeting. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we'll call for the vote. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. Thank you all for your time today. We appreciate it. That takes us to the end of the agenda. There is one business item I want to mention. The first case that we continued to the second meeting in June, I was reminded that we're not going to have a second meeting in June, so we're going to move -- on the first meeting of June we'll re-announce it's going to be continued to the first meeting in July, so that's how we'll handle that. So, anyway, just wanted to make that clear. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Is that the Wolf Creek -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. That was the one that was up first this morning, the Pine Air Lakes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Oh, Pine Air Lakes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: We are not having a meeting? May 18, 2017 Page 51 of 53 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, we're not meeting on the second meeting in June. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Chairman -- there's no meeting the second meeting in June? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you said you'd be gone. We canceled everything. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: No, no. I'm going to miss the first meeting in June. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, now you get to miss the second. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: There's no meeting the second? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, for some reason they thought the Board of County Commissioners was more important to use this room than us. Can you imagine? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Sure. And, Mr. Chairman, while we're talking about that, can we clarify. I know July 4th is that -- the July 4th -- first meeting in July, it's still that Thursday, two days after or a day after July 4th; is that correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't remember the date. Does anybody know the date in July? Whatever it is it is. It's still a Thursday, so we're open for business, so yeah. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'll miss that meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, in June I'll ask for those that can and can't be present in July meeting, and we'll take it up at that time. MR. BELLOWS: It's the 6th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sixth. Okay. Well, that's two days past the 4th. My goodness. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: What did we decide about June 7th? Had there been discussion that the previous meeting -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We won't know until we see how far we get on June 1st. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I got it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Old business? There isn't any listed. I'm afraid to ask. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: No. New business. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: New business? We could still go back to that, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Two things. When these guys send me a list of -- us a list of the future projects, I asked for LiDARs on all of them because I have -- I used to be able to get LiDARs just for meetings on every project, and now I have trouble getting LiDARs in time for Planning Commission meetings. Could you guys send that list to somebody that's authorized to do LiDARs and include them in the package? Could that be done? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, it can. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. Would you do it? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, I will. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. Who do I talk to if I don't see it? MR. BELLOWS: Me. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. I didn't see it, so -- MR. BELLOWS: I will follow up. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: -- I'm talking to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way, he's the one that's hot on LiDARs, so if you guys run out of time, I would -- if I were you, I'd make sure he gets it. And if I don't have it and maybe some of the others that don't really have much use for LiDARs -- MR. BELLOWS: I'll call you later tomorrow, and we'll make sure -- give you an update on your LiDARs. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Good. Because you had a long list. And I have a second thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: The State House of Representative in Rhode Island voted 59 to 10 on Tuesday to pass a bill to require training classes for members of local planning boards and May 18, 2017 Page 52 of 53 commissions on how sea level rise is happening, and we seem to be ignoring that down here. So is it possible to have a little meeting about sea level rise with maybe staff making some kind of presentations as to the statistic probability that we're going to lose parts of the county? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But isn't (sic) the Board already looked at this through their -- through workshops? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Well, maybe they have, but I think the Planning Commission -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't those of us that are interested attend the board meeting on that matter? I really don't -- I can probably get more from reading an article on sea level rise than I'll ever hear from a group of people trying to talk to me at a public meeting. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. So when is the Board having this thing on sea level rise? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They've been talking about it. I don't know if they've gotten anything scheduled currently. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: They already had one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They already had one, I thought. MR. BELLOWS: We'll look into it and see what the status is. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I know they had staff -- they had staff look into it, but I don't know if staff ever completed a report. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, would staff get back to us and see where you're standing on that, if one was -- MR. BELLOWS: Yes. I'll -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You look over at Mike for help. He's distracted. MR. BELLOWS: But I will look into that, because I'm not involved with the sea level rise, so... COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah, I know. Only one person is; Amy Patterson. And I've been talking to her, and I don't think we're taking it seriously enough. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other business? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mr. Chairman, just one more thing in clarification. If there's a need for that additional meeting -- I know Ned asked about that following week -- we're all clear. I want to make sure you know I was going to be here for that if those things need to carry over. It sounds like there's a good chance that may happen, so we may have that second meeting in June, so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For you going out of town, you picked a really good time. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I'm sorry I'm going to miss it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I'm just saying it's a real good time. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I didn't do it on purpose. I'm sorry I'll miss it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We've got nine of them to deal with. Thank you, Pat. Old business? Anything? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And public comments, anybody here? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nope. With that, is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Make a motion to adjourn. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Diane, second by Ned. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. May 18, 2017 Page 53 of 53 COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're out of here. ******* There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:49 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION _____________________________________ MARK STRAIN, CHAIRMAN ATTEST DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on ____________, as presented ______ or as corrected _____. TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. June 1, 2017 Page 1 of 79 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, June 1, 2017 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Stan Chrzanowski Diane Ebert Ned Fryer Karen Homiak Joe Schmitt (Absent for roll call.) ABSENT: Patrick Dearborn ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Eric Johnson, Planner Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planning Rachel Beasley, Planner Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney Scott Stone, Assistant County Attorney Tom Eastman, School District Representative June 1, 2017 Page 2 of 79 P R O C E E D I N G S CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the June 1st meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If everybody will please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Will the secretary please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. Good morning. Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Chrzanowski? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Fryer? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ms. Ebert is here. Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ms. Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Schmitt is absent, and Mr. Dearborn is absent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I remember Mr. Dearborn notified us he couldn't be here, so -- and I'm not sure if Joe's going to show up late or if anybody's got any messages from him. MR. BELLOWS: I have not had any messages. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, let's hope he's struggling through the traffic and can still get here. That takes us to addenda to the agenda. There are two items on the agenda that are going to be -- that are continued, or we'll vote on that; Item 9A. It's the green waste transfer station on Riggs Road. I believe it says it's withdrawn. It's not withdrawn; it's just continued indefinitely. So it's still an active project. It's just going to be heard at some later time and later date. That's Item PL -- no, it's Item 9A. CU-PL20130000320. Is there a recommendation or a motion from the Planning Commission to allow the continuance for an indefinite period? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I make a motion to continue. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? By Ned. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The motion carries 5-0. The next item that's being continued is the Pine Air Lakes Development of Regional Impact. It's PL20160002736. That was originally continued from our 18th meeting to the 15th of June. The problem with that is our meeting on the 15th of June has been canceled to accommodate the Board of Commissioners' need for this room. So our next meeting will be July 6th. So the Pine Air Lakes Development of Regional Impact request needs to be continued to the July 6th meeting. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Make a motion to continue to July 6th. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Diane, seconded by Ned. Discussion? June 1, 2017 Page 3 of 79 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-0. Okay. That takes us to Planning Commission absences. As I had noted, there is no June 15th meeting, so if you all have anything on the calendar for a meeting here, don't show up. There won't be one. And then the next regular meeting is July 6th. Does anybody know if they're not going to make the July 6th meeting? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I won't be here for that one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then we still have a quorum with those here and, most likely, between Patrick and Joe, we'll have more, so that works. Thank you. Then approval of minutes. We've all received our minutes from May 4th electronically. If there are any changes and corrections to those... COMMISSIONER FRYER: Move approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Ned. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Karen. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-0. The BCC report recaps, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: The Board of County Commissioners met on May 23rd, but there were no land use items heard during that meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's quick and short. Thank you. Chairman's report; just one notation I want to make for today. We have a rather full agenda. The order of the agenda will be first the consent hearing, which is generally there's no new motions made. It's just an acknowledgment of a previous motion. The advertised public hearings, we'll start with Item 9C, which is the County Barn Road RPUD. That will be first up. Second up is the conditional use for the O'Reilly's proposed site on Seminole and U.S. 41. The next -- the third and fourth items up are two projects side by side; one is the Triad RPUD and the MAC residential Planned Unit Development and RPUD as well. Now, that's the first four that we'll hear today after the consent. So if you're here for any of those, those hopefully will occur this morning. After that we have four others that we'll get to as soon as the first four are completed. The first one is the Wolf Creek RPUD. It's for a change in the preservation area in one of the portions of that project. The second one after that is the insubstantial change to Pelican Lakes for a height measurement, and the last two are boat dock extensions up in Little Hickory Shores. They're side-by-side projects. Those last four projects will be handled by the Vice Chair, Karen Homiak. They were referred from my office, so I will not be able to sit in and participate in those. June 1, 2017 Page 4 of 79 ***And with that, we'll move into the first item up, which is our consent item. It's 8A, PL20150001776. This is a review of the consent action as a result of last -- at our last meeting. All those -- well, actually, no one's going to be testifying. We might have some questions of the applicant. So with that, I'll ask the Planning Commission members, are there any -- after your review of the consent language, is there anything in the consent that is inconsistent from what you've read at this time? Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chairman, I had raised the point of a typographical error where acreage was reversed on Page 8 of 21 referring to Tract C and Tract A. I noticed that that correction was not made. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that was in the staff report. Our actions only refer to the draft ordinances, and that's the only place the corrections will be found. When staff moves a staff report on to the Board, I don't know -- they can't go back and undo a previous staff report, but they certainly can clear up that point when it goes to the Board on their staff report side of things. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That was my only concern that it be cleared up before it goes to the county board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sure they will do that. Mr. Bellows? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. For the record, Ray Bellows. That is exactly what we do in the executive summary. We explain Planning Commissioners' concerns, and we'll note that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there anything else? Because I had two items I'd like to -- I had talked to Mr. Arnold yesterday on to clear up. One is the 250 units that you've agreed to as the density on the project shows up as a very -- kind of like an innocuous note on the master plan. That should be in the text of the PUD somewhere as well. I didn't see it there. Did you find it anywhere? MR. ARNOLD: I did not, Mr. Strain. And, for the record, I'm Wayne Arnold. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It's not in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have a suggestion as where it should be added? I mean, we can give you a suggestion, but I'm sure you've got a location. Oh, let the record show Mr. Schmitt is here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Oh, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We worried about you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I was on a phone call overseas. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I figured something like that happened after reading the newspaper, or actually reading the Internet news this morning. Yeah, it's a mess over there. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It is. Not good; not good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anyway, you missed the -- we continued the first -- 9A and B are continued, and we're on the consent agenda item right now, the review of the Addie's language that was provided in our packet. And there are a couple things that need to be addressed. One is the 250-unit reference. It only shows up in the master plan. It needs to be in the text of the package somewhere. MR. ARNOLD: Mr. Strain, I'm not sure where you were going to suggest it, but I think we would suggest putting it under -- in Exhibit A under Item 2 where it says Tract A or Tract C permitted group housing, retirement group housing, and then it says "if no residential dwelling units," and that's where -- maybe that's where the appropriate reference could be to the maximum of 250 residential dwellings -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. MR. ARNOLD: -- or, I'm sorry -- I'm sorry. Item No. 3. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You see 3C where it says A -- MR. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- dwelling units, multifamily and townhouses? "Not to exceed 250 units" June 1, 2017 Page 5 of 79 is all we would really need to do. That's why I called you yesterday so you could have that figured out before today. MR. ARNOLD: I just figured it out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well... Then the other item that wasn't as clear as it needs to be -- and I think the County Attorney's Office has some suggested language. The last meeting we referenced an agreement with Taylor Morrison to be worked out prior to the board meeting. If the application of the enhanced landscaping that would go on their side of the property line could be addressed by you and them through a joint agreement -- it wasn't necessarily required for today. I think we made that clear. But there is no reference in here that would address the issue of your cross-sections if that agreement wasn't worked out. So Heidi had worked up some language. I'd like her to read it for the record; see if you have any objection to it. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: So this would be on Page 16 of 23, and it would be under Section 5, and it would be the last sentence of the new added yellow language. So it would read, "The plantings on property in the Esplanade Golf and Country Club Development are subject to obtaining consent from the owner." MR. YOVANOVICH: My only concern -- and I don't think this will be an issue, but I have to think worst case. What it -- we've agreed to do an enhanced buffer, but it requires the cooperation from our neighbor. If the neighbor doesn't provide the cooperation, we should not be required to do an enhanced buffer. So I think we need -- and I think that was the intent is that everything would work its way through. That language would put me in the position that if I don't ever get their consent, then I can't go forward with my project. So I'd like the condition that we will do the enhanced buffer, which we're fully willing to do once we -- if we get the agreement of our neighbor. So if we could slightly tweak it to read that way; that's what I understood the agreement to be is we would -- and I'm sure -- we've already been told that's not going to be an issue, and I'm going to start drafting the agreement, but I -- you understand my point? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just a point of clarification. You are enhancing the proposed buffer on their property to some extent, but the buffers that are already on your property are enhanced over the standard requirements we would have. MR. YOVANOVICH: We would do that on our property, but anything -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- on their property we can only do with their consent. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Mr. Chair, I think what he's trying to say is -- what I'm proposing is that they have the right to go on the property to do the work. What he's proposing is there's going to be an agreement with terms as to who's going to maintain it, and whatever other terms they're going to come up with, I don't know. So that changes it significantly, in my opinion. MR. YOVANOVICH: What I understood the arrangement to be -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- was we would enhance our property. No question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: And if we reached an agreement with Taylor Morrison, we would enhance their property. The cross-section that Heidi reviewed had both, correct? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: What? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. The cross -- MR. YOVANOVICH: It shows us filling onto Taylor Morrison's property to do the enhanced buffer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Now, what I'd like to suggest is why don't we just leave it that if you don't get an agreement worked out with Taylor Morrison, or Esplanade, then the enhancements that were shown that can apply to your property, that are shown on your property only, will be the limitations as to what you'll be able to provide. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's all I was asking for. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know how to tweak that language on the fly here, but maybe Heidi, between now -- you're going to be here for a while today? Do you have anything else on the agenda? June 1, 2017 Page 6 of 79 MS. ASHTON-CICKO: It'll just say something like, if no consent is obtained -- and I don't know if you want to have a time period, you know, by time of -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't really foresee it being an issue, but... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I think it's a good issue, and I'm glad that Heidi found it and brought it up because it needs to be fixed in case something goes wrong. We don't want to have you back in here doing a PUDA or something just because of something that wasn't thought out. So, Heidi, if we took -- if we finish this right after break to confirm the language, since you're going to be here, is that amenable to you? MR. YOVANOVICH: Are you talking to Heidi or me? You said her name but you were looking at me, so I was confused. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sorry. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm fine with that. I just don't know if Heidi will have time to step out because she'll be here for the other items. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Heidi, do you think we could -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, it's just going to read something like, if no consent is obtained, then only the landscape improvements on the -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Developer's property. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: -- on the PUD property -- on Addie's Corner PUD property shall be constructed or installed. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm fine with that. And that's a rough enough draft to vote on. I have no problem with that. If it needs to be slightly tweaked so the intent's the same, it's on record. Okay. So the two changes we're talking about needing is the addition of the limitation of 250 units and then the language that Heidi's suggesting to clarify the use of the enhancements and where they can apply. Anything else of anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, is there a motion to accept this on consent subject to the changes noted? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'll make that motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Karen. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Ned. All those in favor? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. ***Next item up is 9C. 9C is on a regular advertised public hearing. It's PUDZ-PL20160001398. It's for the County Barn Road RPUD. It's on County Barn Road just south of Davis Boulevard. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures from the Planning Commission. We'll start with Tom. MR. EASTMAN: None, other than those in the public record. June 1, 2017 Page 7 of 79 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I talked to Dennis Sanders for a little while. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Staff and Bruce Anderson plus all the emails. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I, too, had meetings with staff, and I had a meeting with Bruce Anderson and his clients. I think it was earlier this week. Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I spoke to Mr. Anderson. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Likewise, I spoke to Mr. Anderson yesterday. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have to amend my answer. I spoke with Mr. Anderson as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I have to amend my answer. I spoke with Mr. Anderson as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, normally when we speak to Bruce, I know, we never forget him, and now... Holy cow. Well, you're batting a hundred to start out, Bruce. It's your presentation. MR. ANDERSON: Well, I just hope you remember what I said. Good morning. My name is Bruce Anderson from the law firm of Cheffy Passidomo. I'm here on behalf of Neal Communities. Since you have such a full agenda I will try to be mercifully brief. I'd like to introduce Michael Greenberg, who is the Southwest Regional President of Neal Communities; Dan Ciesielski, the Land Development Manager for Neal Communities; I have Wayne Arnold and Brent Addison from Grady Minor Engineering; our transportation engineer, Jim Banks; and Craig Smith of Dex Bender, our environmental consultant. As you can see on the overhead projector, this PUD property is located a quarter-mile south of the interconnection of County Barn Road and Davis Boulevard. It's on the east side of County Barn, and it's just over 38 acres in size. The number of homes will be not exceed a total of 268 multifamily units or 156 single-family homes or a combination thereof not to exceed the trip generation cap set forth in the PUD and the staff report. We are in agreement with staff recommendations with one exception concerning temporary seasonal marketing signs, which Mr. Arnold will address. And Mr. Arnold and I met with Chairman Strain on Tuesday, and Mr. Arnold has some technical type changes to the PUD resulting from that meeting, and he will walk you through that. After Mr. Arnold finishes his testimony, I and all the other members of the project team will be available to answer your questions. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Wayne? MR. ARNOLD: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Planning Commission members. I'm Wayne Arnold with Q. Grady Minor & Associates, Professional Planner working on the project. One of the comments in the staff report and the only negative recommendation from staff was related to a temporary banner sign that we had requested. And the temporary banner sign is important as a marketing tool for Neal Communities. They've used it successfully in their other communities, and these are temporary signs. They're used for no more than three months during the year. It's my understanding they pull valid permits for them, they're installed, they're taken down. And, again, those are used for varying marketing purposes. I'll show you an example of one that they have recently used for a marketing window of time when they decide to have a marketing promotion. June 1, 2017 Page 8 of 79 You might want to pull out if you can just a little, Eric. So that's a special sale that they were having in one of their communities, and this is a way to highlight a special sale for promotional weekend or week-long time frames. So we would propose to make a change to the deviation hopefully to appease staff's concern, but we would reduce the height of the temporary banner sign from 10 feet to eight feet. And we'd like to modify the language with regard to the time frame in order to have the temporary banner sign for a maximum of 90 days during the calendar year rather than to specify January through March. The seasonal window is changing in our community, and we'd like the opportunity to have the marketing signage throughout the year but not to exceed the 90-day maximum, and that's what this language would look like. Item 2 -- Eric, I don't know, can you zoom in just a little bit on that. I have a hard copy of some of these other changes if it would be helpful for Planning Commission members and staff if you'd rather have a hard copy than -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's walk through them, and -- well, it's up to the Planning Commission members, but you're going to put them on the overhead, right? MR. ARNOLD: I certainly will, yes. So the first one that we would discuss is Deviation No. 2, and there you can see the two changes we're proposing. One would be to reduce the height and also to change it to just simply say 90 days during the calendar year, and that would result in the type of signage that I displayed previously. Any comments? Questions? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Question on that. The 90 days, then the burden becomes the problem of the county in issuing the permit to track those days? How will permitting track those, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. They would be issued a temporary-use permit, and those are tracked to that method. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And you will track the days? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: They'll do that at the counter? MR. BELLOWS: They would list that as part of this PUD where they would identify that there's additional time allotted than what the LDC allows. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Enforceable by Code Enforcement, I assume? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The burden of reviewing this or tracking it, is it more -- could you put that back on the overhead? MR. ARNOLD: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is it more difficult for the staff to follow or less difficult for the staff to follow with the crossing out of that date that's on this requested deviation that was in it originally? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: When they come in for the permit, Ray, they're going to -- typically, I think, what I interpreted Mark to say is there's a time frame. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Now the burden is we want to do it any time but no more than 90 days, and we'll choose the 90 days we're going to post it, I assume. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- and my assumption's going to be that he's going to say, yes, it would be harder for us to track because we'd have multiple times to have to look at it. MR. BELLOWS: It definitely would be tougher. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And they originally submitted this requesting a 90-day period starting from January 1st to March 31st and a 10-foot sign. They've reduced it to an eight-foot sign. I'm not sure what triggered their need for them to change the time frames that were originally proposed, so I'm just trying to understand how that will affect the county's review. It would mean more -- each segment of that 90 days, June 1, 2017 Page 9 of 79 whether it's spread over the year or not, will take a separate temporary-use permit? MR. BELLOWS: They would have to do separate temporary-use permits unless they have identified the specific days they want it on one of the temporary-use permits. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Arnold, what spurred you to change what you originally submitted? MR. ARNOLD: I believe Neal Communities has experienced in their other communities that the marketing window has changed, that it's not just that seasonal January to March. It's throughout the year. So various promotions could be highlighted during, you know, the early season, for instance, to try to stimulate sale activity or have a special sale event. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Ray, as far as temporary signs go, if they were in conformance with the sign code, could they ask for temporary signs for special events independent of this deviation? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, they would be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now we're back to why would you need to strike out that language if you can still have temporary signs, maybe not to that size, but within the context of the code for those special events. So you want all your special events to have a larger sign? MR. ARNOLD: I think it would be our preference to have the opportunity to have the larger sign. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I'm sure we'll -- MR. ARNOLD: Keeping in mind, too, this project, in relation to the other deviation, we're separated from the travel lanes on County Barn Road by a canal. I mean, it's not as if we can put our marketing signs in the county right-of-way, so -- but we do have a separation window. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, actually, you're separated from the travel lane to your property line by about 87 feet. Do you remember how far you are from the Davis Boulevard travel lane to the signs that you had -- that were allowed on Davis Boulevard for Avalon of Naples? MR. ARNOLD: I do not, Mr. Strain. I didn't work on that project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do you have Internet access? MR. ARNOLD: I'm sure we can. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe one of your people can check it. And that number would be important to know in relationship to this sign before we vote on it. So is that something you can -- someone can check and get back to you? Or, Ray, you could go to the Tax Assessor's maps and quickly do an approximate. That would be the travel lane at Davis to the property line of Avalon on the north side. Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: All right. So 32 square feet. We're basically talking 4-by-8 sign? MR. ARNOLD: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: What size are the signs that we post when we're noticing for a rezone, 3-by-6? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. MR. JOHNSON: Thirty-two square feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would be 4-by-8. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Four-by-eight, which I can't see unless I stop the car and get out of the car and walk up to the shoulder of the road to read the -- so... MR. ARNOLD: Part of the difference and distinction on those Collier County signs is the ordinance title has to be posted on them with additional information, so the font has to be so small to get all of the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was going to say, a different font size between the two signs, substantially. MR. ARNOLD: And you can see this. With the opportunity to have the larger lettering, it certainly makes it clearer what the event is. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I mean, I'm just comparing a 4-by-8 sign compared to a -- what's the -- what's our zoning signs? MR. JOHNSON: Thirty-two square feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're 4-by-8. They're the same thing. Yeah, they're the same thing. But the fonts, as Wayne said, are so small that nobody -- yeah, you've got to pull off the road to read them, and then you get a problem just pulling off to the side. June 1, 2017 Page 10 of 79 So the only reason I asked about the distance is it would probably reflect on your asking for the sizing and the heights relative to the distance, because I think Davis Boulevard is probably closer to the signs on Avalon's north property line than these signs are to Collier -- to Radio Road. Anyway -- MR. ARNOLD: My assumption is that they are, too, Mr. Strain. I just don't know that information. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would be easy enough to come up with. Did you check it, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. I have the Avalon PUD open, and I see the deviation. And it basically says that they're seeking relief from LDC Section 5.06.02.B.5, which requires on -- I'm reading the wrong one. Just a second. Temporary signage. It's 5.06.A.3.E, which allows temporary signs in residentially zoned properties up to four feet in area or three feet in height to allow temporary banner signs to a maximum of 32 square feet in area to be placed on the perimeter wall along Davis Boulevard. Temporary banner shall be limited to a maximum of 90 days during the season defined as November 1st through April 30th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I understand. I have that -- MR. BELLOWS: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- right in front of me, too. What I was trying to find out is if you were to go to the Tax Assessor map and you were to click on the Avalon site and click on their property line on the north side facing Davis and do the measurement technique on the assessor's map to the edge of the asphalt or curbing on Davis, I think that distance is significantly less than the distance we have here separating the travel lane from the property line on County Barn Road, which then kind of supports the argument that the sign at a little larger size would be similar to the one on Davis as far as need to be able to be seen, because that, obviously, was the reason Davis was approved. So, anyway, I thought we could find that. We'll go on with this, and if you come up with it, let us know. That would be helpful. MR. ARNOLD: Mr. Strain, we're finding -- we will have that answer for you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then we'll -- why don't you proceed with whatever -- MR. ARNOLD: Would you like me to just go ahead and go through the various changes that -- when Bruce and I met with you, you had some, I would call them more technical requests to modify the document. Would you like me to walk you through those proposed changes that are in response to your comments? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that would be a good start. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Before we do that, could we go back, since we're talking deviations. Do you have a rendering of the sidewalk plan for the -- MR. ARNOLD: I do, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- Deviation 1? MR. ARNOLD: And let me first explain that one of the deviations that Mr. Strain brought up is that our sidewalk plan originally proposed the connection to County Barn Road across the bridge on the south side of the roadway or the entranceway. Mr. Strain suggested that it's probably more appropriate to be on the north side next to our amenity area; that that would be more of a human activity spot. So we would propose to shift the deviation to the south side of the entrance road where we would only have it on one side of the road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then, I probably didn't communicate it as clearly as I intended. I thought you would add the connection along the amenity area because that would, obviously, be a higher traffic area. I never suggested taking the one out to the south side. I think you need them both on an entry road. And then the one that you have to the east side of the site where there are no residences, that makes sense, but that's only -- we did this in another project. We had the same issue come up, and it was the entrance road that needed to have -- it was on -- I think the new addition to San Marino on 951 as you go north to I-75, that Stock's building. We requested they have sidewalks on both sides of the entrance so people wouldn't have to cross that main entry to get to the other side just to go out to the main road again. MR. ARNOLD: Let me show you -- I have a highlighted version of where the sidewalks are located, June 1, 2017 Page 11 of 79 Mr. Schmitt. And there are two areas on that plan that are depicted where we would not have sidewalks, and one is on the far eastern end of the northern loop on the outside of that driveway where there are no homes, which is consistent with other approvals. And then I must have misunderstood your comment, Mr. Strain, because I thought you were fine with the deviation to only have it on one side, but you -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was, and I meant -- I should have -- if I wasn't clear enough, I'm sorry. But see on the left -- the right side of your plan where you have the one, and on that piece that you don't have it on both sides of the road, that makes sense there. We've allowed that before. But I believe the entrance road going out should have them on both sides. I don't know why we wouldn't. It's a small piece of sidewalk. I'm not sure why it's that problematic. But people coming from the south of this property would have to cross the entry road where most of the traffic coming and going will be. And why put them through that for one little piece of sidewalk going out to County Barn Road? MR. ARNOLD: Mr. Strain, let's make it easy and we'll remove the deviation request at the entrance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Joe, is that where you were going? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's fine. I agree. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have one more on Deviation 2 before we leave that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go right ahead. COMMISSIONER FRYER: May I assume that, with the reduction in height from 10 to eight feet, that staff would then be able to recommend approval? MR. JOHNSON: Are we talking about the banners? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes. MR. JOHNSON: Just to give you some insight as to how staff evaluated this particular request is that, you know, these deviations are reviewed on a case-by-case basis, and they're reviewed on the merits of their own in their own PUD. Staff did evaluate this particular request in light of others that have been -- well, in regards to the Esplanade, the Esplanade is a larger community with greater acreage and greater number of homes than this particular project. And allow me to just continue a little bit longer, and then I'll ultimately say yes or no. You know, County Barn Road is a different type of roadway classification than Immokalee Road. Esplanade is on Immokalee Road. County Barn Road is a different roadway classification. And I want to show you the drainage ditch that is in question here. You can see -- and Commissioner Schmitt will appreciate the sign that's there right now, the public notice sign. Staff is trying to compare apples to apples, and it's sometimes difficult to do that when you don't have well-defined measureables. The Esplanade banner, from what I understand, was allowed for a period of 28 days and for eight feet tall, and here they're requesting 10 feet tall. So -- but certainly if you -- later on in this agenda you're going to be reviewing a deviation that's similar for the Triad property. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That was going to be my point. That one is eight feet and 90 days, and you're recommending approval of that. MR. JOHNSON: That's correct. And just to draw some similarities and differences between this project and that project. you know, with the Triad project the justification, from what I understand, is that they're trying to gain visibility from Davis Road -- Davis Boulevard, which is a principal arterial or -- and rural road and, from what I understand, it has speed limits maybe 50 miles per hour. I'm relying on the work of others. For County Barn Road it's 45 miles per hour. I believe where Esplanade is, at that point it's also 45 miles per hour. So you can see the differences, but you can also see the similarities. Ultimately I would, you know, yield to the will of the Commission. If it's the Commission's desire to approve a sign that is eight feet tall, yeah, staff would concede to that. You know, we have a recom -- we had recommended denial against 28 days, but in the Triad project we're recommending approval 90 days. So it's very subjective. And, really, in order to foster and facilitate more consistency between these types of deviations and signs, then, yes, staff June 1, 2017 Page 12 of 79 would concede to that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. MR. JOHNSON: So thank you for my soapbox. I will be quiet now. MR. ARNOLD: Mr. Strain, it might be appropriate if I let you know the approximate distance that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, please. MR. ARNOLD: -- the Avalon project which is at the corner of Davis Boulevard and County Barn Road that Neal Communities is also developing. They're about 42 feet from the travel lane to the wall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So a project that had 42 feet from a travel lane was approved for a larger sign for obvious reasons. It was needed to call attention to the project. This particular site is over 80 feet way. And that little -- this picture's a good argument as to why the 4-by-8 sign should be allowed is that's -- you can't -- you won't be able to see much at that size. So I think we exhausted the discussion on that, and let's move into the next item. Wayne, do you want to take it any further? MR. ARNOLD: On the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. You were going to go back to the PUD. Or let's move into that then. MR. ARNOLD: I'd be happy to, unless there are other questions that you'd prefer to have answered before we get into the meat of those. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane had a question. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Wayne, I have one. If you can put up the deviations again. You're right, when you scratched out "seasonal" and you put "per calendar year, 90 days," does that mean you can put it in October, November, December for calendar year and then January, February, March for the next calendar year? MR. ARNOLD: I hadn't really thought about that, but I suppose so, but I'm not sure that the other restrictions that were written for the other communities -- you know, for instance, the one in Avalon that was read into the record by Ray allows it to go the entire season. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, it's what you struck out. You took out "seasonal" and you just put in calendar year. So that is my question, because -- MR. ARNOLD: I think technically you're right, Ms. Ebert. But let me just also say something that hasn't been said as part of the justification for this. Unlike Esplanade, which is a significantly larger, longer buildout project, this project at the number of units is probably, with the sale pace that we have currently if it continues, this is a very short-term project. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, I wouldn't agree to six months. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Mr. Chair? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: We do have a comment on the new language for Deviation 4, so whenever -- I'm not sure if you're doing it now or you're going to do it later. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's walk through the PUD changes, and then we'll -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's get back to our normal routine, because we're going to get off on rabbit trails here, and we'll take all morning on just one. So let's go back to the regular language you were talking about, Wayne, and get back on the PUD. MR. ARNOLD: Let me start with Page 1 of 11. And, again, I have a hard copy for anybody who would rather have a hard copy than to look on the visualizer; just let me know. So on Page 1, this is under the permitted uses for the project, Mr. Strain, you had pointed out that having the other comparable uses on Item A2 was really not appropriate because we don't have other comparable uses to the residential units. It's not really appropriate, and we agree. And we would strike that language, as you've suggested. And then we had another conversation under B below, B2 under gatehouses and access control structures, that those really don't necessarily occur on the residential tract. They occur in what would be rights-of-way. And jumping ahead, there is language under -- on Page 3 of 11 it talks about development standards June 1, 2017 Page 13 of 79 and it mentions guardhouses and gatehouses and references, within the R tract, and then we have also added a reference that it could be in the A tract since the A tract, amenity tract abuts the entrance as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And just so staff's clear on this, the proposal was that instead of listing it as a use in the residential permitted uses, it would be listed on Exhibit B and under development -- general development standards as a use permitted in the A and R tract alongside the entry right-of-way. Ray, from your perspective, do you see a problem with that? MR. ARNOLD: I could put that page up as well, if that makes it -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just don't want the clarification to come in and end up causing more confusion. MR. ARNOLD: And, Mr. Strain, the way this works, we typically don't have a separate right-of-way tract to assign uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. ARNOLD: So, I mean, you're technically correct that we're not going to have gatehouses in a residential tract, per se, but I think this is a more appropriate location to note we can have those features if needed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I would think so, too. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. For the record, that works. And most of the PUDs that I've worked on, there's also a heading they can use, general development permitted uses. That's would take into account these types of facilities. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that takes care of that change as far as its applicability. Do you want to move on with the rest of it? MR. ARNOLD: On the sage page, Item No. 4, is striking a reference to open space uses and structures such as boardwalks, nature walks, gazebos, and picnic areas. And I think the reference there is probably redundant. And I would agree with you, Mr. Strain, those are all covered under typically other accessory customary uses and that we could just strike that as being redundant language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. ARNOLD: And, of course, there's renumbering that occurs for each of those items to reflect the change. The next change was on Page 3 of 11 where we would insert the reference to the A tract, which you just saw, and that's what that would look like. The next change is on Page 4 of 11. It's our Development Standards Table. And we have a host of minor edits here. I'm trying to clean up the document slightly. The first one at the top of the page under minimum lot area, Mr. Strain, you suggested that we would strike the 5,000 square foot minimum and go to 4,000 square foot minimum to reflect consistency with the minimum lot depth and width requirements, just as they are for the other permitted uses, and this change reflects that correction. Under minimum front yard, there is an item, asterisk one, and then an Item 2 with no asterisk. We've inserted an asterisk before No. 2. And at the bottom of the page, under Asterisk No. 4, we've stricken language that says if single-family or two-family attached development is pursued through the county's plat process, and we've simply now noted that landscape buffer tracts and landscape maintenance tracts will be platted or shown as separate tracts on a plat or Site Development Plan, just to clarify the direction we've now headed with regard to those changes. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Wayne, could we insert the word "separately" before the word "platted"? We think the separate tracts, that's what it means, but just to make sure it's clear for staff. MR. ARNOLD: You're saying where it says LBTs and LMTs will be separately platted? Is that what you're suggesting? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah. MR. ARNOLD: I don't think we have a problem with that. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Or shown as separate tracts on SDP. Just for further clarification. MR. ARNOLD: I have no problem with that. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Thanks. June 1, 2017 Page 14 of 79 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you -- you're not suggesting that they create a plat just to show those tracts and then another plat to show all the other issues involving the project? I mean, it almost sounds like we've got to have a single, stand-alone plat just to show the tract; is that what you're indicating? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, I'm just trying to clarify -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, we haven't done it that way before, and I just want to make sure I understand why. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: No, that's what I'm saying. I think that there's a little bit lack of clarity because it says they'll be shown as separate tracts on the SDP. We could put "on the SDP or plat" at the end, if you want to handle it that way instead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would be, I think, easier to follow. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I hate to see you have to commit multiple plats just because you've got a plat tract. MR. ARNOLD: Can we go back and just make sure I understand where I'm now correcting that? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: So the sentence will read, LBTs and LMTs will be platted or shown as separate tracts on the SDP or plat. MR. ARNOLD: Got it. Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're not done with that page in regards to the Asterisk No. 2. Just make note that you changed that, if you could. MR. ARNOLD: Oh, I'm sorry. I missed that one, yes. Asterisk No. 2 has a reference to corner lots and requiring only one front yard. Our language, as shown in your document, has a 10-foot number. Mr. Strain has so noted that 12 feet's the more appropriate setback given the development standards above. So we would agree to make that 12 feet. The next change is on the master plan, which we've discussed one of those changes, and I've highlighted them. We will be deleting the reference to Deviation No. 1 at the entrance, which is highlighted in orange on your plan. And then I highlighted language that has been suggested by the County Attorney's Office, and this has to do with buffers that also may constitute part of our preservation area. And this language simply requires that the preservation areas need to be supplemented to meet whatever the minimum buffer standard is per code. And I can certainly read it into the record. It's standard -- fairly standard language now. It's my understanding that the County Attorney's Office and staff are working on a standard format that you'll be seeing in forthcoming PUDs. I can certainly read the entirety of it into the record if you prefer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Doesn't matter to me. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: The issue of opacity and timing came up during the review, and so that's why we drafted language to address that concern. And this is language that was used in some of the other PUDs. I believe Resource Recovery might have had it and another one where opacity was addressed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. ARNOLD: Moving on. The next change is on Page 7 of 11. It's your deviation page, and we've certainly talked about No. 2 significantly this morning. The other reference change is on Item No. 4 which talks about our entrance signs, and those are designed to be a component of the wall that will be built on the project. And, Mr. Strain, you had mentioned that there needed to be a reference point because maybe in a prior project somebody had put an abundance of fill material in so they could get a higher sign than the deviation was authorized to be. Our site is about seven feet elevation as an average today. We're going to be bringing the top of berm up to about 12 feet. So that's about five feet of fill that will be added. And it's a little bit cumbersome in the language that I've offered, but it would say with a maximum height of 10 feet above the approximate five feet of required fill above existing grade. And there's probably a better way to say it, but it's not exactly the South Florida permitted elevation. It's not exactly our internal road elevation. It's different because it is the perimeter berm. MR. STONE: Wayne, the language states it's required fill. Is it required by our code? Is it required by FEMA? June 1, 2017 Page 15 of 79 MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think -- it's two things. It's not really a FEMA requirement as much as it's a component of the South Florida Water Management permit, but our permitted berm elevations can technically be slightly lower. But the way that we've designed the entire site to deal with the way Neal Communities likes their footprints to be for the buildings in relation to the roads, the perimeter berm was adjusted slightly higher than the minimum elevation by the District, and I think the minimum district elevation was around 11 feet, approximate, my recollection, and our berm height is going to be approximately 12 feet. And, I mean, that might be the other way to reference it, you know, the maximum berm height of 12 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you could just take the word "required" out. Wouldn't that do it? MR. ARNOLD: We can do that, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the only reason is the higher you raise some of these sites, first of all, the water -- stormwater management's always contained on site, so that's not going to be an issue. The second is that the FEMA guidelines allowed reduction in flood insurance costs if you're above the freeboard requirement. And you would be actually creating freeboard here, which means the residents of your community could theoretically benefit from that in reduction of, you know, flood insurance from FEMA. MR. ARNOLD: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So, I mean, that's something we've tried to encourage, not discourage. So I'm not sure we should penalize people for putting in more fill where it's required as long as your drainage components are managed by that amount of fill. MR. ARNOLD: I'm happy to strike the word "required" if that makes the Planning Commission -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just think it cleans it up. Scott, does that solve the problem for you? MR. STONE: I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. ARNOLD: Okay. The other change we proposed was on Page 8 of 11. It's regarding Deviation No. 10, and this had to do with the deviation -- the project on its own is not required to have a right turn lane into the project. The project also would otherwise have a requirement to construct a sidewalk to nowhere on the east side of County Barn Road. The county is going to be building a multi-use pathway on the west side of County Barn Road. So in discussing this with transportation staff, they asked if we would commit to construction of the right turn lane into the project as a traffic safety enhancement for the project in lieu of building a sidewalk that didn't serve anybody else, and that's what this deviation suggests. And the County Attorney's Office has offered the one modification with the phrase "along County Barn Road" just so it's clear that that was the location of the sidewalk deviation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand -- I think the right turn lane's a good idea on that roadway because it's only two lanes right now, so that's an improvement. I would at some point like to ask staff to explore this issue of requiring sidewalks and payments in lieu of or payments in lieu of on arterial and collector roads when the impact fees already cover those sidewalks. I know it's almost like double dipping on the development community. I'm not saying they don't necessarily deserve it, but in this time I'm not sure it's fair. So at some point, Ray, could staff come back and address that issue so we can have it looked at? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. My understanding, we have been looking into that issue, and you want -- at a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- MR. BELLOWS: -- public hearing? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- the issue's been being looked at since I raised it over a year ago. How long's it take to look at an issue like that? So I'd like to get it resolved so we either know we're going to have to deal with this at every meeting coming up or we're not, and if we're -- whatever it comes out to is fine. It just gives clear direction to this board. MR. BELLOWS: Understood. And I will coordinate with Mr. Sawyer to see when would be an appropriate time to report to the Planning Commission. June 1, 2017 Page 16 of 79 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. MR. ARNOLD: One other change was to the 50-foot-wide right-of-way cross-section that we had in the code. And, Mr. Strain, when we met, you mentioned that we had a 20-foot setback noted on the plan, and the setback does vary. So we've modified that exhibit to simply note where I've highlighted that setback varies, but it is shown to be the setback line for that cross-section. The next change is on Page 10 of 11, and it's under environmental, and it deals with -- it's on 10 and 11. This is repetitive of the language that I referenced that was added to the master plan to reflect the preserve requirements being enhanced if we need them to meet the minimum buffer requirements where applicable. So that's what the language looks like. It's getting a little crowded on our master plans to put some of these cross-notes on them. So maybe when we settle on some fairly standard language in this regard, it will either be placed in the Land Development Code, or we can simply put it in one place on the PUD rather than -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I would rather -- I mean, I'm not sure why it always seems to be on the master plans. If the text is in the PUD, I'm comfortable with that. To the extent it's not, you know, maybe staff could take a look at it and reduce the amount of clutter or the master plans. MR. ARNOLD: It just goes to the readability of the project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree. Is that all? MR. ARNOLD: I believe those are all the changes I had noted, Mr. Strain. I don't know if I missed any that you might have mentioned that I didn't get, but... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, you addressed them all. MR. ARNOLD: Anyway, our team is here to answer any other questions that you might have with regard to the project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. STONE: Mr. Chair, I do have one quick comment I noticed -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. STONE: -- on the language we were just discussing. It's supposed to mimic the language in the master plan, but I did notice one small change. It says, within six months of the issuance of the first residential certificate of occupancy, and the master plan language doesn't have the word "residential." I don't know if we're splitting hairs, but I wanted to point that out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they ought to be consistent. If you're going to copy it in both places, just make them both identical. So add the word "residential" to the master plan, then it would clear it up. MR. ARNOLD: We can do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Scott. MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Chair? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. JOHNSON: I just had an opportunity to speak with Summer, and she commented that perhaps the language would better suited under landscaping rather than environmental. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, she mentioned that the other day. Good point. Thank you, Summer, for calling attention to that. Wayne, that -- and she is right. That's a landscaping issue, not an environmental issue. So you really have to put it under landscaping. And I'm sorry, I should have brought that up as another discussion, but she did mention that the other day in a meeting. MR. ARNOLD: We are happy to place it wherever you deem it most appropriate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have no reason not to go along with Summer's recommendation on that to the landscaping, so... Anybody (sic) else okay? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing no -- okay. Does that wrap up your presentation? MR. ARNOLD: I think so. June 1, 2017 Page 17 of 79 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now we'll go to any other further questions, because we've been asking questions as we've gone along. Any other questions from the Planning Commission members? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, staff report, Eric. MR. JOHNSON: Certainly. For the record, Eric Johnson, Principal Planner. Staff reviewed the documents that you have in your packets, or an earlier version. Staff is recommending approval of the project with the exception -- with the change that Deviation No. 2 would change from a recommendation of denial to approval but with an eight-foot-tall sign. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we may have some more suggestions on that based on the time frame. I mean, I'm suggesting that if it worked for Avalon right up the street, we ought to look at the same language and just mimic it. Then we don't have so many issues to deal with. But we'll talk about that during discussion. Thank you. MR. JOHNSON: And also, before a motion is made, the Planning Commission has to also serve as the Environmental Advisory Committee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you for that reminder. MR. JOHNSON: Oh, and also in the name of transparency, I did receive two emails after the packets were submitted. One from Mr. Gross and one from Mr. Jones, and I would characterize one as opposition. I believe Mr. Jones, which is a separate email, opposes to -- a companion petition to vacate the 12-foot-wide right-of-way easement that's in this -- or an easement that's within this project. And I think Mr. Jones is here to speak; he filled out a card. And also, as my practice, I usually try to attach the affidavit from the Naples Daily News, and so I just wanted to say that I did receive the affidavit from the Naples Daily News that was advertised appropriate in the newspaper, and that's all I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ray, are there any registered public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, we have one, or several speakers here. The first one is Anthony Catera. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if you could come up to speak, use either microphone. Spell your last name if it's -- and then you're good to go. MR. CATERA: Thanks. Thanks for having us. Catera, C-a-t-e-r-a. I'm a little nervous. I don't want to be like Ralph Kramden, homina, homina, you know; if you know Ralph Kramden. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Take your time. We're here to listen, so... MR. CATERA: I'm just against a lot of the overbuilding in this whole area. I don't want it to become a Fort Lauderdale. It's already -- you can't find a parking spot at the beach. There's a five-story or six-story building going up on 41 and Davis. It just seems like the -- I don't know what you call a population density of this particular project is increased. It's going to end up causing more traffic, more congestion. I mean, the county and the state can't even figure out how to put a left-hand signal outside of Glen Eagle, and there have been multiple accidents there. So, you know, to say that it's not going to have any impact is -- you know, that's false. I just have a few notes. It seems like every possible space is being -- is trying to be utilized, you know. I don't know what else we can do on that. I believe, you know, the quality of life versus the money for Collier County. I think the bottom line, it's a money thing. That's my opinion. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, before you leave, I've been here 40 years, and I share your concern. I don't know how long you've been here for or what community you live in. But I lived in the same house almost all those 40 years. Everything's grown up. The fishing used to be good. Things are different. You can't get to the beach like you used to. I go kayaking. There's not enough kayak sites out there. But the problem that this board faces is what the law allows the owners of properties to do. So if they come in and want more than the law allows -- than the law does allow, it gives us some latitude to rein June 1, 2017 Page 18 of 79 them in. If they come in less, we've just got to make sure they're as consistent as possible with the code and compatible as possible with the neighborhood. This particular project, I believe -- and, Ray, I think this is in a density band of an activity center, is it not? MR. BELLOWS: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the allowed use in there is up to 16 units per acre. So they're asking for a lot less intensity. And I understand your position. Any more is more than we need. But this could be many times more. And that's the concern that we have to start from is where it could go versus what we're trying to reduce it down to. It may not be the best situation, but it's the one we're saddled with from our review. So that's how we look at it today, and I just wanted you to understand that. MR. CATERA: Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. BELLOWS: A density band has a maximum eligible of seven units. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seven units, okay. I'm sorry. It's still seven units, and this one is operating at what? Is it at seven? MR. JOHNSON: At seven or a little bit less. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Whatever the density band allows, that's what they're allowed to go to. The only thing -- this one's advantage is if it's going -- if they do a lower -- lower heights and things like that, it makes it more compatible. We're stuck to -- we're limited to that, and I'm sorry. MR. CATERA: Well, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next speaker. MR. JOHNSON: William Jones, followed by Brian Jones. WILLIAM JONES: Good morning, Board. William Jones, J-o-n-e-s. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, you're the Bill Jones, aren't you? WILLIAM JONES: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you've been one of the few people here longer than I have. WILLIAM JONES: I have a residence at 3000 County Barn Road, and I've been there -- in Florida since '59. So I kind of got a little bit of idea of what's going on. I wanted to give you kind of an outline; I'll make it real brief. The area -- the County Barn Road is a quiet and mostly rural estates-zoned, with a majority of the area in single-family homes size located on an acre or more property. The street is not designed to have a lot of heavy, intense traffic. The surrounding area that has been rezoned, proposed rezoned, includes -- well, that has been rezoned, includes PUD and RMF6 and has a density from three to five units per acre. That's what's surrounding it that has already been approved. The construction is composed of mostly two-story condominium apartments. And this type of construction means that you have more open space around buildings for the people to line (sic). The zoning; the developer has requested a rezone of a PUD for 38.59 acres facing County Barn Road. The request for the multifamily of 268 units or a density of seven units per acre, this equates to approximately 38 additional multifamily units if it was zoned what it -- what we think maybe is an RMF6. Thus, if allowed, the maximum density would exceed any of the surrounding existing PUD or RMF6 units per acre from two to four units per acre. This is not compatible with the existing zoning. The developer's asking for estates-zoned property to be rezoned to allow for the maximum number of units using a PUD. This is an unusual way to develop land in rural areas, even though it seems to be a metropolitan area now. PUDs were initially designed to use in a planned subdivision where the streets were already in place, the subdivision had laid it out, its sewer and so forth, and you could go in and change the PUD. That was my understanding. They must petition and go before your committee and then to commissioner (sic) for approval, so June 1, 2017 Page 19 of 79 you do have some authority with this board to change these things and to make them comply with something that is compatible to the neighborhood. This causes -- by using these PUDs, this causes small pods of development to be pasted around in an estates-zoned area with a minimum regard to the rest of the area. They may meet requirements of current zoning status, but they don't meet existing conditions. And I have some safety concerns, too, and I'll make these fast. Guardrails; there's a canal alongside this street, pretty wide, and at the edge of the street, if you pulled your car off the edge of the pavement with two tires, you'll probably roll over into that ditch. Now, I think this is a county safety issue, but I think it should be a concern, and I'm bringing it up now just for the benefit of the developer to know that that is a serious danger issue. It's been -- I've addressed my commissioner, and it's still under consideration. I think a guardrail should be installed, and I think if this was a state road, it would automatically be mandatory required. Sidewalks; I heard you say that the county Engineering Department is negotiating with them for a turn lane. If the rezone is considered, does the developer provide for a sidewalk along the east side abutting the property to allow residents a safe walk to get up to County Barn or up to Davis? There's a school, Seacrest Country Day School, very near. In the event there are children who want to attend, they would have to walk to school along the edge of this pavement, which I told you is very dangerous. So it's a very hazardous thing. To walk across County Barn Road to get up to the corner of Davis and then walk across County Barn again to get to the Seacrest Country Day School is a major hazard. And I think this -- the developer should include those as well. The bus stop; there is no bus stop along this street. There's no bus that currently runs from the county. With the increased number of people, a bus route is possible, and the street does not allow for a side stop. Without a side stop to pull over, the traffic would be blocked. Are plans made for a future bus stop? Streetlights; County Barn's very dark. I've been down that road many a times at night, and if you have, there's ditches on either side. When the rainy season is here, they're full of water. And there's no -- no streetlights. And if anybody walking or driving with the increased activity of people, then autos may need lights to help prevent accidents. In the event pedestrians are walking after dark, they would be exposed to traffic. Turn lane; I heard you say you're putting a turn lane. I think that's essentially (sic) to have there to prevent rear end, tail end -- and most of the accidents that occur in Collier County are rear-end bumps, either reading their cell phone or something else. But they do have the rear-end accidents, and this certainly is a good cause for one. Plans should include a turn lane and a decel lane to access the egress for the proposed project. In most rezones, a turn lane, a decel lane is provided by the developer. Example: Napoli right straight across the street has a decel lane and has a turn lane. These are standard features when you go to put in. And by doing these little pod-type developments, they can skirt around that, and that's, I think, where this commission needs to look at an overall plan of these things and not just concentrate on one little spot that this -- so in conclusion, the residents desires (sic) to remain in a rural area with a density that does not exceed the existing rezoned sites and opposes using a spot or a pod-type development. The county regulations are designed to protect the small homeowner from being overwhelmed by excessive development. Spot zoning for this type of development on County Barn Road is not a good plan without including a (sic) total community concerns. At the very least, the proposed rezone PUD density should not exceed the existing density of -- the maximum out there is five units per acre for other family and prorated density reduction for single-family use. We request this board, which has the authority to look at these issues, to provide us a measure of safety and protection and avoid overdensity in our area. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bill, I didn't recognize the amount of estates abutting this property that you seem to indicate. Because according to the aerial and the information we got from staff, to the north is June 1, 2017 Page 20 of 79 Seacrest school, to the east is a church area, and then past that is the estates, so it's not abutting it. Also to the east, to the south, the first remaining what might be considered a typical estates lots is an ornamental nursery and then an estates house, to the south is a water management pond for the county property, and to the southwest is another county piece of right-of-way for Cope Lane. To the west is County Barn Road. So there's really no estates abutting this or no estates use. So how is it not compatible with the -- with the area that it's in? WILLIAM JONES: I'm looking at your colored map that your staff provided me, and it shows an abundant area out there is zoned estate. Zoning E, they call it, I guess. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the location of this project. WILLIAM JONES: Well -- but the area here, like, is Napoli. It shows a density of four. The Falling Waters shows a density of 5.07. The Cape Reserve shows a density of 3.0. The density of is -- of the acreage of a lot of it is one unit per two-and-a-quarter acres, which none of that's compatible anymore because a lot of this is rezoned. But a lot of these homes are sitting on one-acre sites, and a lot of these people have been there for years like some of the old entrenched guys. We don't mind development, but we want it to be compatible and not like this metal thing up there on the corner which fronts on Davis Boulevard. It doesn't front on us, so we didn't have to -- and they got their own separate entrance. They did put a decel lane in up there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, sir. WILLIAM JONES: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other registered speakers, Ray? MR. JOHNSON: Yes, there is. Brian Jones, then followed by Wolfgang Schulz. BRIAN JONES: Good morning, Board. My name is Brian Jones. I'm a member of the Unity Church of Naples, and I'm here representing the Unity Church Board of Trustees in our interest as it relates to the project that's being proposed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, you're the church whose property's backing up to this parcel? BRIAN JONES: Yes, sir; yes, sir. We have a 28-acre campus, and 10 acres of that is a lake parcel which abuts this property. The other portion of our campus also abuts basically, virtually the majority of the property line opposite County Barn Road. There is an easement that was originally developed to access the lake. And we received notice that they were attempting to vacate the easement. We contacted the developer, and we sent a letter to the county. And we've had conversation with the developer to establish an alternate easement plan, because this bisects the proposed development. So we're in negotiations with that. We have not developed a complete satisfactory agreement at this time. It's just in principle. We were agreeing to work with and try to establish an alternate easement agreement so that we would have access to our lake if it were ever sold or developed so we would have maintenance to be able to remove trees or do potential construction if we ever expand our church property. So we sent a letter to safeguard our access to the property because the developer has moved forward to vacate the easement, and we're -- hold the phone, we have an interest here, and we want to make sure that we maintain our access to that property. And we also sent a copy of our objection to the county. And it's not that we're objecting to the easement. We just want to make sure we re-establish one that safeguards all of our rights and access possibilities for now and in perpetuity, because that parcel that we own would become landlocked if this were to come about. So we need to make sure -- and we don't quite have all the research at our disposal, being a church, to know what we need to include in that access agreement. Secondly, the other issue we have is because there's a large lake, it's very attractive. And if this project were approved, there would be a large number of children and families, and we see a safety issue with the lake. We have posted signs for no fishing and swimming and so forth, but we would propose that the developer install the maximum height concrete-type buffer to keep their residents out of our property and avoid -- make the place as safe as possible for all the people that are living there. Good fences make good June 1, 2017 Page 21 of 79 neighbors. So, basically, those are our two issues as they relate. So we would ask that -- not to have the easement vacated. Whoever needs to have that information at county staff, I want to make sure -- because there was a change in the sign. The person -- the contact person listed on the sign is no longer with the county, and some of the calls -- I wasn't able to get answers timely because I wasn't aware of a change in the personnel. And I would suggest that they put a new name of contact and a new phone number so that people have that information properly on the advertised sign. So I would ask -- we're certainly willing to cooperate with the developer, but we want to make sure our interests are protected with access in perpetuity and that we don't lose access and end up with a landlocked piece of property. And, secondly, we would like a substantial buffer to safeguard the residents and to protect our property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you leave, I'd like to ask staff to put the aerial on the overhead. I want to understand your property, and -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Brian? Brian? BRIAN JONES: Yes. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Where does the lake get its water from, and where does it drain to? BRIAN JONES: The lake is about -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The one that's in the packet. BRIAN JONES: It's a little difficult to see, but you see the big black rectangular area there, that was at one time a fill pit for, I believe, Davis Boulevard and, essentially, through the subject property, almost about 40 percent down there's an easement that bifurcates that property and goes to the lake. It's difficult because that screen is so dark. But it essentially is about half of the property in the center portion where we abut. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you go too far, could you guys put the aerial that's on -- that's in the staff report up. There it's a lot clearer than the one that's on there. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Maybe if you put the LiDAR that's at the end of the project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll need the other one when it gets to my point, but Stan wants to talk about LiDAR, so... COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Well, it kind of shows what's there better than that. COMMISSIONER EBERT: It does, Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'm looking at Google Earth and, you know, I'm -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think he asked -- he's -- Stan's questioning at this point, Eric. Do you mind putting his LiDAR up. MR. JOHNSON: Oh, certainly. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: It might be easier to see on the LiDAR than on the aerial photo. BRIAN JONES: The lake is approximately seven of the 10 acres. There is shoreline all the way around the perimeter of the lake depending on the rainy season water table, and it's approximately 60 feet deep because it was a mine. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Right. So you're looking at the lake on the right side of that page. BRIAN JONES: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And the easement goes where? Is it that ditch? BRIAN JONES: You see the red line; I believe it's approximately where that red line is going through there. I'm not exactly -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Oh. So it's at the north end of the lake, and it's that raised road, whatever that is. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: It is shown on the master plan, if you'd like to look at your master plan. MR. JOHNSON: The master plan has it, and also in your packets, I think there's a survey. And I'm June 1, 2017 Page 22 of 79 trying to flip to it. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Eric -- now what are we looking at? Okay. This plan's fine. It's not outlining the property, but I can tell where it is. That lake, isn't it -- that's your lake on your property -- BRIAN JONES: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- is that correct? BRIAN JONES: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How did you remove the fill from that lake? BRIAN JONES: We purchased it from Collier County -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As it was existing? BRIAN JONES: Existing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. BRIAN JONES: And part of that and what we're also researching, the easement that was -- when we purchased the property, we were actually researching to see if we have other ownership interest in the easement beyond just an easement. We're not sure at this point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But if that lake is your property, why wouldn't you be able to access it from your property? Why do you have to go off to somebody else's property to access that lake? BRIAN JONES: It's blocked by the church and the construction of the church. There's no -- there's not a significant way to go through without -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But how do you see a significant way to get through an easement that's not developed? I mean, wouldn't you have to go in, clear it, put some road base in, and then the people living on each side of that easement would have to deal with your traffic that should go through, probably, your property? BRIAN JONES: That's correct. But if we were to sell this property, as we bought it separately, if it were to stand alone, it would have no access. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it's not standing alone. It's part of your property. You bought it. BRIAN JONES: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. BRIAN JONES: And we're trying to be able -- there's large Australian pines. They're difficult to see along the buffer. If those need to be removed or maintained, our way in would be potentially through there and to be able to get machinery in and to remove the trees. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I think if you were to come in to develop that easement with properties on both sides of it, some of them potentially being residential, then try to access County Barn Road to bring construction traffic in and off that road, I think you'd have a harder task to overcome than just finding an access through your existing property. You've got vegetation along that south side and both sides of the church. I'm not sure the easement's that critical, but, I mean -- I understand -- I understand your position. BRIAN JONES: It may not be. And we're working to try to reach an amicable agreement with the developer to utilize his existing roadways so that we have that potential. We don't know that we -- we don't have plans to develop it. We were planning just to set it aside as part of our serene setting there. But we would like to have -- perpetuity is a long time. We don't know what we might do in the future, what future generations of our churchgoers may want to do. So we're just trying to protect our access interest as it lies. MR. STONE: Mr. Chair, there is a separate application that's currently in process for the vacation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That goes to the Board, right? MR. STONE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the Board of County Commissioners will hear the vacation. We don't -- we don't hear those at all. We don't see those, but they will certainly have an opportunity at the public process for the vacation issue. BRIAN JONES: Are they aware of our interest? MR. STONE: Marcus Berman is the point person on the vacation applications. I'm not sure if that name is familiar to you, but we can -- I can get you the contact information, if you'd like, after this. June 1, 2017 Page 23 of 79 BRIAN JONES: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. BRIAN JONES: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next speaker? MR. JOHNSON: Sure. And this is the final registered speaker, Mr. Wolfgang Schulz. MR. SCHULZ: My name is Wolfgang Schulz, S-c-h-u-l-z; just like Peanuts. Let me state I'm not a NIMBY fellow. I think everybody deserves a fair shake in this world. And so I'm not against development. But I've lived here for over 25 years, full-time resident in Glen Eagle Golf and Country Club, and I'm using County Barn Road at least once a day. So I've seen County Barn Road developing yet not developing. I think you have to look at this road as a two-lane road; everybody knows that. There's no sidewalks. There are no streetlights. God help you if you ever get a flat tire at nighttime because you wouldn't be able to see your hand in front of your face. And you have deep, wide drains on both sides of the road. The county has spent several million dollars very recently to improve the drainage but, in effect, it's a no-drainage drainage system, because those drains are filled to the brim during the rainy season, and there's no flow. There's absolutely no flow. There's weeds growing on top of that and scum, and the water does not flow, and that's going to make it worse with this new development coming in. Frankly, I think the county should react -- pro-act instead of react. I think this kind of development, as proposed, we are going to be more than 500 cars more using the road, and there are going to be children walking to school and school buses. I think the county should make sure streetlights get put in and sidewalks installed before any new development is approved because, otherwise, this is going to be a reaction later on going on how many years it will take. Frankly, I don't think it's a safe project at this point in time, and I think that these issues need to be addressed by the county at this point before anything worse happens. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'm going to call Mr. Kurtz up here, please. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, is this something to do with the public speaker? Do you want to finish public speakers first? COMMISSIONER EBERT: He's done with the public speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I wasn't done with the public speakers. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Oh, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do we have any other register speakers, Ray or Eric? MR. JOHNSON: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any members of the public who would like to speak who have not already spoken? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. I'm calling Mr. Kurtz up here because, in reading -- and I do read all of this. In reading the people's concerns on this particular project, one was traffic, and one is LASIP. And because you are so concerned about these things on the road, and I would also be, I called Kurtz the other day. And could you tell us about LASIP. MR. KURTZ: Yes. Jerry Kurtz, for the record, Stormwater Management with Collier County. Mr. Schulz did complain about the drainage situation along County Barn Road, I think, through the Commissioners' office. We replied with a pretty comprehensive answer. I think that the water management system along County Barn Road is fairly misunderstood due to the wetlands in the area. The system that was constructed conveys the proper amount of water, when it's collected, downstream to the south to the outlet. June 1, 2017 Page 24 of 79 It also holds back quite a bit of water to prevent over-drainage for the wetlands in the area, and a lot of people don't understand that and have issues with that. But the LASIP project is complete. The entire LASIP project is now complete. It's working perfectly. The proper amount of flood protection is provided as well as the environment enhancements and protection features of the project. And I'm very happy to explain it to people, come by, pick you up in the truck, drive you around. This summer will be a good time to watch the system function, but it's working extremely well. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Jerry, I'm going to -- because this gentleman was saying that the water is quite high. And I understand what you're saying because you said it has to be at a certain level because there is wetlands in here, lowlands, so you have to. Is -- all the scum and everything that's on top, is there anything -- is there anything the county can do with that? I mean, I'm thrilled that this LASIP project is done finally, but they're still saying that the water's way too high in the ditches. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But does that have anything to do with this project? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes, it does. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no. I'm looking at Jerry. Jerry, does this project have anything to do with the height of the water in those ditches right now? MR. KURTZ: The project will discharge into the water management area on the east side of County Barn Road. That water's set at a control elevation. It's regulated, fill up, and overflow. As long as the project's designed to work with that existing system, it will be no problem at all. Plenty of capacity available. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. My question is, the complaint is as of today; I don't think he's talking about the scum when the project's done. He couldn't be. He's talking about the green growth or whatever, today. Does this project have any detrimental effect on the project today, on that water that's in those canal/swales today? MR. KURTZ: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When it's designed, completed, and ties into that canal system, because of your discharge rates and all that, will it have any impact on that canal system? MR. KURTZ: It will discharge to the system. No -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No change in your control elevations; everything stays the same. MR. KURTZ: Everything stays the same. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I thought. Thank you. MR. KURTZ: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we'll -- there's a rebuttal opportunity. Thank you, Jerry. Is there any rebuttal by the applicant? MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I'll address one item, and then Mr. Arnold will speak. We are, in fact, working with the church on a replacement easement. The current access road or access easement that the church would use for emergency access is, in fact, a public easement dedicated -- it was conveyed to the county as an easement by FDOT. So right now any member of the public could utilize that easement to get to the church's lake. And there's no wall there now. And as I say, the public, with the replacement easement, will still be able to access that lake unfettered and trespass but no wall. A wall offers no practical benefit, and we would not want to have to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And you said Mr. Arnold had something to final or close with? MR. ARNOLD: Thank you, Mr. Strain. Again, Wayne Arnold. Just to summarize a couple things. I've known Mr. Jones a long, long time and certainly respect him, but this area is in your urban designated area. It's not part of your rural community. It's going to be developed with urban densities, and it is within the density band around an activity that exists at the intersection of Santa Barbara Boulevard and Davis Boulevard. So according to your Comprehensive Planning staff and the assessment that they've prepared and the one that we prepared, we're fully consist with the densities and intensities that are proposed. June 1, 2017 Page 25 of 79 And I think, Mr. Strain, as you pointed out, the adjacency for our project is really the two institutional uses and a canal and road right-of-way, so we don't have immediate residential neighbors to contend with for the most part. So the PUD that we've proposed is very consistent with your Comprehensive Plan and, in my opinion, it's very compatible with the surrounding community. The other comment that I would make is with regard to the road capacity. County Barn Road, with our project, will have a lot of capacity remaining. According to our traffic engineer, there will be more than 50 percent of the road capacity remaining after we build. And so I think that's pretty significant, and level of service is not an issue on the roadway. And I certainly respect the issue that the neighbors have raised with regard to County Barn Road, but the fact is, it's a county facility. They shifted and decided to expand Santa Barbara Boulevard in lieu of County Barn Road because of capacity changes in the area. So with that, I would be happy to answer any additional questions. And I don't want to belabor the point on the deviations, but if you have additional discussion on that, we'd be happy to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any final questions of the applicant? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: The Deviation 2, when you rewrote it, I would prefer you just leave it the way it was, during season January to March for calendar year. MR. ARNOLD: Ms. Ebert, one of the things that I heard Mr. Strain mention was -- and I think Ray read the Avalon PUD that Neal Communities is developing. It has a similar deviation, but the reference to the period of time that they can utilize is different. Maybe it would be easier -- I think it was Mr. Strain that recommended that if we just mirror a deviation that they received for that project -- and I would offer that maybe that is the appropriate solution here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that timeframe is November 1st to April 30th, and that was approved. MR. ARNOLD: That language says the temporary banner sign shall be limited to a maximum of 90 days during season defined as November 1st to April 30th per calendar year. This deviation remains valid until 90 percent of the units are sold. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think, Diane, a solution might be, why don't they copy the Deviation 3 from the Avalon and -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- address height at eight feet, and then we're covered. COMMISSIONER EBERT: No, that's fine. Except when he showed it on his deviation, I asked a question of, October, November, December and January, February, March, and he thought that was a good idea. So I was not going to approve that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I had reviewed -- I was going to make a suggestion during discussion that we limit it to the times that Avalon has had, so... COMMISSIONER EBERT: Perfect. MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Chair? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. JOHNSON: Sorry to interrupt. I did have a chance to speak with our person who deals with signs from our staff, and the suggestion was made that the time period should really not be based on the percentage of units that have been built or sold or something like that. I think -- and the reason why is maybe it's a little bit difficult to monitor in that regard, and that maybe a more appropriate suggestion would be to base it, as long as that, you know, sales unit is out there, the model unit, so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no. The model unit could sit there forever. They could never -- they could leave the model unit up and use it for -- no, that's a much -- that's not good at all. They're going to be in -- they're going to be encouraged to sell units. They'll sell as fast as they can. At 90 percent, it's easy to take a look at this number of units, pick up the Tax Assessor's maps and click off which ones have different names on them; they're sold. MR. JOHNSON: Noted. I think she was more of going with maybe a three-year maximum or June 1, 2017 Page 26 of 79 five-year maximum. But with the model unit, you know, point well taken. But I think the emphasis really was just to not base it on the number of units that were sold or a percentage that were sold. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray? MR. BELLOWS: I think it's a moot point. I prefer language in the Avalon to be used in this case. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would. So the consistency there is better, so... MR. ARNOLD: Mr. Strain, rather than rewrite all of it, it might be easier just to simply add and clarify the 90 days season defined as November 1st to April 30th, and then it would say the deviation is valid until 90 percent of the units are sold. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the eight-foot height. MR. ARNOLD: Correct, the eight-foot height, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree. I think that's -- that was part of the discussion we'll hopefully have here in a minute. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you -- have you completed your rebuttal? MR. ARNOLD: We're finished. Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Any other questions from the Planning Commission members of anybody before we close the public hearing? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'd like to just make a suggestion to the staff before they send the staff report on to the County Commission. On Page 9 of the staff report, the quotation of Subsection 10.02.08.F, I think -- I think you need to check that quotation against the language. MR. BELLOWS: We'll definitely do that. Thank you for the heads-up. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Certainly. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Ned. Okay. With that we'll close the public hearing. We'll entertain a motion. During the meeting, I had made some notes -- actually only three, plus we need two motions, one first as the EAC and one second as the Planning Commission. Under the EAC, I have no notes that pertain to the EAC portion of the motion. There are some notes for the other portions of the PUD. So if we first want to entertain a motion on the EAC position, then we can go and have a second motion on the Planning Commission's position. Does anybody have a motion from an EAC -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Make a motion to approve sitting as the EAC -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- as read. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made and seconded. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. The next item is a motion by the Planning Commission. There are three items that are -- two items that are left on our discussion that came out of the bulk of the discussion today. One is remove the deviation June 1, 2017 Page 27 of 79 for the sidewalk at the entry. There will be sidewalk on both sides of the entry road. There's numerous changes to the text and language changes suggested by the County Attorney's Office throughout the -- in this last language change for the deviation, but the other textual changes, unless someone objects to them, we would accept those as presented and as modified by the County Attorney's Office and during our discussion. And then the only one that would warrant probably further clarification is Deviation No. 2, and Diane was discussing, will be modified to reflect the eight-foot height that the applicant came forward with during the walk-through of the PUD, the period in which the 90 days would apply would be from November 1st to April 30th, and that would hold until 90 percent of the units are sold. And that's the only notes that I have left after the corrections made to the PUD language. Anybody have anything else? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Is this coming back on consent? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I would hope it wouldn't. I think it's pretty straightforward at this point. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I make a motion to approve with the stipulations as stated by Mr. Strain on the record. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Ned. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. We're going to take a break until 10:45 and resume at that time. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. (A brief recess was had.) MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mike. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thanks, mike. Everybody, if you'd please take your seats, we'd like to resume the meeting. ***The next item up is Item 9D. It's Conditional Use PL20150001611. It's to allow an auto parts store over 5,000 square feet at the southwest corner of U.S 41 and Seminole Avenue. I think this is the O'Riley's proposed auto parts store. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Disclosures from the Planning Commission. MR. EASTMAN: None. COMMISSIONER FRYER: None. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: None, pretty sure. COMMISSIONER EBERT: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I have none other than staff and Commissioner Taylor. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Nothing. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, is there a presentation by the applicant? And you're new to us, so all we're -- I don't know if there's any issues here. I went through your application, and I don't think there's much. But generally we just have a very -- as you saw earlier, a very succinct presentation if you are prepared to provide one. June 1, 2017 Page 28 of 79 MR. PENSA: I'll do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go right ahead. MR. PENSA: Okay. For the record, my name is Peter Pensa. I'm an AICP certified planner with Avid Group. We're the planners and engineer in the project representing the property owner and the buyer, who is also the developer. We provided a written justification which is part of the record, as is staff, as part of their report. Obviously, the findings were positive on both of those. We concur with staff. I just want to briefly kind of hit on some of the -- a couple of the highlights for you. We did have a neighborhood meeting and received positive feedback from the neighbors, including the one who's immediately adjacent to the property, across the street to the west, as well as the property owner to the northwest. The property is currently -- well, not currently, but was formerly a flower shop, retail use. Back in history it was originally developed as a gas station with pumps, and that's been out of business for a number of years. The proposed use is an auto parts store. Because of that, the -- and being over 5,000 square foot, that's why we're in front of you today. If it was any other retail use, it wouldn't be having to go through this process. What I do want to clarify for the record to assure you, this is a retail auto parts store. It's an O'Reilly, as you pointed out, which means that it's new retail auto parts. There's no repairs. There's no service. There's no outdoor storage. No tire displays, anything like that outdoors. It's purely an enclosed retail building. The area is a built-up commercial area. There's an auto parts store to the north. There's auto repair to the south. There's shopping center across the street. It's very consistent with the area. We met with -- one of the review criteria is to talk to ingress and egress and the impacts on that. We have met with the county and with DOT. At their recommendation or the requirement, the driveway on Tamiami Trail is being closed. We have to provide for cross-access to the neighbor to the north as well as a driveway onto Seminole Boulevard until the other -- well, not until, but in addition to having the cross-access with the neighbor to the north. We have located that as far east as we could to keep it -- the driveway as minimally into the neighborhood as possible but yet still meet the DOT requirements for separation from the intersection. So that's why that driveway location is where it is. We also have committed that we will not have truck traffic drive through the residential neighborhood to the north. The traffic -- the delivery traffic as well as customers would be coming in from Tamiami Trail into the site. The reason why you see kind of a large pavement area there is that's so that the truck can make its turnaround within the property and not have to either back into the right-of-way or into the neighborhood. We purposely designed the site to provide for enhanced buffer and retention area, more green space and physical separation from the neighborhood so that it will be a good neighbor. Again, it's a quiet use. The concerns that are in the conditional use criteria about noise and glare and all that are not applicable to this as an indoor retail use. And with that, I'll answer any questions you may have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Any questions from the Planning Commission? Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I have no questions. I just have a comment, but go ahead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: My only concern with the auto store is they tend to -- people tend to, even though they're not allowed to, attempt to repair cars in the parking lot. I would just make sure -- I would like to ask that you enforce such a rule that that's not a repair shop out in the front of the parking lot or in the parking lot where people want to go out and do repairs. It's a commercial store. They come in; they purchase. I mean, changing a windshield wiper, that type of thing, certainly understand that, but not changing oil and other type of things -- MR. PENSA: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- that some people sometimes do in the parking lots. June 1, 2017 Page 29 of 79 MR. PENSA: I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brakes okay? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I don't know. MR. PENSA: Swap out a transmission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's a lot of brakes, but I -- go ahead. Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: There's just one correction on the master plan under -- in the little site data square there under proposed, the SIC code, you have to remove that 7 on the end. It just should say 5531. MR. PENSA: Okay. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: For some reason, there's a 7 there. I don't know what that is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good catch. Yeah, you're right; 100 percent right. There's only four digits in the SIC code. MR. PENSA: Yeah. I'm not sure why that's there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Most municipalities have matured to NAICS, but we still use SIC, so... Anything else, Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: What is the structure that is to the northwest? Is that another auto parts store? MR. PENSA: Yes, it is. It's Advance Auto. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I see. So two competitors next to one another? MR. PENSA: It's very common, just like you see fast food restaurants like to cluster around one another as well. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And drugstores. MR. PENSA: And banks and everyone else. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Just wondering. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's so if you don't find what you want at one store, you just have to walk across the street to the other store, and compare prices, too. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And an agreement has been reached for sharing the common driveway? MR. PENSA: Not to my knowledge. We are providing for the pavement to the property line to provide for that cross-access. And my understanding from other projects that we've done in the county is that whenever they do any activity that would trigger a site plan review, they'll be required to build their cross-connection at the time. We have no mechanism for forcing it, and I don't believe the county has a mechanism for forcing them until -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nor do we at this time. That's why you're providing it is because we do have a mechanism to force you to do that. MR. PENSA: Correct, so we're building the first half of it. COMMISSIONER FRYER: But in any event, there will no longer be egress and ingress from Tamiami Trail. MR. PENSA: That's correct. So for now, it will be the one access on Seminole, and then eventually a cross-access. And presumably DOT would let them retain their driveway in the future. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. I have a couple points. During your NIM, and the application also, three conditions that I'd like to suggest. I want to hear your thoughts on these. The square footage of the building will not exceed 8,000 square feet. There will be no repair bays, and there will be no traffic delivery on Tamiami Lane. MR. PENSA: We agreed to all those. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That was in your -- those were in your NIM, so I assumed you would. So that's something as far as the staff goes we need to add as conditions if this is approved. MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. June 1, 2017 Page 30 of 79 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, sir. We'll go on to staff report and then public speakers if there are any. MR. PENSA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any staff report, Nancy? MS. GUNDLACH: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner with the Zoning Division. And I just have one little tweak that came to my attention this morning to the master plan. The buffer -- landscape buffer along Tamiami Trail should be 15 feet, not 10. It will not affect the configuration of the master plan at all. He already has the 15 feet. He just has to change the label from 10 to 15. And with that, staff is recommending approval of this conditional use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Any questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, are there any registered public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No registered speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any members of the public who are here that would like to address this issue? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Hearing none, we obviously don't need a rebuttal from the applicant, so we'll close the public hearing, and we'll entertain a motion. I would suggest that if the motion is positive, that we consider limiting the request to 8,000 -- no greater than 8,000 square feet. There will be no repair bays utilized on the site, and there will be no delivery traffic on Tamiami Lane. And there are two annotations to be changed on the master plan: One regarding a landscape buffer along Tamiami Trail and the other regarding the SIC reference. Is there -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'll make a motion to approve with those changes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Karen and seconded by Diane with the changes noted. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. Thank you. MR. PENSA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ***Okay. The next -- we have two items that are side by side that are coming up, and they're the next ones on the agenda. I'd like to suggest to the Planning Commission that we talk about them both at the same time and then vote on them separately. I've talked with the applicant. They don't have any opposition to that since they are similar to the neighborhoods as well. It would be good to look at the common -- they're all common elements for the most part. There are some differences, but hopefully they're not too bad. And with that, also, Stan has indicated he has to leave at 11:30. There are some issues involving this project that I want to leave enough time for Stan to comment on before he leaves. And, Stan -- and this is specifically the inverted road deviation request. I don't know if you've studied that or not, but I'd like to get your comments before you leave at 11:30. So if we interrupt whoever is talking at 10:20 (sic), will that give you -- will the remaining 10 minutes give enough time? June 1, 2017 Page 31 of 79 COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. With that, we'll go for disclosures and we'll start -- well, first of all, I'll read the two off. I'm sorry, Tom. Let me read the two off for the agenda. 9E is PL20160002564. It's for the Triad RPUD located on the northeast corner of Palm Springs Boulevard and Radio Lane. The second one is 9F; it's PUDA-PL20160002565. It's for the MAC residential PUD located on the northwest corner of Palm Springs Boulevard and Radio Lane. All those wishing to testify on behalf of either of these items, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And we'll start with Tom on my far right. MR. EASTMAN: No disclosures. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Numerous emails from residents in the neighborhood. I talked to staff. I've talked to Mike Pappas, and I've talked to Rich Yovanovich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Emails only. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Staff and emails. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I had meetings with staff, I received whatever emails the rest of the Planning Commission received, and I talked with the applicant -- and I think it was -- I don't remember which day it was now. I think it was either yesterday or the day before -- and their representatives, so... Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I spoke to Mr. Yovanovich and had a couple of emails. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Spoke to Mr. Yovanovich, had several emails from residents, which I have to assume are part of the public record, and Nancy forwarded emails yesterday and legal comments from their -- I think their legal counsel. So all of that I have already -- I received. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Rich, it's all yours for presentation. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. Excuse me. Good morning. For the record, Rich Yovanovich on behalf of the applicant. With me I have Wayne Everett from D.R. Horton; I have Patrick Vanasse and Mike Pappas from RWA; Craig Smith is our environmental consultant; and Ted Treesh is our traffic consultant and can answer any questions you may have regarding their respective expertise. On the visualizer I've put kind of an overall location map showing you the two PUDs. Both the MAC and the Triad PUDs are approved PUDs along Radio Road -- I'm sorry, Radio Lane and Palm Springs Boulevard. I'm going to put an aerial up that is a little closer up of the two PUDs. Both properties are approximately the same size; 10.75 acres. To the north is RMF12 zoning with a cap, I believe, of the seven units per acre. Both PUDs are currently approved for 86 multifamily units. So a total of 172 units can be constructed on the two PUDs. The request is to rezone the properties to amend the PUDs to eliminate multifamily and go to single-family only with 44 units in each PUD for a total of 88 units. Staff is recommending approval of the proposed amendments to the PUD with one exception, and that pertains to our requested deviation for a road cross-section that has an inverted crown versus a regular crown. Now, the inverted crown basically means that water will drain to the center of the road, and we'll have one drainage grate, one set of pipes, which reduces the cost of site-related development costs. Instead of having drainage on both sides of the road, we'll have one in the center. We'll still have to meet all of the same 25-year, three-day storm event Water Management District requirements. We'll have to meet all of the drainage requirements that apply to this property. June 1, 2017 Page 32 of 79 So we're simply requesting the deviation to reduce site-related costs. You'll still have the same width of the roads. You'll still have sidewalks on both sides of the roads. You'll just have a -- you know, a gentle pitch to the middle instead of a gentle pitch to the outside of the roads. The reason we're trying to do that is D.R. Horton is trying to hit the market niche of the upper twos, 200,000s, and the lower 300,000 price points which we believe is compatible with the neighborhood and has price points that, frankly, are necessary to be met in Collier County if you want to bring -- I'm going to say the word "affordable" but I don't mean it in the true sense of affordable housing. I mean it into an affordability aspect for certain price points. And I believe the County Commission and a lot of people have been talking about the need to provide homes in those price points. And, frankly, the only way to do that is to find ways to save some money in constructing the homes, which includes going with the inverted crown. And I think it's very important -- and this way we can get to this issue right away so we don't have to worry about making it till 11:20 for Mr. Chrzanowski -- is that we focus on what a deviation is and why we believe this deviation should go through for the Board of County Commissioners. You can ask for a deviation as long as you're not negatively impacting the health, safety, and welfare and you're providing a system that is equivalent to the system that's called for in the Land Development Code. And what we have done is we have analyzed -- Mr. Pappas, who's a professional engineer, has analyzed what we have heard to be concerns about going with an inverted crown, and that is how much water's going to be on the road when we have our typical deluge. Because there's periods of the day with some storms that there's going to be some pooling water for a period of time, then eventually it goes away. So we've done a comparison of, okay -- and I've been told, you know, with the regular crown road -- and this is a lawyer talking engineering terms -- you get to drive down the middle of the road because there will be water on the sides, and then get to play chicken with the car that's coming at you from the other direction, and one of you will pull off into the water, or you'll hit each other. So one of you will pull off into the water, and you will actually drive in water. So I asked Mike Pappas to look at this. And okay, people are now telling me, you don't have the center of the road to drive on. You've got the two side lanes, because there's going to be water now in the middle. And he prepared a graphic that kind of shows the comparison of the two. Now, the top one is, I think, a little optimistic where they would try to pass each other on the center, but the bottom one is really the inverted crown. So what Mr. Pappas did is he analyzed how much water would be in the center of the road during a heavy storm that people are worried about happening. And, basically, where you see the cars, that's the inverted crown. Whatever, either the left side of your car or your right side of the car in that scenario is the tires are in one-and-a-half inches of water. We don't think that's an unsafe condition, and we don't think that negatively impacts the health, safety, and welfare of those that are going to live in this community. And it's not unprecedented, frankly, to have inverted crowns or similar type of drainage in multifamily projects in Collier County. And, in fact, there's one single-family project that has an inverted crown scenario, and that's in Marbella Lakes, and I'll put up an example on the visualizers where you have sidewalks on both sides of the streets and the drainage in the center of the road. Where you see the circle there is the drainage grate in the middle of the road. And in Marbella Lakes, which is the only one I could find that's been approved for single-family in Collier County, you see you have the sidewalks on both sides of the street, and you have drainage down the middle of the street. And that works fine in that community, and GL Homes took over that community and has done quite well in that community. I know there are concerns about possible maintenance of those grates, and we can address that either by having, you know, the larger grates leaves accumulating on them or not, but we can address that through proper HOA maintenance and size of the grates. But in -- for instance, Orchid Run is a recent apartment complex, you can see the circle there. Again, drainage in the center where it works fine in a multifamily application. And Mariposa, which I think is off of June 1, 2017 Page 33 of 79 Whippoorwill Run (sic), it's another kind of coach home type project where drainage down the center of the street works fine and is not in any way negatively impacting the health, safety, and welfare of those people living in that community. Now, I've been told, well, that's different when you're talking about multifamily. Those are really drive aisles. There's nothing -- not the amount of traffic that's on those roads, and I would say, well, I'm talking about a 44-unit subdivision where there's not going to be a lot of traffic on those roads either and, frankly, I guarantee you that Orchid Run has more cars and homes in it than what we're proposing, and it's worked fine. Same thing with Marbella Lakes. It's larger. So I'll put one of the master plans up just to kind of put it in perspective. You can see that -- and they're mirrors of each other. You can see that each of these communities is only 44 units, and there are two access points onto Palm Springs Boulevard. So you -- roughly, you know, 22 homes are going to go down one of the streets, 22 homes are going to go down the other of the streets. You're talking about low traffic volumes. You're talking about low speeds. You don't have to worry about a bunch of water pooling up and you're flying down the road. I would agree that if you were talking about a big boulevard where you're going to gain some momentum and gain some speed, that with standing water, maybe you're talking about an issue, but certainly not in this scenario are we talking about that issue. And I know one of the common arguments about every time we do a deviation is you're opening up Pandora's box. You're going to have to do this for every project that comes along in the future, and I simply don't believe that that's truth. I think you look at each situation differently. And in this case you're talking about 44 units. It's a smaller subdivision, slow speed roads, not long length roads. And this particular instance, since we will be required to meet all of the same minimum drainage requirements that a regular crown road will meet, we are in no way detrimentally impacting the health, safety, and welfare of those people purchasing in this community. Added to the fact that you're talking about trying to meet a price point that the Board of County Commissioners, school board, hospital are all talking about price points that are important to be met for people who are working here in Collier County. The only way you're going to get that is to provide developers an opportunity to drive down their costs to provide that level of home. And we're talking about nice homes, nice-sized homes at those price points. We're not talking about inferior or lesser-quality homes. We're talking about nice-quality homes for people who are coming to Collier County to work and live and raise their families. So this inverted crown, although different, is not a negative impact. I've not heard anybody from any of the emergency services say, don't do this. We don't have a negative comment from the Fire Department, we don't have anything from the Sheriff's Department, we don't have anything from EMS saying this is a negative thing to do. All we have is a conclusory statement in your staff report with no backup explanation saying why this is a bad thing to do. I understand the potential maintenance of the grate. Leaves somehow clogging up the grate in the road. We could take care of that through routine maintenance of the road, but we can also do a little bit wider gaps in the grates to handle most of the types of leaves that may fall into and get on the roads to potentially clog that up, but we don't really see that as a major issue. So we believe that we've met the justification for the deviation and are prepared to discuss it in greater detail. I could go through -- we have a lot of minor changes to the PUD that have come about based upon calls with the different Planning Commissioners that I could take you through on each of those. And I'm going to assume that we have -- in the Triad PUD we have the same banner sign deviation that you talked about earlier. I'm assuming we'll make the same change to that in what I was listening to, but I don't know. It never came up in any conversation that I've had on this. But if we want to just jump into the inverted crown issue now since Mr. Chrzanowski is the water management person, and I know that Mr. Strain wanted to have his input, I could stop my presentation and focus on that issue now if you want, Mr. Strain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't need your presentation to follow him. I need him to have June 1, 2017 Page 34 of 79 enough time to discuss his point of it and if he has any questions of you. We're not here to answer your questions. You're here to answer his, so... MR. YOVANOVICH: That's why I'm asking if it's an appropriate time to stop. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I'm saying. So I don't know how much time Stan needs or if he has questions. MR. YOVANOVICH: And that's why I'm willing to stop now and let him ask those questions, or I can keep going. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan, did you want to jump in on this inverted thing? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. When I first was approached about this, my first comment was, it's an engineering issue. What do you want to take it to the Planning Commission for? But they want a deviation from the code, and that's going to go to the Board of County Commissioners, and I guess we have to look at it first. He's right about a few things; these are low-speed roads. My initial concern about having the grates in the middle is water flows down the middle. And if you've ever driven up Airport Road when it floods in the right side, it grabs your tire as you drive by, and that kind of throws you off to the right. If that standing water is in the middle, it's going to grab your tire and throw you off to the left, which is where the other car is coming from. But if he designs his catch basins to pass enough water -- the problem that I have seen is that it's first flush of water coming off the rain that knocks everything off the trees and plugs the top of the catch basins, and no amount of prior maintenance is going to take care of what happens right when the water hits the trees, knocks the leaves off, and they go down with that first flush and they catch. And if you make your holes too big, that's a hazard for bicycles. So, you know, it -- yeah, the ones you're pointing out, they work. Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'll make a comment. If you have any more -- because, technically -- what's the speed limit posted -- going to be posted for this road? MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm embarrassed to tell you, these are so small roads -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Small roads; 25 miles an hour? MR. YOVANOVICH: I would think; yeah, negligible. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Typically -- inverted drainages are fairly common. I've seen them, and being involved in -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Multifamily. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- the multifamily or construction industry -- even single-family. Typically -- this is a private road. Again, it's common to be used on a private road. The only time it creates a problem is in areas of the country where you have freezing water. Then you've got standing water in the middle of the road where it can freeze and create, of course, ice conditions. I don't think we're going to have that problem down here. So from a standpoint of as long as it meets the drainage requirements -- and it's designed to the 25-year frequency storm; is that correct? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. We're -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: All piping is sized to handle the runoff at that level simply as -- just as any curb and gutter design would be. It's a private road and it's a low-speed road; I don't see it as a problem. MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Everett just told me the posted speed would be 15 miles per hour. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Fifteen miles an hour is -- yeah, makes sense. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan, do you want to finish before you leave? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Well, I don't see it as a problem for maybe 20 years, until the trees get big enough to really start dropping stuff into the road. And, you know, that's long-term maintenance and -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I've seen them designed with a -- even with -- almost like a -- not tile, but concrete slabs to -- in -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: A valley gutter in the middle. June 1, 2017 Page 35 of 79 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Valley gutter. Basically valley gutter. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's the intention. There would be a valley gutter, three-foot-wide valley. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Oh, you're actually going to put a concrete valley gutter down the middle of the road? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir; yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else that you wanted to -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. No, the downside is you get ponded water in the middle, and that water can grab the left tire -- the driver's side tire instead of the passenger's side tire and pull you off. If you're traveling fast and if you're -- you know, it pulls you into opposing traffic if you're traveling fast and not paying attention. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I just wanted to make sure before you left you had time to jump in on that, because it is related to the engineering. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. Well, I've talked with Jack about it and I've talked with Mike Pappas about it and Rich, and I wouldn't do it but, you know, from an engineering point of view -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is it as good of a quality of the road system as the one that we are using -- that our design requires? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: In a place like this? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In Collier County. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah, not a problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: How does -- if I may ask, how does -- the inverted drainage system, how would it accommodate traditional devices for slowing down traffic and assuring that they follow the speed limit like a road hump, for instance? MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't think with the length of the roads, as you can see on the -- I'm sorry -- on the master plan, I don't really know that you can build up a whole lot of speed on those roads that you need to really worry about it, because it's -- but if they were longer roads, I have seen, you know, the road humps. We could put -- these are private roads. We'll be maintaining them. They won't be county roads, so we could -- if it becomes a problem, we can go back and retrofit speed bumps or something to get people to honor the 15-mile-an-hour speeds, but... COMMISSIONER FRYER: Engineering-wise, road humps work with the inverted drainage? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. MR. PAPPAS: Mike Pappas, for the record. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Having traveled many places in the world, very, very common in Europe, very, very common, just because of the narrow streets. And I can tell you, it's not an engineering issue. But it's different and, therefore, once it's different, it -- people kind of look at it and go, that's different. Yeah, it is different. As long as it meets the flow requirements -- and I have to depend on Jack and his team to verify that during the review. MR. YOVANOVICH: And it's the Water Management District. We're going to go through the District permitting process. We have to meet all of their requirements to make sure we address all the management issues as pretty much everybody on this -- on the commission knows at this point. COMMISSIONER FRYER: But my question had to do with keeping people from driving too fast. And if the need arises, this kind of a road would not preclude the use of road humps. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. We could still put road humps. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe just little dams to hold the water back long enough to get over them. MR. YOVANOVICH: It will funnel them right back into the grate that will be accommodated to address all the water flow. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: You would just have to stop the hump at the valley gutter, and people would tend to try to put one tire in the valley gutter because they don't want to have both tires go over the hump, like they nowadays, so what does it matter. MR. YOVANOVICH: Look, if you want to go fast, you're going to go fast; you're going to find a June 1, 2017 Page 36 of 79 way. But, I mean, these are short roads. It's not -- I don't think this is a drag strip. If you were talking about in one of the bigger -- like Pelican Bay Boulevard, if you were talking about tying to do it on that where you can get some speed -- but they put in -- they put in traffic calming by putting pedestrian paths and all that to slow traffic down on the bigger boulevards as well. But this is different. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah, I've seen a lot of speed bumps with nicks in the top, so I -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question when you put that picture on there. MR. YOVANOVICH: Which one? COMMISSIONER EBERT: The one where it shows where it's the bituminous. There is -- so this goes up on -- the very first picture, I believe it was. Okay. So there is -- so it's bituminous at the edges, which bituminous breaks down, though, doesn't it? I mean, I'm thinking of people maybe parking along there, the tires. Because there is no cement there. You're just -- it's just bituminous at the ends, normally where we would have the valley gutter. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So there is no cement; this is just bituminous. What about breaking down? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, you know, we'll have to maintain the roads, and we don't see that as a major problem throughout the life of the roadway system. And the difference in this one, though, there will be an actual valley gutter versus what you see on this plan in the center of the road. But, yes, I mean we don't see that becoming a long-term issue for the residents of the community by having, I'll just use pavement, up to -- instead of a valley gutter on the sides of the road. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. That was my question on that. And to be honest, 15 miles an hour, you can post it, but no one will ever go 15. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And, Stan, if you've finished on the issue, I'll let Richard move forward with the balance of his presentation. I know you have to leave at 11:30, so we're good for that. Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: So I think I left off -- I'd like to take you through -- I'll take you through the Triad set of PUD documents, but all of the changes that we're talking about making in the Triad documents we'll also be making in the MAC documents. So if we go to Page 1 of 11. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's 1 of 9, isn't it? You mean the PUD? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have one that says Page 1 of 11? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, this is going to show strikethrough and underlines, so I don't know if it changed the pagination. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, yeah. Because the one we have on our -- is 1 of 9, so... MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. And simply what we're doing there is, since there really aren't any -- under the principal uses there aren't any other similar uses to single-family home, we took out the catchall that you find in a lot of PUDs, any other use similar to the other permitted uses. And then under the accessory uses, the gatehouses are really covered by the next -- or are covered by Exhibit B for a -- I'm sorry -- for the -- as a permitted use. You're not going to have a gatehouse as an accessory to an actual single-family home. So we delete the gatehouse and other access structures from the list of accessory uses. Then when we go to the Development Standards Table, which is Exhibit B. I don't remember which one of the PUDs had a 25-foot zoned height for accessory uses, but we've made it consistent in both PUDs to have a -- for accessory structures, the zoned height would be reduced down to -- that should say 25 feet, and actual height, since it wasn't in there originally, we've capped at 40 feet for accessory structures. So that will be in both PUDs. We changed -- there was a deviation that really only applied to the commercial -- commercial uses, and we eliminated that deviation, which I think it was either No. 5 or No. 6, depending on which PUD it was. So I'll just show you one of the revised sheets that you don't do a strikethrough. You just kind of -- I'm just showing you no longer exists. Actually, that's not the right one. June 1, 2017 Page 37 of 79 Patrick, do you have that handy? You can see we eliminated the deviation that referred to 4.06.05 of the code. So that's just an example that we changed the numbers of the deviations. And then -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's Deviation 6 on the Triad, and I think it's 5 on the MAC. MR. YOVANOVICH: I think you're right, Mr. Strain. And I think that when you get to the deviations in Exhibit E you'll see that we actually did show that as a strikethrough on the list of deviations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When you walk away from the mike, it doesn't get picked up by the audio/video, so... MR. YOVANOVICH: What I just showed on the visualizer was a deleted Deviation No. 5 in the MAC PUD, and the same thing will be Deviation 6 in the Triad PUD. I think I've covered all of the modifications to the PUD -- PUDs that we discussed amongst ourselves. If I've missed one, which one did I miss? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which multiple ones did you miss? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Probably -- we may not have discussed them all, but there's been some that you may have heard from the previous one involving preserve language that needs to be cleaned up, so that -- MR. YOVANOVICH: There's one in -- you're right, Mr. Strain. The Triad PUD, there used to be a bisecting -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Easement. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's the cleaned-up version. That used to be here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Is there another one, Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The littoral zone that's shown in the lake, you shouldn't show the littoral zone on the master plan. It's problematic down the road. MR. YOVANOVICH: You're right. And we have removed those from the master plans as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the preserve note in the lower left-hand corner needs to have the same amended language that the County Attorney on the prior one that you were sitting in at for opacity issues if it reaches the required B buffer status. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. But we're required A, right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Depends on what you end up with. I'm assuming it's A at this point. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, single-family to single-family is A, correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: We're going down to single-family. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then we won't need it. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm just -- yeah. I'm happy to put it there, but I don't think we're going to achieve it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's fine. MR. YOVANOVICH: And then I didn't put any language up there, but I'm assuming you'll want under the deviation for the banner sign in the Triad PUD, you changed the dates to November 1. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Same condition as we would have talked about -- (Simultaneous speakers.) MR. YOVANOVICH: And then 90 percent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ninety percent sold, 90 days, November 1st to April 30th. That's the same stuff we just did with the other one. MR. YOVANOVICH: So I think with those reminders -- thank you, Mr. Strain -- we did make all of the changes to the PUD documents. Your -- again, your staff has found us consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. They're recommending approval except for the one deviation that we've talked about. And with that -- yes, sir. June 1, 2017 Page 38 of 79 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There is a couple more. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You also -- at the NIM you said that the -- and I'll read what the minute -- what your applicant supplied. Proposed buffer to include existing vegetation, parenthetical, preserve, water management, and dry detention, 204 feet at its narrowest point, 52 feet of vegetation at its narrowest point. So the combination of those elements on the north sides of both projects would have to be 204 feet, but in no case will be vegetation drop below 52 feet. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I have an exhibit that shows that we meet that. You want to add -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's -- it needs to be part of the PUD. It would be a condition. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. So you want us to add that as a condition to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd prefer you take a look at the language that is in the -- that's in the NIM and add it under the landscaping or preservation in landscaping. Whatever -- I know Summer's -- in the last week Summer's got very touchy about how we talk about environmental issues. So I don't want to -- either it's got to go under environmental or under landscaping, wherever is appropriate. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, my experience with Summer is she's always touchy about environmental. It's not recent, right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I just want to make sure that if this is recommended for approval that the right stipulations get to the Board, so... MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, are you done with your presentation, then? MR. YOVANOVICH: If I missed anything else, Mr. Strain, from what we talked about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is the piece we talked about. I haven't heard from the rest of the Planning Commission. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't think I've missed anything from -- the other comments really had to do with the inverted crown. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, yeah. We're talking, by the way, for the Planning Commission's benefit, both the MAC and the Triad. We've been walking through mostly the Triad right now. We can briefly walk through the MAC first before we go into general discussion to see what's there on that one, and I don't know if there's anything different there, Richard, that -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't think there is, Mr. Strain. I think they've both -- the Triad one, I picked that one because it had the additional deviation for the banner sign, which is not in the MAC, but I believe that when Mr. Hancock did these PUDs way back when, they were virtually identical. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm going through the PUD right now to see if there were any other issues. It will just take a second -- on the MAC side. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm looking, too, and I don't see anything other than the same littorals and the same deviations were deleted from the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan, thank you, and if you -- what we'll probably do is break at 12:15 for an hour, so we'll get back at 1:15, which then would give you the time to get back that you had indicated you needed. Thank you. (Commissioner Chrzanowski is leaving the boardroom until after the luncheon recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I don't see anything different in the two at this point. So with that, I'll turn to the Planning Commission for additional questions or concerns that anybody on the panel might want to ask of the applicant at this time. Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Triad, on its western boundary, abuts MAC, correct? MR. YOVANOVICH: Remember, I told you I'm directionally challenged, so give me a sec. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Triad on its eastern boundary abuts Palm Boulevard or Palm Street, which on MAC's western side abuts that as well, but they're separated by Palm Street. And Palm Street is adjacent. So they're adjacent but not abutting. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Understood. MR. YOVANOVICH: You and I are the only ones who get that. June 1, 2017 Page 39 of 79 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I know, but it's a technicality. COMMISSIONER FRYER: The lot or the parcel on the east side is Triad, correct? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: On the right side. It's pointed north. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, that's correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: I've got it. You just have to give me a second. COMMISSIONER FRYER: What I'm leading up to is to be enlightened a little bit about proposed buffering. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And so there would be, I take it, a buffer between the MAC and Triad? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, there's a -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: I know the road's there. MR. YOVANOVICH: There's a required buffer along Palm Springs Boulevard. COMMISSIONER FRYER: By the way, is it Springs or Spring? MR. YOVANOVICH: I've been saying Springs. Am I wrong? Is it Spring? S, yeah. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Springs. COMMISSIONER FRYER: With an S? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Spring (sic), okay. Google had it wrong. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. So the buffering between the two lots in question would consist of the road, and then you're going to do some planting, I assume. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And what is the distance from the building line in one -- let's say the western building line on Triad and the eastern building line in MAC, how many feet is that, roughly? MR. YOVANOVICH: Do we know; do you know? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you'd be 50 foot plus the setback, your side setback on your property lines on both the structures on MAC and Triad. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, okay. I wasn't sure we were -- okay. There's a required 10-foot Type D buffer along Palm Springs Boulevard on both projects. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But what's the width of the Type D? Is it 10-foot there? MR. YOVANOVICH: It's 10-foot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's 20 plus the road. MR. YOVANOVICH: Plus a road. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. And then how far in on either side would there be construction? MR. YOVANOVICH: So you want to know -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have a five yard -- you have a five-foot side yard setback. So you're 10 feet more, so you'd be 80 feet total; 50, 20, and 10. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Eighty feet, okay. And will there be berming done in there as well, or planting only? MR. VANASSE: For the record, Patrick Vanasse. With regards to the separation between homes from one project to the next, we're going to have minimum 100 feet. So the right-of-way for Palm Springs is 80 feet, okay, we're going to have a buffer on each side of 10 feet, and 5-yard setbacks minimum of five -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, let me back up then. So Palm Springs is how wide? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Eighty-foot. MR. VANASSE: Yeah, 80-foot right-of-way. June 1, 2017 Page 40 of 79 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then that would add the missing footage that we just talked about. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Right. Got it. Okay. So that would be the buffer between the two lots. Now, on the west side of MAC -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I think -- I don't mean to interrupt, but I think that's still wrong. If Palm Springs is 80 feet and you've got two 10-foot landscape buffer easements, right, that's 20, and then you've got five feet to each building, that's another 10. So you're 110 feet. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that's 110 feet. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Got it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This time. But next time you ask it might be a hundred and who knows what, so... COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: I feel like I'm at an auction. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Now looking at the westernmost buffer or boundary of the two lots together, which would be the western side of Triad -- excuse me -- of MAC, I see that there's Bowland Woodside, and it looks like a parking lot of some kind. MS. GUNDLACH: You want the aerial, maybe. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. Let's go back to the aerial that I put up earlier. I think it might -- is this where you're talking about? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Stan taught me to use Google Earth, so that's what I'm looking at. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's called Woodside Lanes. It's an old PUD. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Well, to get to my question, what will be the nature and width of the buffer on the western side of MAC? MR. VANASSE: On the western side of MAC, we have a 30-foot public utility easement that runs down the entire length, and then we have a 10-foot vegetated buffer. So that combined is 40 feet. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. And the public utility easement will have limited vegetation on it? MR. VANASSE: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. It would be -- so how much -- how much opaque buffer would there be? MR. VANASSE: The requirement is for a Type B buffer, and we will provide all the plantings for a Type B buffer. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Ten, okay. All right. And the actual feet is 40 feet from the next western property? Thirty plus 10? MR. VANASSE: Combined, yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. All right. So then, turning to the northern buffers along Calle del Ray, what will the buffers be between Triad and MAC on the south and the two pieces of property to the north? MR. VANASSE: Okay. We might want to go back to the buffer exhibit that we had. Okay. So what we did is we designed both projects so we would put our water management and our preserve to create a buffer, substantial buffer between our communities and the existing communities. And what you can see there is at a minimum the vegetation will be approximately 50 feet, greater than 50 feet. And when you combine the vegetation and our water management area, that will be over 200 feet. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. So it's 200 feet of distance and 50 feet of opacity on top of that? MR. VANASSE: Minimum 50 feet of opacity. If you look on both extremes of the projects, so either on the far eastern or western side, the vegetation is even greater than 50 feet. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Any berms there? MR. VANASSE: I believe our berming -- one of the projects has a berm on the far side for water management purposes, but I'll defer to our engineer on that one. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Then, finally, on the east side of Triad, which butts up to Barot June 1, 2017 Page 41 of 79 Drive; is that what it is? MR. VANASSE: Yes. What we have there is a Type A buffer combined with an existing masonry wall, and on the far side of the wall they have a 10-foot Type D buffer. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's the wall that was depicted in the materials? MR. VANASSE: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. So how much -- you've got 10 feet of opacity from the wall. Do you have anything from vegetation that would extend higher than that? MR. VANASSE: On our side we're going to have a Type A buffer, which is -- and, Nancy, correct me if I'm wrong -- trees 30-foot on center. MS. GUNDLACH: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else from the Planning Commission perspective have any questions of the applicant at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Hearing none, we'll go to staff report. Nancy? And could you do your staff report for both at one time? MS. GUNDLACH: Yes. Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner with the Zoning Division. And staff is recommending approval of both the MAC and Triad Planned Unit Developments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know what's nice about Nancy, she's been here a long time, and she knows how to make -- how to be effective. Thank you, Nancy. MS. GUNDLACH: You're welcome. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Brevity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Since it's before our lunch break and we're still going to have public speakers -- maybe not before lunch, maybe before and after, but we do need to have staff address the couple of issues. In particular, I'd like to get staff's opinion, whether it's one or more of you, to talk about the issue of the inverted road design. I'm very concerned about it. I'm very concerned about starting a new deviation that will be used for every project we see from now on. From my understanding from staff, it's an inferior design compared to what we have today. I see no reason to lessen our standards in Collier County based on that across the board, and I'm afraid that's what's going to happen. So I'd like staff to at least address the engineering aspects of it. It is not a transportation issue as much as it is an engineering issue. MS. GUNDLACH: And we do have staff experts here to discuss that this morning. MR. McKENNA: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Jack McKenna. I'm your County Engineer. I'm not going to go into the drainage aspect. I think that's been covered pretty adequately here. When this was initially brought to me, the question was, do I consider it an equal. And to answer that, I'd have to say, no, it's not really equal. As Mr. Yovanovich pointed out, it's a desire to meet a price point, and I think that's for this board to consider if you want to make that -- that call to allow the standard in order meet a price point. How much difference there is in cost, I'm not sure exactly. In the overall price of the project, it's probably not huge. The points are well taken, again, relative to the drainage. It's a low-speed road. You have reduced drainage structures. We talked about driving through the water ponds and so forth. The first thing that came to my mind is, I consider this is you're sloping towards the oncoming traffic. Stan had mentioned that briefly with -- if there's ponding, the spread of the water coming out of inlets. You get pulled there. Someone falling asleep -- I know at one point in my life I was living in The Glades and someone had a seizure, and I heard bam, bam, bam, bam as they were coming down the road knocking down mailboxes and ended up in the front yard. That obviously is not a norm. That's an exception. But normal roadways throughout the country -- and, well, having spent a pretty good amount of time June 1, 2017 Page 42 of 79 in Austria and surrounding countries, they're typically crowned. There's exceptions like there are here. So I think that that inverted crown does pull traffic together. That's one aspect. The -- Commissioner Ebert had mentioned the maintenance of the edge, the raveling of the asphalt. It's true, asphalt's happier if it's confined by concrete. So that can be maintained, however, but it is a stronger structure if it's confined by the concrete. Aesthetically, of course, aesthetics are in the eye of the beholder. Edging is cleaner with concrete. You can run an edger down it. At times pavement that doesn't have the concrete, grass tends to creep over the pavement to some extent. Again, that's in the eyes of the beholder as to what you want to achieve. So I don't have a real strong feeling about -- a negative feeling for this application for the inverted crown. I think, typically, for single-family I would not be in favor of inverted crown. We've had the same standard in our code since 1976. I think it was put there to maintain a quality-of-life standard, if you will. If there's a desire to change that, I'm not going to fight nature in that way. This is low traffic, low volume. It's not really comparable to the areas that I see a real benefit to the inverted crown, which is in multifamily or commercial where you're trying to have the parking spaces that people are getting out with dry feet, as compared to having those parking areas be the low part of the road. So that's basically my summary. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Also one item that I thought was something to consider. In the normal hump and sump of a standard crown road, you have catch basins at the low points on both sides. Part of that is -- might be multiple redundancy in safety for when one side gets plugged up, there's a possibility the other side may not be. Water would reach to a certain point, go through the low point of the hump and sump of the road and cross over and be able to still be drained somewhat better than if that wasn't occurring. MR. McKENNA: That's true. If there was a beach towel, it covers one inlet grate. Your maximum depth you're going to get is going to be several inches of water before it goes over that crown of the road as compared to if you have a single inlet and the beach towel covers it, you may have to build up a foot or so over the next hump before you get into the next inlet, so that's a factor. Another factor I didn't mention, too, is the -- relative to the maintenance, putting a seam in the middle of the road, even if there is a valley gutter. And the valley gutter helps maintain the grade better, so that's an improved standard to what they had in Marbella, for example, which is just the asphalt coming to a V. But the -- having water where there is a seam allows the water to get in under the asphalt, and it does tend to deteriorate a bit more. Yesterday I drove through Marbella, and I saw several areas that they have cut that -- put a patch in the middle. Not sure if they put the patch to get it to drain or because it was raveling there and they needed to patch it. But there are several areas that had a patch in the middle in the flow line, so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Tom? Mr. Yovanovich, if you don't mind sitting down. I know you want to cross-examine. You'll be able to do that as soon as the Board finishes their questions. MR. EASTMAN: We've had a lengthy discussion about this, but one of the factors that I don't think anyone's talked about is the volume of water that's collected. And I'm not an engineer, so I'd like to ask you. With a crown road, it seems like the amount of water would be roughly divided in two going to each side of the road, but with the inverted crown it seems like the amount of water collected at one point where you've got the heaviest flow and the deepest depth to the water would be collected in just one single point. Is it true that you would have a larger amount of water collected under the inverted system then under the traditional system? MR. McKENNA: Yes, sir, you're right. It would be a larger volume. This could be compensated by grate area, if the grate didn't get blocked, as Stan had mentioned. The -- but there is typically a large -- for that cross-section of the road, you'll have more road volume going to the one inlet. I think what's being recommended on these projects, at least that's shown on some of their inlets, some were silent to it. But having a larger valley inlet than the typical valley inlet to, perhaps, compensate for the -- spread is the engineering term that's calculated and where the water spreads out of that inlet depending upon the intake ability of the particular grate. June 1, 2017 Page 43 of 79 And you can engineer your way around that as long as it doesn't get blocked, and so -- I don't know if -- did that answer your question? MR. EASTMAN: Yes, it did. Thank you. MR. McKENNA: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of Jack from this -- go ahead, Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I had just had a statement from -- followup what I said before. I agree with Jack in regards -- typically, with inverted crown there are the requirements for increased maintenance. You'll have more of a problem in the center of the road with spalling, alligator cracks, other type of things that can happen because of water intrusion, but that's the tradeoff. It's an engineering tradeoff. I -- MR. McKENNA: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I don't know from the standpoint of -- then I've got to ask from our responsibility, yes, I agree with Mr. Strain, it is -- it's us accepting a deviation to a very common acceptable practice and standard in this county is a valley gutters -- a crown with valley gutters. I mean, it's typically the way we build all our roads. This is certainly a change. I don't know if we want to get into the cost analysis. I can't see that we need to. But there is a cost tradeoff, there's a design tradeoff, and there's an aesthetics tradeoff. MR. McKENNA: Everything's a balance. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It's a balance. And back in our days when we did engineering economy, we went through all those kind of studies and we did all those kind of analyses and the life of the road and all those kind of things. I defer to the developer. They have to make that decision. They have to make a decision based on the marketing as well from the aesthetics -- from that standpoint. But I'll listen to the rest of the panel in regards to -- the Commission in regards to any comments whether we approve or not. But I'll hold my opinion till after we hear public hearing (sic). CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else of Jack? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Richard, you wanted to do a limited cross-examine? MR. YOVANOVICH: I do. I want to do a cross, yes, please. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll just see how long it goes. MR. YOVANOVICH: It won't go very long. Jack -- can I still call you Jack? Both the crown concept and the inverted crown have to meet the same water management design standards, correct? MR. McKENNA: As far as the flood standards. It's the maintenance aspects that we've talked about, yes. They both -- they're both going to have spread calculations to make sure that what that spread coming out of there is going to be. It's just -- it comes down to a maintenance. MR. YOVANOVICH: So Mr. Eastman's concern about water going to the middle of the road versus on the side of the road will be addressed through the engineering review to make sure that the adequate amount -- that everything is sized appropriately to allow the waters to properly drain during the design event, correct? MR. McKENNA: I would presume that it will be. I would hope that that would be the intent, yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: So would you agree they're equal? From a drainage standpoint, they have to be equal. MR. McKENNA: No, I don't necessarily agree they're equal, but I think that they'll both end up meeting code at the end of the day. MR. YOVANOVICH: And we're required to meet code, correct? MR. McKENNA: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Now, the examples that you've given about multifamily, you want people, when they get out of their car, for their feet to be dry, still puts the water in their -- in the travel lanes, correct, when you're driving? MR. McKENNA: Correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: So the same issue about safety exists in a multifamily scenario that would June 1, 2017 Page 44 of 79 exist in this scenario, correct? MR. McKENNA: It does in the fact that there's water there. I consider the travel ways in a multifamily to be typically more like a driveway than a roadway. But it's true, if the water's there, the water's there. MR. YOVANOVICH: And would you agree that a 15-mile-per-hour speed limit would address any safety concerns about water being in the road and pulling a vehicle? MR. McKENNA: I would not be concerned driving in water at 15 miles an hour that's a couple inches deep, no. MR. YOVANOVICH: Now, with regard to aesthetics, you're not charged with determining aesthetics, correct? MR. McKENNA: My wife points that out to me all the time. MR. YOVANOVICH: And my wife does the same. So from an engineering standpoint, what we're proposing will be required to meet the minimum drainage code requirements? MR. McKENNA: Correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: And what we're proposing is safe from a speed standpoint with a posted speed of 15 miles per hour; would you agree? MR. McKENNA: It should be, yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. That's all I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Mr. Yovanovich. Jack, one more. Are you a traffic engineer? MR. McKENNA: No, I am not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay. Is there any other members of staff who would like to address this issue of the inverted crown? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm asking that instead of asking you to come forward because I figured Jack may have covered points that many of you may have. Okay. With that, Tom, and then I think -- yeah, you were the -- MR. EASTMAN: This is a great discussion. And if it truly is -- if it truly is as good or works as well and it saves money, then maybe the county, we should be doing all of our roads like this. I mean, if we're spending additional money to do them the way we're doing them and we're not getting a true benefit for that, maybe this type of alternative engineering would be a good idea. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I don't think it is equivalent. I've heard the testimony. I've heard some mischaracterization of, supposedly, testimony, and I'm not necessarily in agreement with what I've heard. When we get to discussion, I'll certainly discuss those points for your consideration and anybody else's. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I would add to that as well, and I'll give that from a standpoint of -- and involved in the CDD, but I'll wait -- I'll hold off on that, and we'll discuss it at the end, because there are -- though they're equal, there are significant differences and, in most cases, cost of maintenance. I don't have the data to back it up, though, so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was -- we've got the testimony of both sides, so now we'll move -- if staff report is complete, no other questions of staff -- MS. GUNDLACH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- we'll move into registered public speakers first. And I'd like everybody -- to tell you, though, we do have to break around 12:15. We'll resume at 1:15, but for that purpose, I'm just giving you a heads-up. If I seem to cut you off abruptly, that's the only reason why. I don't like to generally. Would you call the first registered speaker. When you come up, please use whatever microphone you'd like, and just spell your last name so we have it right for the record. MR. BELLOWS: Robert -- or Doug Lewis, who's been ceded time from three other individuals. Mr. and Mrs. Colosanti and Jeff Greiner. So Douglas Lewis. June 1, 2017 Page 45 of 79 MR. LEWIS: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Douglas Lewis. I'm an attorney with the law firm of Thompson Lewis, and I'm here today representing Robert Colasanti. He resides at 670 Pine Crest Lane and lives in the neighborhood directly adjacent to the proposed development. He's to the north of that development. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just for our reference, is his home one of the homes shown here on this aerial that's on the overhead? MR. LEWIS: Yeah. He's in 670. He's to the north of the project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. LEWIS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He's abutting the project then? MR. LEWIS: He's adjacent to the project. I wouldn't say his lot is abutting, but he's adjacent to the project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. LEWIS: My client is very supportive of the concept of single-family use on the property. We're here today to offer the following 10 proposed stipulations or comments from Chris Hagan of Hagan Engineering to see if we can support the application. First, Palm Springs Boulevard drainage swales are inconsistent at the south end. There's no sidewalk. The pavement is only 19 feet in width. I heard reference to an 80-foot width of right-of-way, but the actual pavement is 19 feet. My client requests a stipulation that Palm Springs Boulevard be brought to current code including the addition of a sidewalk and improved drainage swales. As an alternative, my client is open to exploring the possibility of modifying the master plan to put all the project access directly onto Radio Road. But they're concerned about the condition of that substandard roadway. Second, the existing outfall drainage system for the subdivision includes swales on the east and the west side of the subdivision. There's a 30-foot swale on the west. On the east side -- there's a 25-foot-width swale on the east side of the proposed PUDs. And there's an interconnection proposed of the roadside swales and ditches to a lake and discharging out into I-75. A review of these swales by Hagan Engineering found that they -- currently they do not -- they're substandard, they don't meet county minimum standards, and they don't appear to have been regularly maintained. Some of the family homeowners have built intrusions into the swales that do impact that flow. And as the county is responsible to maintain those, a stipulation for approval should include rehabilitation of the swales by the county or the developer. A third, the Traffic Impact Statement that was provided online was only for one project. My client requests that these TISs be combined -- they would be a combined TIS instead of individual TISs so that we can look at the combined roadway impacts for turning motions, stacking, because this appears to be a single project in terms of the mechanics of how this is going to be developed. Fourth, the on-site stormwater areas are less than normal industry standards, according to our engineer. And this will require substantial filling. As such, my client requests a floodplain analysis to confirm that the additional fill not adversely impact the regional floodplain. Fifth, the preliminary assessment of the existing roadway should be conducted, and proposed roadways and finished floor elevation should be included in the PUD to address concerns like the height above the existing grade of the new roadway finished floors in relation to the adjoining properties. This could be a big issue. Accommodating the perimeter berm; the roadways without discharging drainage out into Palm Springs Boulevard will be difficult according to our engineer. Not impossible, but certainly difficult. We want to make sure that doesn't happen. And cross-sections should be requested from the developer showing the slopes and heights of these elements such that -- and that we can potentially include those in the PUD commitments. Sixth, the elevation differential may require reconstruction or the elevation of Palm Springs June 1, 2017 Page 46 of 79 Boulevard in order to prevent drainage from escaping the community and to prevent discharge into the other subdivisions. Seventh, the developer, as we've -- you've discussed at length today, proposed this inverted crown roadway system internally. This, as you've discussed, is certainly an exception to LDC and, according to Chris Hagan, is inconsistent with any existing county owned, operated, or maintained roadways to our knowledge. And as you've discussed, the design has some inherent challenges, as Stan put in the record and others, that need to be accommodated so that the roadway maintenance is improved. And I think that's really important. Regarding maintenance, I ask that you just make sure that we act with prudence, that we investigate how well these things work. I do note that the photo that was put up by the applicant of the example of the crown roadway, it did show disrepair and some alligator cracks. You may want to look at that again, but it was pretty clear. So the maintenance certainly is a factor there. Eighth, the site is going to have to be elevated above the existing roadway with side yards directly abutting the roadways. This will result in a negative visual impact. The request to reduce the buffer type should -- or the width of the buffer should not be accepted. But my client would ask that if the applicant would agree to improve the condition of the project for the community would be a requirement of a six- to eight-foot wall, concrete wall with landscape buffering along the entire northerly project boundary and also along the sides of Palm Springs Boulevard to provide additional needed screening, particularly given the proximity. I know we talked about 110-feet separation between buildings, but you're looking at a 10-foot reduced perimeter berm and then a five-foot setbacks. So they're pretty close. The homes are going to be set close together, and it's possible that the side yard equipment along the side yards of the home could be easily seen from Palm Springs Boulevard. And then, ninth, if an interconnection between the two projects will cross county water and force main lines requiring air release valves, we would ask the developer make a commitment to have these ARVs hidden in the perimeter buffer landscaping to protect them so they're not an eyesore to the neighborhood. We want to make sure it's a nice project that works. And, tenth, the preserve area should not have any exotic -- or should have any exotic vegetation removed and replanted with native vegetation from Collier County's approved list, and we would ask that no grading occur in these preserve areas. I have copies of Mr. Hagan's report that I can provide the applicant, if they would like, today as well. Staff has it as well for the record, and I also have made copies for staff. Additionally and consistent with the Triad PUD, my client requests that all construction access occur off Radio Lane for safety measure. It's only, again, 19 feet wide. There are kids that traverse that on bicycles and things. There are a lot of kids in that neighbor. It would not involved Palm Springs Boulevard. So, for construction purposes, if we can look at that. And then also, consistent with the existing Triad PUD, my client requests that the dimensions of all existing easements be depicted on the master plan. We're a little bit concerned in talking to the engineer about the amount of -- that there's -- that the plan will actually work when you get to the Site Development Plan level. Finally, 20 of the neighbors adjacent to the project have signed a petition, and I would like to read into the record their petition as I conclude my presentation. The residents have asked the Planning Commission, and they've said this: That I own residential property in the neighborhood directly adjacent to the proposed MAC PUDA and the Triad RPUD. We have existing drainage problems in our neighbor. And they're here today, and I'm sure they'll be able to talk about the history of that. I strongly oppose any new development of adjacent property that would result in a worsening -- and that's the key. They want to make sure this is done correctly -- a worsening of our existing drainage condition. Further, the width of Palm Springs Boulevard, which we talked about, the actual asphalt's 19 feet. It's narrow. And I strongly oppose putting any additional traffic on this roadway without significant roadway improvements and traffic-calming devices. June 1, 2017 Page 47 of 79 Alternatively, any additional traffic from these projects, including construction-related traffic, should be placed directly on Radio Lane. And this is signed by Brenda Turner -- there's 20 homeowners -- Susan Greiner, Geoffrey Greiner, Kathy and William Law, Kate Colasanti, Robert Colasanti, Francesca Natal, Michael Natal, Jimmy (sic) Brown, Gwen Brown, Carmen Korsten, David Korsten, Jonathan Smith, Ewart Law (sic), Connie McCullough, Sheldon McCullough, Timothy Gorman, Catherine Gorman, and JP Coleman. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Doug, one question, and I -- when you were reading the notice for the petition, was anything referencing zoning in there in regards to density versus the multifamily? I didn't catch it all, but I was trying to type one of your other comments up. MR. LEWIS: I'm sorry. My comments, or are you talking about the notice? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Either way. Have any of your -- the people you represent, has zoning as far as reducing the density been an issue? MR. LEWIS: As I mentioned, my clients are very supportive of the concept of single-family homes, and we're aware of the reduced density from the prior PUD, which was a multifamily higher density. So we have looked at that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The reason I'm asking, this board is primarily the issues of -- the zoning issues. Some of the aspects of the engineering that you've talked about are going to be more reflective and addressed in the Site Development Plans with the plats that come through. Our reach doesn't go to those. That's another level of appeal if you so desire, but we're going to -- we focus mostly on the zoning issues related to the -- MR. LEWIS: Yeah. And these are tied to the deviation, so I appreciate that. But they are tied to the deviations. They are asking for landscaping, deviations to the inverted roadway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, some of them are. I agree with you. MR. LEWIS: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not disagreeing with all of them. I'm just saying, some of the points you made I'm not sure are relevant as much as -- MR. LEWIS: Yeah. We're here to make sure that they're in the record, and we want to work with the developer to make sure that the master plan reflects these issues -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. LEWIS: -- and they're dealt with. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Lewis? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Doug. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Your client lives off of Pine Crest, correct? MR. LEWIS: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Do you happen to know the distance from your client's south wall, rear wall, to the road Calle del Ray? MR. LEWIS: I couldn't -- I could not tell you. He's here today. We can ask. I'm not sure. We haven't had it engineered. I haven't looked at a survey. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Well, let me go about it another way. The unimproved land that is south of the line of houses along Pine Crest, what is the status of that? Is that developable? Is it owned by these owners? Is it preserve? What is it? MR. LEWIS: Is it owned by which owners? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Your clients' neighbors. MR. LEWIS: I can't answer that. Perhaps there's other -- MS. GORMAN: There's a 10-foot preserve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no. Ma'am, you can't answer -- MR. LEWIS: Yeah. I can't answer the question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: She'll have to be sworn in and address it from the microphone. MR. LEWIS: That's fine. Perhaps what I would suggest is there are other neighbors that are here and that they make a note of that and certainly address your question. I just can't answer that. June 1, 2017 Page 48 of 79 COMMISSIONER FRYER: For the benefit of those who may testify down the road, I'm interested in knowing the status of that unimproved land and also how many feet wide it is. MR. LEWIS: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: This is off of Goggle Earth, and these are the houses, and his client is one of these. And I'm looking at that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think what -- for the benefit of the applicant, I think what Ned is referring to is the area that's shown on this plan in color on the MAC and Triad. It's the piece above that road that's called Casse del Ray, or something like that. That is part of the PUD. That's where they're going to put their 204 foot of combination lake and preserve, I believe. MR. LEWIS: Yeah. And that is -- I have looked at that. Actually, the roadway's been vacated, so there's a vacation of the roadway, and that area that is in yellow is -- that's all part of the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. That's the northern part of the PUD. MR. LEWIS: That's part of the PUD, correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the built-in buffers that they're suggesting. COMMISSIONER FRYER: The road, Casse or Calle del Ray, has been vacated, and this is part of the petitioner's property. MR. LEWIS: That's part of the, absolutely, the application. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I thought. That's why I wanted to see what you were looking at. MR. LEWIS: Thank you for that clarification, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're welcome. The next speaker, please. MR. BELLOWS: Cathy Gorman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Gorman, now you can speak. Thank you. Were you sworn in when we started this? I can't remember everybody that stood up. MS. GORMAN: Yes, I was, Mr. Strain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. GORMAN: My name's Cathy Gorman, and my home does go right against the back where the MAC property is. To answer your question, Mr. Fryer, it is -- we have a 10-foot easement, so there is a 10-foot preserve, which isn't that much. I have so many things I wanted to speak to. I guess one of the big things right now, though, I should start with maybe -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, just -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: There's a difference between a 10-foot easement and a 10-foot preserve, so it plotted -- platted as a 10-foot preserve? MS. GORMAN: Well, on our data paperwork it is called a preserve, but it is also called an easement. I believe it is owned by the utility company. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. So what it is -- MS. GORMAN: I actually have it both ways. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's not one of those that was probably dedicated as a conservation easement, but it shows up that way. MS. GORMAN: Thank you. Okay. One of the things is that -- I guess what I should start with is when they had the neighborhood meeting, we all came in and said, we are not against this development. You spoke to density. Would we like less density? Absolutely. When this first began years ago, it was plotted just like our homes are now where, where you see the homes across there, it was the same each way. It then went to light commercial. At that point it was then into a PUD, and it's now where it is. But would we like less density? Yes. That is my feeling anyhow. But when we came in as neighbors, we said, you know, we want to be good neighbors, and we were talking about some of the things that the previous developers were going to do. We were told by the representative from Horton, and I quote, I do not do anything that benefits me (sic). Therefore, as a neighbor, June 1, 2017 Page 49 of 79 that is his prerogative to say that. Then it's our prerogative to come to you and the county and say, then please make sure that they don't do anything that's going to hurt us either. That's also good neighbors. Don't hurt our drainage, don't hurt the property values and, please, don't hurt us any further in traffic. Traffic is one of the biggest issues. If you look at the size of a school bus and a Ford Focus -- I didn't even use my Suburban. Okay. Put them next to each other. They are 15 feet touching. Four foot is maybe this much for them to pass. Bring windows out. At that point we have now taken up the entire roadway. So every time that we walk out of our development, we are walking, if any cars are present, in the grass. Now, the county's been very good about now keeping it cut for us, but we're walking in the grass. So there's no other way out from our homes. They are proposing to let that continue and not even put sidewalks in for people. They are also putting two entrances out onto Palm Springs. My -- I did speak to an engineer as well, and he came up with an idea and can show -- and I do have it, if I may give it to you -- where their entrances could actually come off of Radio Lane. Why do we even want to come off a tiny little 19-foot road when, here it is, if I -- can I give that to you? I don't know how to work the system. Anyway, it shows very easily just by swapping it, the entrances are now going onto Radio Lane. Radio Lane isn't actually that much bigger, but at least it would give us, you know, some kind of way that we are still at least walking without having even more traffic. If you're talking 44 homes on each side, you're now talking 88, double that by two people. In my house that would be five people, five cars. But even if we say two per, you're now putting 166 more cars coming out where we are just simpling trying to walk up the street. There's no other way out of there but then to walk right up Palm Springs Boulevard. And it's already a hazard, and we've talked to the county about that before. I don't want to beat the dead horse. So I know that you've already talked about the inverted roadways. One of the things that bothers me a little bit is with justification. I only came here once before my whole life. It was when the Marriott on Marco was putting in a big chiller tower at the backs of people's homes. Bottom line was their justification was that on Marco Island the electric does go out a lot and, therefore, when they have big conferences, they didn't want to lose their electric. That made a lot of sense to everyone, until -- and that was their justification. Until you think of the part where you say, great, but wait a minute, now what about the Radisson and the Hilton and everyone else? If we use this type of justification, to me, personally, it doesn't make sense. It's the same as using the justification, well, I want to put in a hundred-foot dock right out here for my pleasure, but now everybody should get to do that. So I try to be careful very much. And Collier County is very special. And the fact that maybe our rules are a little bit heftier than other counties is really a very good thing. And if we're not equal, that's a good thing, too. So I am very much against this inverted design. I'm not an engineer. I simply went online when I first heard of it and looked, and everything comes up and says it did not work. As soon as you just simply Google it, there's nothing in favor of it. Everything says it does not work. And the other thing is, I'm happy to say I haven't been before you before because I haven't had to. I think Collier County is beyond fabulous. And I have lived here with the intent of "do no harm." And I kind of am questioning a builder who is saying that we will maintain those roadways but not finishing, saying, we will maintain those roadways until we turn them over to the HOA. And now people who they are also saying may be a little bit economically challenged have come into their HOA, and now they've taken over these roadways which is already proven can be substandards, and now they have all that burden on them. So, therefore, in my "do no harm," I just question giving them roadways that you already know are going to have a lot more maintenance. That really would be that main question. The only other thing is, I would request a floodplain analysis. They are building their development four feet above where our homes are, which is probably about maybe this size. And my question with that is, very simply, you know, where is all that drainage going to go? They already have in their plan subsized drainage, and they are going to have to bring in the extra fill; therefore, could we please have a floodplain June 1, 2017 Page 50 of 79 analysis to address that? And the only other thing I can say is thank you that I never had to come here before, because I really think because of people like you, there is a "do no harm" in this county, and I hope, if nothing else, you will at least ask them or request, have them put those roads out onto Radio Lane, because we already have a hazard. Please come down and walk with me any day. You'll see for yourselves. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much, ma'am. Before we go on break -- and I'm sorry to those of you that still want to speak, that we do take an hour off for both the court reporter and some people up here who would eat lunch. But we will be back at 1:15. What I do want to mention is we have a long agenda, and we haven't -- we've got five -- four items after this. Just for those in the audience who may be here for those items, we'll continue on today until sometime late afternoon. What we don't finish up, we have a carryover date, and I think it's June 7th. MR. BELLOWS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We would continue anything that we don't finish today to the June 7th meeting, which is next week. So that's just a note I wanted to make before we get that far. And we'll see you in one hour. Thank you, all. We'll resume with public testimony in one hour. (A luncheon recess was had, and Scott Stone is not present at counsel table.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everyone, welcome back from the lunch hour. And I know after all that filling meal and everything, we're anxious to get going. For Terri's sake, that's the court reporter, I had I don't know how many cups of coffee, so I'll talk a lot faster. And we left off with public testimony. So, Ray, do you want to call the next registered speaker? MR. BELLOWS: Tim Gorman. MR. GORMAN: Thank you, Mr. Strain. The biggest issue here -- and I know it's going to sound like we're beating a horse, but we need to beat the horse. The drainage problems in that area are very, very serious. The county has come in a couple times, and they've tried to address it. I'm not going to say it hasn't gotten better. But our real concern is we're going to raise the elevation four feet, we're going to put below-standard drainage ponds in, and we're going to have less runoff. I'm not sure I understand how this works. So I would really like someone to look into this and make sure that the water management on this project is -- you know, I'm a firm believer in bigger is better, okay. I'm a simple guy. You know, the county hasn't -- has never accepted below-par engineering or substandard or let's just meet what we need to meet. Code has always been above what the standard would be, and I hope that they continue to hold developers to those standards. The traffic study is my next issue. Very concerned, once again. We -- I don't know how or when they did the traffic study, but I'm sure they did it. But there are issues in that area. We have people from the apartments that are to the southeast of Pine Crest Lane. They fly up and down that road. Now, I don't know whether the advantage of coming out on Pine Crest Lane, that's -- I'm sorry -- it's Radio Lane they'd come flying up. I don't know if it's because of a money difference to come out onto Radio Lane, if it costs them more to cut into Radio Lane than it does on the Pine Crest Lane, but it's -- traffic is a serious, serious issue. And pedestrian safety; I know somewhere in the books they've got plans to put sidewalks in in that area. But I -- you know, I understand the county's probably just laying and waiting to see what happens, you know, before they go spend the money and have somebody come in and tear it up. But I'd like someone to seriously look at these two issues, and especially the water management. The folks on the southeast corner of Pine Crest Lane and Pine -- the entrance into the development, when we get a heavy rain, those folks have water in the swales in the front of their house, without exaggeration, up to two weeks, and it doesn't carry off. And that's just with the regular summertime rain, when we get a heavy rain. The water does not leave that area. There is a serious problem with the drainage in that area. And that about -- that's my two cents worth. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Some of the issues you brought up, we're going to have staff come up when we finish with public speakers and try to address some of the questions and then at the same time I'll ask them June 1, 2017 Page 51 of 79 at what time frame in the process will those questions be resolved. Not everything will be resolved here at the Planning Commission. Some of it's done when the calculations are done for the SDPs and things like that. But we'll try to sort some of that out while you're here. Thank you. MR. GORMAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next speaker, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: Brenda Turner. MS. TURNER: Hello. My name is Brenda Turner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Grab that mike a little bit there. Thank you. MS. TURNER: Okay. I have been in Naples since 1961. I have lived in Palm Springs subdivision since 1971. I have seen some changes. I have no problem with the rezoning of this. My problem is the traffic. Within about a three- to four-mile area from 951 and Davis Boulevard to Radio Lane/Palm Springs Boulevard, we have two red lights. That takes care of all the traffic off of the interstate, Davis, Radio, everything. We've got Tuscany Isles. We've got Saddlebrook Apartments. We've got Woodside. We've got Circle K. We've got Racetrac. Now we're getting those other houses built in into the front of the property. That is too small of an area for that much congestion. And people are not going to drive 15 miles an hour when they speed like crazy down a straightaway. They burn rubber on my street, which is only five houses. They don't care. They're going to do it. Somebody's going to get hurt. The other thing I have a problem with is I'm not quite understanding all this drainage. I live down Palm Springs Boulevard to the very end, take a right -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll need to bring that mike a little closer. I can see the court reporter's having trouble picking up your -- she listens to you on microphone, and if you're not close enough to the microphone, she can't hear you. Thank you. MS. TURNER: Anyway, I live on Palm Lake Drive, which is at the end of Palm Springs subdivision -- Boulevard. There's five houses there. Now, if you build houses in the front, you elevate them up four foot, which I am only 4-foot-5, so that's the difference. Now, it seems like to me that if you put that much dirt and a house and then you make this inverted crown thing to drive down the middle of the road, during a normally rainy day season, where is that water going to run off? Is it -- I want to know if it's going to affect me in any way. I have a big lake in front of the house that is part of the park that is in front of my house. I have a drainage ditch down the side that is never filled up with water. If it rains, good, I might have two to three inches of standing water. That's on a good day. I cannot see how I will not be affected by building up the land four feet and putting a house on it. Where is it going to go? Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, ma'am. Next speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Last speaker; Mr. Morgan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. Good afternoon. MR. MORGAN: Good afternoon, sir. My name is Ewart Morgan. I live at 653 Pine Vale Drive. She's actually one of my neighbors. I have a few concerns that I'd like to bring to the planning board. One of the things is the density of this project. I heard that there was five-foot setbacks. Five-foot setbacks an awful small setback. I didn't even know we had five-foot setbacks in this county. It doesn't really give you enough room to maintain your house. People are going to put fences because of animals and kids and so forth. If you open up a six-foot ladder, it's four feet. You can't even step on it from the back. And the other things is it would be a fire hazard. When you start putting houses this close together, I think these are creating a hazard with -- if you should have that emergency of a fire. The other thing maybe somebody could tell me is, are these block or frame houses? I've never found out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That isn't an issue for this board, so we don't get into that. June 1, 2017 Page 52 of 79 MR. MORGAN: All right. Well, I mean, if they're framed -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a building code issue, and we don't do building code. MR. MORGAN: But if it's framed, then that makes that setback more important. So that's how I feel about the setbacks. To me, these houses are way too close. The other thing is the drainage, which everybody's talked about. Now, where I live that drainage ditch that's on the east side is in my yard, okay. So I get to watch it all the time. That ditch is coming down from what's now just percolating, because there's no structure there. It's going to be running down this ditch now. That ditch was never properly elevated as far as the slope. They hit cap rock, and that's where they stopped. They stopped at the cap rock. Actually, right next to the county park that's there, there's a ridge that goes across the whole thing that's at least a foot higher than the rest of the ditch all the way up to the south end where this housing project's going to be. So they need to take a look and revisit this ditch and get the proper flow. It's not going to be a major project. You can put small equipment in a ditch. They do it all the time. They spray herbicides in there occasionally. So it's not -- nothing that's going to be a huge budget item. And you've got the engineer to go out there and simply look at it. That's all it takes, until you have to survey it to get the elevations right. The other thing I have a concern about is the traffic, which a lot of people have brought up. There is a lot of traffic that comes from those apartments and, of course, now we're going to have all this other traffic coming. I would like for the -- for the county to take a look at putting another access out at least from Radio Lane to Davis. They've got a bus stop right there, and it stops 30 feet from Davis. And you even have a turn lane, and they would like -- that would stop a lot of traffic coming from those apartments from people going onto Davis because right now they use Circle K Boulevard. That's where they go through. And I've been over there and had a couple close calls just people coming through there. But it's a constant traffic through Circle K, and they can't do a lot about it. But right next to them -- there's a hundred feet between the roads. I just don't see why they can't take a look at maybe connecting that to Davis, because those people will not go down there and make the U-turn where the transit area is for the Collier County transit. They won't do it. I've got a neighbor that's been there for 12 years. I don't think he could find Radio Road -- or Davis Boulevard without that Circle K, you know. So that's what I'd like to bring up today, and I appreciate your time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Are there any other registered public speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No other speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any members of the public who have not spoken that would like to speak? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we'll move to staff or some discussion, unless the planning commissioners have anything else. Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. Somebody from the petitioner, Mr. Yovanovich or -- I guess is representing the petitioner. I want to ask specifically some questions, and then we're going to get into staff as well. This is in regards to the letter that Mr. Lewis sent. I have a copy of the email. It's the one that Nancy forwarded. I guess my first question is -- there are many things in this list all certain to be valid. I'm not going to refute Mr. Hagan's assessment. But there are certain things that are definitely valid. Can you let me know, when's the first time you saw this or had you -- had any of this been brought up to you prior to this meeting or in sufficient time to address any of these issues? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. I can go back and check. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you answer, real quick, I just noticed, is there anybody on staff here who can address some of these drainage issues that we heard? Because I noticed Jerry didn't come back. So if you need him here, while we're in other issues, you may want to ask him to come back to the meeting. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, we're going to need Jerry because there's -- one of the major June 1, 2017 Page 53 of 79 concerns here are drainage issues. MR. YOVANOVICH: Would you like the exact time that we got the email yesterday? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Pat, do you have your iPad with you or your iPhone? Give me a second, Mr. Schmitt. It was definitely mid to late afternoon yesterday -- MR. VANASSE: 12:41. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- that I think the comments were provided by Mr. Lewis to county staff who then forwarded it on to Mr. Vanasse, and Mr. Vanasse forwarded it on to me; 12:41 yesterday. Today is June 1st. His letter was dated May 31st, Mr. Hagan. I would like to point out -- and I appreciate that the residents don't understand the process -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- but Mr. Hagan certainly does understand the process. And we do go through an extensive Water Management District review for drainage issues, as everybody's aware of. So the concerns of the residents will be addressed because, as we all know, under water management standards, we have to accommodate our drainage and all historical flows, and then we hold it back for an acceptable discharge rate, and we get into the system. And that all gets permitted through the Water Management District. Now -- so the drainage concerns that the residents have will be addressed through the Water Management District permitting process. I didn't see -- I didn't -- I just got handed Mr. Hagan's letter, so I don't know if in his letter he said, oh, by the way, there's a permitting process that addresses every one of the drainage issues that I'm raising in my letter. I only got the lawyer's synopsis of the points. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, that was going to be my point. Much of this Chris knows; Mr. Hagan knows. And I'm surprised he didn't relay that to the residents. And just to ease your concern, as was pointed out, all this will go through the permitting process as part of the PPL, preliminary plat and plans reviews, and through the South Florida Water Management District permitting process for stormwater management. And if Jerry comes back -- because there are some concerns regarding significant issues related to base flood elevation and displacing water on neighboring property. First of all, they can't do that, and they've got a -- the engineering has to be in place to prevent that from happening. And I'm quite surprised that none of this was addressed based on these concerns that were raised in the letter, because much of this is not really part of this board's review other than we can stipulate to make sure that many of these things happen. The other issue was with Palm Springs Boulevard. That's a county road. And I know there's some concerns about the design width and the capacity for Palm Springs road. It's a county road. From our standpoint, again, unless we make that some kind of a stipulation and a requirement, these are two separate parcels. These are two separate developments being zoned separately. Though they'll appear to be combined, they are two separate zoning actions bisected by a county road. And so I'm -- I don't know -- as far as I know and understand, there are no plans, or are you aware of any plans for any improvements that the county's going to make to Palm Springs road, or do you have any plans to improve Palm Springs road? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, as part of our sidewalk we will be putting a sidewalk on both sides of Palm Springs because our development is on both sides of Palm Springs, and also on Radio Lane. So there will be sidewalks constructed on the public road right-of-way as part of our project. So, yes, we will be improving the right-of-way, at least for pedestrian traffic, as part of our development. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, and I -- Mr. Lewis is not here, because I -- one of the things I -- other than bringing these issues to our attention, I'm not sure what he wanted us to do in regards to this list, and I'm going to defer to the Chair. If you want to -- if we want to go down each one of these, but I think the list still needs to be addressed by the county as part of the review process. The other thing that I was really quite puzzled by was his statement about -- and, again, I'm getting in the inverted stormwater that basically says county owned, operated, and maintained roadways when, in fact, June 1, 2017 Page 54 of 79 it's clear this will not be a county road -- owned road operated and maintained. It will be a private road; am I correct? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The roads will be private. It would be maintained -- the requirement is not going to be a county requirement. It will fall on the HOA; is that correct? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, these are all private roads -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Internal. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- internal roads maintained by the homeowners' associations. There are no public roads within the project. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It talks about the interconnect across the force main. Again, that is an issue in review. Air release valves, that will be -- that will be -- and Mr. McKenna, Jack, that will be reviewed as part of the county, and or will it -- who is going to -- come up in regards -- that will be reviewed as part of the utilities when they review this? Again, I'm surprised that -- MR. McLEAN: I'm Matt McLean. I'm the Director of Development Review, for the record. Yes, all the things that you're identifying, Joe, are traditional items that are handled by the review by either the PPL plan set or the SDP in this particular case. So it would be a subdivision PPL plan set where staff would review, although water management calculations as well to make sure that they're in accordance with the Water Management District permitting as well as the utility infrastructure that the design the project. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe, ideally, that letter. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And any comments from another engineer would have come in in time to be in their staff report so staff could take a look at it -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- so then we as a Planning Commission could spend the extra time needed to try to contact staff on those issues we didn't explain so we could understand it better for today's meeting. Unfortunately, I didn't see it till last night, I think it was, and I tried to read it again this morning. But it afforded no time to do any research to see if Mr. Hagan's or Mr. Lewis's conclusions are correct or to see how staff would react to them. And I think staff would be the primary source for trying to understand how the reaction to that -- to how it affects this board today. So I'm at a loss on how to really validate that letter that was received so late with the kind of professional data that was in it, in the sense that it was all -- it was all calculated data. It was something that can't be done simply. It's going to take some time to research. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I don't know but -- if Mr. Hagan's aware or not, but our plat is in for review and our water management -- our permitting is going through the Water Management District process now. I don't know if he took the time to actually go look at the engineered documents to -- or is he just issue spotting, as we used to do in law school for exams, you know. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, again, I just raise this issue certainly because the residents have concern, and I just -- I want to assure you that from -- at least from the issues that have been raised here, the majority of these will be dealt with in the review process. They're not part of the zoning from a standpoint, even though we can make some stipulations. (Stan Chrzanowski is now present in the boardroom.) COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: They're part of the review process through either the county, as was mentioned, or through the South Florida Water Management District. The only other -- and you've addressed the issue about Palm Springs road. It is a county road. There was a request that they not enter off of Palm Springs Boulevard, but I don't believe we can prevent that from happening. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we can look at issues that might relate to compatibility and then try to understand why the particular plan that they're using didn't possibly consider the plan that we just saw on the overhead that Mr. Yovanovich took. June 1, 2017 Page 55 of 79 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But in regards to the traffic that was raised and the traffic engineer, do you -- at least your staff, Mr. Yovanovich, the traffic calculations for this PUD are less than what is currently allowed under the previous PUD; is that correct? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So all intent and purposes, this is going to be less of a demand than has already been approved. And I don't know, I wouldn't call it vested because it is -- it's not a vested right, but the traffic is significantly less than what it would have been had it been the greater density; is that correct? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. The approved density today, both projects combined, is 172 units. We're asking for both projects combined of 88 units. So I can't do that that fast in my head, but I think that's 84 units less than what's approved today. Now, it's condos to single-family, so it's not 100 percent the same for traffic, but it is a reduction of overall traffic by this -- and the current approved projects have access onto Palm Springs. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. That's all I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Jerry Kurtz came in, so, Joe, I know you had some drainage questions. Maybe Jerry can answer them if you haven't already got the answers. I do have some questions as well. Basically, Jerry, if you could explain to us how the drainage in this existing subdivision is working, the swales and who maintains them, how they're functioning, where the outfalls are, little details like that, because we've heard some conflicting issues about those today. MR. KURTZ: Okay, sure. Jerry Kurtz, county stormwater. The Palm Springs area has existing perimeter ditches on the east and west side, and the drainage goes from south to north so it gathers along the east and west ditches, comes together at the north end adjacent to the interstate just south of the interstate, and it all collects and gathers at the -- I want to say the northeast corner. And from that point, the ditch continues; a single ditch continues straight north under the interstate through a section of ditch that's -- the ditch is there. We recently acquired easements for the ditch. Apparently that reach of outfall was put there years ago with no easements. We have the easements now. We have a plan to go in there and clean that ditch up. It needs a cleanup, and then the water continues under Magnolia Pond Drive. We have proper culverts there. And then the last segment between Magnolia Pond Drive to Golden Gate Main Canal has been improved by county stormwater, I want to say, six or seven years ago. So the flow path is intact. We have that one section that needs a little attention, and we're working on that. The area is what I would call drainage challenged principally because of the existing subdivision that's there in Palm Springs. The northern portion of it is very old. We have improved the roadside swales and some culverts in that older portion. We ran into some rock, but we did dig through the cap rock. We ran into some water main utility conferences. We worked -- conflicts. We worked around that. So we have a history of making improvements to the neighborhood as we could and can and still have that one remaining piece to improve. We're well aware of the challenges of the water management in the area. Again -- well, in addition you have these houses that were built basically with no fill brought in with very little to no engineering done. These are the houses that are just maybe, say, in Elevation 10 or 9, whereas new development that comes in now has to meet new FEMA codes. It will be up at 13-and-a-half, 14. So these are the most challenging areas of town for us where we have the old that's now being -- the infill from the new is coming in. But we can still continue to provide an adequate level of service. Of course, the lower, older homes are going to be more vulnerable to flooding than the newer homes, but we see that everywhere around town, and we'll just continue to watch those spots -- those are our hot spots -- and make improvements when we need to. But we have done the research on these two proposed projects. There are engineering details that exist through South Florida permitting that we've looked at. Nothing in there is of concern to us. They seem to be along the well-designed path to get their permits and adhere to all the latest rules and regulations. We've got more opportunity upcoming to verify and scrutinize those plans as they come forward. So as far as this zoning action, we're in support, as stated in the staff report, of approval. We don't see anything June 1, 2017 Page 56 of 79 that's insurmountable that can't be dealt with during the final design stages. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So your support of this project as a staff member in its review was basically conceptual based on the final data that you're going to receive during the more intense submittals, like an SDP or PPL? MR. KURTZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It will be a PPL in this case. MR. KURTZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: At that time the off-site discharges -- now, I believe this project's -- not believe. They have to retain everything on site till it reaches a certain point. Then it will be an outfall to one of these swales; is that reasonable? MR. KURTZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The capacity for those swales to take the outfall predicted from these two projects, at what stage will those values, those numbers get to you so you can assure that this will be in compliance with what that ditch can handle? MR. KURTZ: That will be at the Site Development Plan review process, and we'll also look at the ERP permit as that's prepared to be issued. And so it will be happening, I would assume, fairly soon. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's been expressed concerns about swale and ditch maintenance. Now, is the county -- once this new piece is acquired -- or maybe we've just acquired it. So is the county now handling all that switch -- swale and ditch maintenance? And the issue of -- we heard someone testify that there were intrusions from the private properties into the swale ditch that could block some of the flow. Are all these issues being looked at by the county? MR. KURTZ: Yes, yeah. We're aware of the intrusions. The intrusions into the perimeter ditches is not a new issue. Over time people encroach into these rear yard conveyance ways. It's a constant ongoing effort of inspection and evaluation to see which intrusion could cause a flow stoppage or blockage. I think the most recent one we've just looked at; it's a fence. But, for example, if there's enough space under the fence for the water to flow, that's being checked and looked at. So, yeah, we're aware. And intrusions, as I said, into this flow path are nothing new. We periodically have gone out, had the homeowners make some corrections, let them know that, you know, it's a regional path for excess stormwater to leave the neighborhood. And so it's in everybody's best interest to keep it open, and -- so, yeah, we're aware. And it's -- it is being maintained, and we're confident that it will continue to work at an acceptable level of service. I think, again, protecting the lower, older homes with proper conveyance out of the neighborhood is the huge challenge. But this new neighborhood, being fully bermed and engineered and designed, the runoff that will be leaving this property will be no greater than, say, what it is today, because it's going to be a controlled -- it's going to be an engineered water management system with a controlled discharge rate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You said there's fences crossing the drainage easement, and you wanted to make sure there was enough clearance under it. Why is a fence in the drainage easement to begin with? MR. KURTZ: It's just an example. It was noted to me by somebody that had been out looking around. These things pop up from time to time, and then they have to be, you know, handled and cleared and -- this is why I believe today our regs say that you cannot have platted conveyance-ways in people's rear yards, because it's just not a good idea. Where you want the conveyance to occur has to be in an area that can be easily inspected and not prone to being encumbered by people parking boats and doing various things that they want to do in their backyard. So it's these older neighborhoods that are a challenge. When, you know, it was permitted before, we didn't realize the problems that would be caused. So we have a number of them around town, and it's just a -- it's a challenge, but we always go out and do what we need to do through inspections and code enforcement and meeting with the homeowners and get it corrected so the water can flow out and not impact anybody. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jerry, there's two or -- at least two statements, I believe, something to the effect that the drainage ponds proposed for this site are below standard. Do you have any documentation that June 1, 2017 Page 57 of 79 would have been submitted at this time to indicate we'd even be able to know that? MR. KURTZ: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't think so. I was a little surprised to hear that because without the calculations and all the data, it would be hard to determine that. Okay. So from all intents and purposes, they wouldn't be approved until those met our standards. MR. KURTZ: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that's all the questions on drainage I have. So thank you. Anybody else? Stan, and then Ned. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I think the comment was that the ponds cover 9 percent of the site, and the usual standard is, like, 15 percent, but that's all up in the air. I'm curious. I'm looking at Google Earth for that area, and there's a pond at the north end of Palm Springs. Is that part of their -- do the ditches go through that pond before they discharge? Is that their water management polishing pond? MR. KURTZ: So I doubt that when it was built it was built to be a polishing pond. I think that was pre-regs and all of that. But, yeah, so the -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Just taking the fill out, and that was it? MR. KURTZ: I believe so. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. MR. KURTZ: But that pond, I think, is under county maintenance, and so the perimeter ditch along the west side of Palm Springs does connect into that pond, and then I think it travels north around the corner, and then it does get to the perimeter ditch around the north side of the Palm Springs, which -- so it's all interconnected and flows out at that northeast corner under the interstate. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Just out of curiosity, can you get me -- I got zoom-ins of LiDARs of just the sites, but I didn't get any zoom-out of the neighborhood so I could tell where the drainage was going. Can you get me a zoom-out of that neighborhood all the way up to I-75? You can email it to my home. It's just professional curiosity. MR. KURTZ: Sure. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I want to see where the water's going. MR. KURTZ: Absolutely, Stan. And all these -- all this infrastructure is mapped on our county stormwater website. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. But I prefer the LiDAR. The new LiDAR is very accurate, and you can always tell where the -- because the LiDAR I'm looking at here shows the ground falls to the south. It doesn't fall to the north. So you're trying to push water uphill. But I know that the water follows the bottom of the ditch, which goes against grade. You know, I don't have a problem with any of this. And Joe's comments before about Mr. Hagan's letter, I agree with them all. I don't have a problem with any of this. I just -- I'm just very curious about the lay of the ground in that area. MR. KURTZ: It does -- you said it: What dictates the direction of flow out of the neighborhood is the elevations of the bottom of the ditch system, and that is in place enough to flow the water against -- so the land is sloping to the south, but the gradient of the ditches does take it to the north. It does work. And, like I said, we've been aware of this stormwater outfall system in the Palm Springs area way before MAC and Triad ever existed, and we've been working in that neighborhood for many, many years -- I'd say at least 10 or 15 years -- trying to make sure what's there works, and it does work. The people that actually get the maintenance work done are the people that work for Road Maintenance, and we've spent countless hours up there trying to make what's there work. And it does works. And we're going to even try to make it work a little bit better, especially with all the growth in this area. But, yeah, I can -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'll send you an email. I'll remind you about the LiDAR. MR. KURTZ: I'll send you both maps. Our map doesn't have the LiDAR on it, but it has a lot of valuable information. There's some data associated. We have flow direction arrows that are fairly accurate and things of that nature. Various pipes are mapped and catch basins and whatnot. It's a pretty good tool. June 1, 2017 Page 58 of 79 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chairman, as I was listening to the neighbors speak, I tried to put myself in their shoes and to identify what I should be doing to protect myself in the event that there is a material adverse change in the stormwater situation affecting them. And I've heard Mr. Kurtz say that the county will be on top of it. We'll be looking at the situation on a regular basis. But is there something more that you could say, some additional comfort that you could give the residents that you're going to really be on top of this in a fashion? MR. KURTZ: I can say that I'm certainly available to be contacted, myself and my staff. We will absolutely come out there. In fact, one member of my staff has been out there numerous times already. We're available to come visit you. And some of you, I'm sure, have probably already talked to Richard Orth. He's been out there a lot. He knows some of you. And we that. And that's no different than how we study and observe all neighborhoods that are -- we have a number of these that are just like this where the old neighborhoods are low and they've been there for a long time and new development's coming in higher. We -- these are our areas of concern, and we're available. We're available to anybody that needs us to come out. And you can show us what is worrying you and so on. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Could you give me a brief example that I could possibly understand of how you would remediate a situation where there was excessive stormwater coming into -- along -- in the subdivision, Palm Crest, Palm Cone -- or Pine Vale. Let's say that it's clear to the neighbors who live there, because they observe the property all the time, that there's more water coming in. What sort of remediation could you undertake for them? MR. KURTZ: Sure. While we always look at the people that live out there every day, you're the real experts, it's runoff, water management. Even though we're trained and we're engineers, the people that are out there can see where water's coming in, where water's trying to go. So we always defer to them to show us what's going on. But -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: The problem -- understood. But how about the solutions? What kind of solutions would you be able to offer? MR. KURTZ: Sure. So if we see a large amount of water coming into a neighborhood, we'll go back to the office and research and make sure that's a permitted inflow into the neighborhood, figure out what the quantity is and those kinds of details. Then we're real good at following the pathway, see where it goes, see where it needs to go. Is it going where it's supposed to go? If it's -- perhaps the level's getting alarmingly high, we just chase the pathway down and see if there's a blockage, see if it's a blockage that is on our easements, our property, or if it's on private property. But either way, we find out what the issue is, what the concern is, and work on it -- either get the private entities to remediate it, or our road maintenance crew is very good on our side. We have good equipment, good operators. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Is it fair to say that if needs be, the county be prepared to expend resources, funds to mitigate the materially adverse results of stormwater coming from the new development? MR. KURTZ: We would be -- yes. We're committed to come out and do whatever would need to be done. I paused a little bit there because the stormwater that's going to leave these new engineered communities is going to be controlled -- it's going to be engineered and controlled at a quantified discharge rate. So I really, personally, have no concerns about the water that's going to come off of these new developments and enter our system. I'm more concerned about downstream from there, that we watch what's going on down there. There's always a log that has fallen down or a place of erosion from a bank. Those are the things. And, absolutely, on those things, we -- I'm not pledging that we're going to do that. I'm telling you we do that every day. Every week, every day, all around the county, this is what we do. We diagnose our system and take whatever action's necessary to keep it open and keep it flowing, and that goes on every day, even in the dry season. But we're especially excited and gearing up for the rain coming because, honestly, that's when we really see where our efforts are needed. You know, Mother Nature will show us. And, yeah, there's people standing by and equipment ready, and that's what we do. June 1, 2017 Page 59 of 79 COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. MR. KURTZ: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else for Jerry? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One quick question. Are you familiar with any issues at the end of Palm Springs Boulevard where it meets Radio Lane? MR. KURTZ: No, not really. I mean, we've looked at it and looked at it. We're aware of all the pipes in the area. We're aware of the LiDAR and the elevations. And, no, from Water Management's standpoint, we haven't found anything of concern at that intersection. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And you work for the county, so your first three digits is 252. What's your last four? MR. KURTZ: 252-5860. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For those of you who have issues that aren't addressed after this or changed for drainage purposes, that's the guy to reach right there. So thank you. Jerry, thank you. MR. KURTZ: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know Mike Sawyer's dying to come up and answer some questions, too. MR. SAWYER: For the record, Mike Sawyer, Principal Planner, Transportation Planning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, some things were said about transportation. I want to make sure we understand it for the record. An issue about the TIS. Was the TIS for both projects? MR. SAWYER: No. The TIS was done separately, one for each of the developments. Basically, they're very similar because we have, you know, identical numbers of units being presented, but they were -- you know, each of the PUDs has its own TIS because they were two petitions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the TIS that you reviewed so far meets the requirements of the county? MR. SAWYER: A little lesson again. What we do when we're looking at zoning petitions is we are looking to make sure that there is capacity on the roadway systems to accommodate the developments. That's what we say; it's consistent with the GMP. We look at what our AUIR is indicating as far as our most recent trip counts, we make sure that we've got capacity on the adjacent roadway systems to accommodate the proposed trips. In this case, it's about 50 trips coming from each of the developments. In this case, I understand we're reviewing and talking about both of the petitions at the same time, but it's not dissimilar to if we had one developer coming in with one project and we were talking about it and another development was right next door -- and it happens, within reason -- they are coming in with theirs. We look at both of those to make sure that we've got capacity on the road system for consistency. As far as concurrency where we actually put the trips on the system, then we do that when we come in and we're doing plats or SDPs. It's a much more in-depth, little bit more detail. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, you went further than I needed you to. MR. SAWYER: Sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Basically, in the staff report you said the TIS was submitted, and it showed a certain p.m. peak hour operation. In that analysis you came back and said, therefore, the subject zoning can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP. So if you relied on the TIS to come to that conclusion, all I'm simply asking is, was the TIS that was submitted sufficient enough for this level of review? MR. SAWYER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Connections on Radio Lane. You see there was an alternate plan on the overhead showing the project reorientating itself to the south connecting on Radio Lane. Do you see any detriment to that versus its connections on Palm Springs Boulevard, I think it is? MR. SAWYER: Again, I will preface this by we haven't really reviewed it that way, but we don't see -- you know, staff did talk in between, you know, after that was brought up. We don't see an inherent detriment to doing those types of access points. We would possibly be encouraging more of a single access June 1, 2017 Page 60 of 79 point for each of the PUDs instead of doubles, but we would want to see what that layout is and see if there are any complications that might possibly come up. We're not seeing any right now. We don't see any issues with our access management. Again, we haven't reviewed it, but right now we're not seeing any inherent problems. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The one gentleman suggested opening up Radio Lane to Davis Boulevard. What do you think that will do to traffic on Radio Lane? MR. SAWYER: That would increase traffic problems and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would sure use it a lot more. The access on Davis would be much handier if I had two of them instead of waiting at that light. But -- so I'm not sure that's a good idea, but I wanted to get your thoughts on that, so... MR. SAWYER: Honestly, again, that would be -- number one, FDOT is in control of Davis, so first we would have to get approval from them to do something like that. But part of the reason that you see Radio coming in at the alignment that it is is that's what we worked out with FDOT as far as getting a safer access for Radio coming down. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I certainly understand the gentleman's concern over the cut-through on that Okay or whatever the convenience store is -- Circle K. I've used it. It's a great little cut-through. I'm wondering, is there a way to prohibit that? Is that just going to have to go on forever? MR. SAWYER: Until that particular property comes back in for development -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ah, good point. MR. SAWYER: -- okay, we would not be able to prevent them from retaining the access points that they currently have. If they do come in, then we would re-evaluate it like we do any other redevelopment project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the last question, at least I have for you is there's sidewalks shown on the master plan for this project. And there's two different colorations of them or the way they seem to be detailed. There's some inside the project and along Radio Lane that have, like, checker-boarding or dots in the centers, but I can't tell if the ones on Palm Springs Boulevard do. But as far as your department's concern is, are you going to be requiring the sidewalks to be in on both sides of Palm Springs as well as the areas in Radio Lane in the vicinity of their project that's deficient? MR. SAWYER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That takes that one off, then. Okay. Anybody else have any questions of Mike? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mike. Thank you. MR. SAWYER: Thank you, Board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's all the questions I had of staff, and we've had all of our public testimony. And I guess it gets down to this point to Mr. Yovanovich, if you want any time for rebuttal. MR. YOVANOVICH: Just a couple of points that I wanted to make. There were some statements made by some of the neighbors and property owners that we took care of the sidewalks. We're building the sidewalks on Palm and Radio Lane. There was a comment about our residents being economically challenged. That's not, in fact, the case. What we're talking about is providing housing to people at a certain price point in the upper 200,000s, the lower 300,000. Those are the young professional families that Collier County has been trying to provide housing to. I was thinking back to when I moved here 27 years ago and bought my first house. I was an assistant county attorney. And my wife worked at Florida -- oops, sorry -- Edison at the time. I think we made a combined income of $60,000, and we moved into Berkshire Lakes. And our first house was $139,000. We were certainly not economically challenged when we bought that house, but that was the price points that you could realistically expect for a young professional family. You don't have those price points in Collier County anymore. When we're saying we're trying to deliver houses in the upper twos and lower threes so we can accommodate young professionals, nurses, doctors, firefighters, police officers, sheriff's deputies -- we've been told time and again by the different June 1, 2017 Page 61 of 79 employers of this community, please find a way to deliver that product, and we're trying to deliver that product. And we're not doing it with substandard or below-standard infrastructure in our community. Our longest street in our community is 450 feet. You're not going to speed and go really fast on a road that's only 450 feet. We're going to post the speed limit at 15 miles per hour. Most people will go a little bit over that. We get it, but you're not going to go that much over it in a 450-foot time period. You're just not going to do it. What we have proposed and what the testimony from the experts have been is that the inverted crown is safe from a driving standpoint, and it will meet all of the required drainage standards for the county and the Water Management District. It is not substandard. It is different. That doesn't make it substandard. It makes it a little bit more economical, and we will be required through our Water Management District permitting to make sure we have a plan in place to keep those drainage grates open and operating, and we will meet that, and we will address what has been identified as a maintenance issue that's different with one drain versus two drains. So we will address that through our maintenance plan. The ultimate irony of this in my mind is I have a project that's approved for 172 condo units today, and in those 172 condo units I could serve them with drive aisles with inverted crowns. I'm asking you to let me reduce my density to 88 and still serve them with inverted crown roads. How is that a bad thing? We think we are serving the community by coming in and reducing density. If you look back at the minutes for this project, the neighbors wanted single-family next to them. They ended up with multifamily next to them. And we're trying to accommodate their original request in a manner that makes the project economically feasible. We believe that our project and our one requested deviation that is in dispute with staff -- we request that the Planning Commission forward it to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval, including the requested deviation for the inverted crown. This is a small, 44-unit subdivision with short, low-speed roads. It does not set a precedent that every project that comes in before you is now entitled to a deviation for an inverted crown. It is simply not the law. And I'm sure Ms. Ashton will tell you that just because you give a deviation on this project because of the unique circumstances about it being small with small roads doesn't mean you have to give it on other projects in Collier County. We have to justify every -- every time we ask for a deviation, we have to justify it. Now, there are a few deviations that have become standard deviations, like the 50-foot-wide road right-of-way, but for whatever reason, despite my asking and begging, nobody will change the Land Development Code to just make it the standard deviation that has become standard. But just because you approve this deviation because it's different doesn't mean that every project in Collier County will go to an inverted crown road system. DR Horton is a reputable builder. They already build in Collier County. They build at all different price ranges, and they're going to come in and do a nice job and build a nice community that Collier County will be proud of. And we request approval of our project as submitted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Before we close the public hearing and go into discussion, is there any other questions of anybody at this time from this board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Close the public hearing. And it's for discussion; it's for the panel. I don't know how you want to approach this, so I'm certainly open to suggestions from anybody. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm going to just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I know the inverted crown drainage is a significant issue of discussion. If I were managing that community or on the board of the HOA, I'd prefer to have a crown and valley gutter for maintenance purposes. Just because -- I don't have the data to show it, but just from my assessment, I believe that the inverted drainage would create more of a problem from a standpoint of life cycle of the surface because just -- because it's inherent with the design. You have water in the middle of the road. They're going to have to design to make sure that the subbase is adequate to run off water so you don't June 1, 2017 Page 62 of 79 have a buildup of water to cause undermining of the surface of the base of the road. But I look at it from the standpoint, if it's that's their preference, that that's the consumer that's going to go in there and look at that design of the road. They're going to make a decision whether they're going to buy a house there. I don't think it's setting a precedence. I don't think that, given the length of the road, it is that significant of an issue. I'm indifferent. I don't like it, but I am willing to support the recommendation for deviation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just going to voice my concern to counter yours at this point. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Good, as I expected. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I am not going to support Deviation 2, and I will not support either one of these PUDs going forward with that deviation still as part of the PUD. First of all, it is -- I believe it does impose on health/safety concerns. It negatively impacts the health/safety of the residents that live there. It prevents -- the access during high waters where we have a clear crown of the road to drive down and the water flowing to both sides is much safer than trying to maneuver a road with water down the middle in this limited area on both sides, no matter how deep or shallow it is. It reduces the drainage standards that are needed for this project by having dual exits for the water. If one catch basin fills up and it can flow to the other is redundancy. We have redundancy in a lot of our government institutions. They're good. They're for protection of the people. Look at our utility system. We had a gentleman here years ago who built in multiple redundancies. Now, maybe sometimes we do a lot, but at least a couple here would be helpful. The "we" that is going to maintain this, these catch basins and make sure they function like they're supposed to, since they are the singular exit to the property, who is that "we"? It ain't the developer. He's just going to pass it on to the other folks that move into the facility. They're going to have to guess. Now, they're consumers. If you're a consumer, you drive down a road, do you know it's any different than the road that you might drive down somewhere else? You're not looking at the road. You're looking at that new house you're going to buy. I don't think people are going to realize the differences between these road systems. As far as affordability, they've offered nothing to say this is an affordable project. Oh, we're going to be affordable market rate. Well, so is every other project that starts out, unless you're in Pelican Bay in Collier County. The previous plan was for an SDP in a multifamily project that would be served by driveways. This is not similar to that previous plan. The previous plan would have been a private driveway system. This is a road system. I don't see a gate there. It's not going to be blocked off for public driving in there. So it's not like a private driveway system, as the County Engineer had indicated, that it relies on parking along both sides of it and, therefore, they go to the catch basins to help alleviate the flooding on those sides. And I do believe it sets a precedent. Not necessarily one we're bound to, but one we hear arguments for constantly. And, yes, they become standard. The applicant representative just admitted that. I can't see doing that again. And since he had very clearly said that there is no precedence on these deviations, we might want to take a second look at deviations, all of them coming forward in the future for any project in this county. So I certainly will not support this project as long as that deviation stays in, and I cannot support the deviation. Now, as far as the other issues that were brought up that may want to be added to this particular -- if there is a recommendation for approval, the PUD changes, of course, that were read into record, the narrowest area of combination buffer lake and preserve is to be no less than 204 feet with a vegetation area no less than 52 feet and -- well, they're going to do the sidewalks, and Mike attested to that. So those are the only other points that I made. Overall, I thought this was a better project because of the zoning that was being reduced. The intensity in the roads are being reduced. For those reasons, it's good. But I can't overcome this new deviation, and I can't go there. So that's my thoughts on it. June 1, 2017 Page 63 of 79 Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mark, I have the same thing because of the inverted road. I know how -- when people get company how they park. I also know what happens to the bituminous at the end. I see it even if there's valley gutters. So this is happening. And you're right; when it goes to the HOA and the developer's out of there, it's not good. So I will not support this deviation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have two concerns which have been well expressed by the two previous speakers and they are, first of all, the economics. Now, I wouldn't vote against this based upon the economic concern because that's, I don't think, within our purview. But in point of fact, it seems to me that the savings that might be brought about to the developer by using the inverted roads will result in a greater down-the-road cost of maintenance that will be borne by the HOA. Again, I wouldn't have voted against it for that reason, but I have to make that observation. Also, I am very concerned about the precedential value and the precedential effect of this action that we're being asked to take with respect to the deviation. And I haven't been on this commission for a long time, but I have seen some of what has happened with the 60 feet right-of-way becoming 50 feet, and I find that troublesome. I'll turn to Heidi. And maybe this is not a fair question to ask. But would you have a word or two that you might say with respect to the precedential value that we could expect that such a decision would have on future ability of this commission to deny such a deviation? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I can answer it partly based on my observations. I will note that, yes, it is evaluated each time the deviation comes to this board with future PUDs; however, I've seen staff acquiesce to changes in deviations once they see it approved by the CCPC. So I would expect there would be no staff opposition once this type of deviation is approved for future projects. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. Last point I want to make: No evidence was offered with respect to the cost delta, the difference in cost between inverted versus conventional. And, of course, the developer's not obligated to offer that kind of information, but it would have, I think, perhaps, been persuasive to overcome a -- the arguments that had been made against it if the cost difference were considerable, because we know that the county commissioners, as a matter of policy, want to encourage more affordable housing particularly for the police officers, firefighters, and others who work here in this community. And so I personally would have found that information helpful in getting over the concerns I have with respect to this deviation. I'm not going to be able to support it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well, it's made me uncomfortable -- valley gutters have made me uncomfortable since I read it. But since there doesn't seem like there would be support, I would be fine going that way. But I do want to commend them for the sidewalks that they're putting in on both sides of the road on the Palm Springs road and Radio Lane with the bus stop pad, ADA bus stop pad. That's very commendable of you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? If not -- Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'm just trying to remember some of my numbers. You come up at a .3 percent for 300 feet, and then you go down at a .3 percent for 300 feet in the valley gutters? Is that about right, Mike? MR. PAPPAS: (Nods head.) COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: So your catch basins are about 600 feet apart. And your longest stretch of road is 400 feet. So I don't see where you're saving that much. But I'm ambivalent. I've seen inverted crown in multifamily projects throughout the county, and you even saw pictures of it. Like I said, I wouldn't do it. But I don't think they're saving a lot of money. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I have to agree. I don't know. I'm not going to do the cost analysis, but I would have to agree. I talked to Jack during lunch about it as well, and I don't know where they're saving money. I think if I could make a motion to move this forward, I'd make a motion that we approve June 1, 2017 Page 64 of 79 this -- these two petitions. We can state each one -- with the recommendation of denial to move it forward and pass this off to the Board of County Commissioners and let them make a decision whether they want to approve the deviation. I hate to kick it down the road that way, but that's the way the staff recommended it, and I recommend we approve it based on staff's recommendation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With the other stipulations that were -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes, with the other stipulations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- acknowledged. The applicant is not withdrawing the deviation. That means if we approve it with stipulations, it still gets, potentially -- well, there's people here. Hopefully, they'll show up at the next meeting. But I want to make sure this doesn't stay on any kind of consent or summary without being in the -- for general discussion. So I'm still going to oppose the project so that will at least keep it into the process so the Board will have an open discussion on it all at that point. I don't like this deviation from the get-go. I told Mr. Yovanovich that when I first met with him, and it's just not going to fly. Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. For the record, Ray Bellows. The -- because of the public opposition, it would never go on the summary agenda anyways. And you can recommend approval subject to the denial of deviation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So staff -- there's no way it's going to go on summary? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It will be an open discussion. Okay. Well, that would help. So, Mr. Schmitt, you made a motion to recommend approval of PL20160002564 with the PUD changes read into record, the changes to the text as noted during the presentation, which are the changes of the text noted during the presentation and discussion with the staff recommendations including denial of Deviation No. 2, and the narrowest buffers in lake preserve area will be 204 feet, and the narrowest vegetation area will be 52 feet. Is that -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- a summary of where you're at? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second, Ned. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: No. As long as Deviation 2 is not -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Deviation 2 is recommended for denial. Okay. I'll call that again. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? June 1, 2017 Page 65 of 79 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. Mr. Schmitt, are you going to make a motion for PUDA-PL20160002565 under the same conditions? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes, same conditions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for your time today. We appreciate it. And this will go to the Board of County Commissioners where it will be debated somewhat by them as well, so... MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Mr. Chair, it does also say in the staff report that you're also sitting as the EAC, so we do need a separate vote for that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. I didn't think it did. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It's no EAC. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: She's got it in the staff report that they are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Summer, is this an EAC case? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I don't think it should be. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I wrote it down on both of them that it said it's not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, it's not. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. It says it under the recommendations, so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, let's take a break till 2:30, and then we'll resume at that time. (A brief recess was had, Scott Stone is now present at counsel table, and Chairman Strain is absent for the remainder of the meeting.) MR. BOSI: Chair, we have a live mike. ACTING CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Thank you. ***Next item up is 9G. PDI-PL20160000404, Wolf Creek. Anybody wishing to speak on this item, would you please stand and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) ACTING CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: And disclosures? We'll start with Tom. MR. EASTMAN: No disclosures other than those in the public record. ACTING CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I talked to an attorney named Bruce Anderson, I think. ACTING CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I talked to Bruce Anderson. ACTING CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: They're remembering. Yes, staff and Bruce Anderson and the emails also. ACTING CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: And I spoke to Mr. Anderson. June 1, 2017 Page 66 of 79 And, Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I spoke to Mr. Anderson as well. ACTING CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. So we'll hear from the petitioner, the staff, and then we'll have the speakers. Go ahead. MR. ANDERSON: Good afternoon, Madam Chairman. My name is Bruce Anderson from the Cheffy Passidomo law firm. With me today are the other members of the project team: Jim Carr, the Project Engineer from Agnoli, Barber & Brundage; and Kim Schlachta, the Environmental Consultant from Boylan Environmental. This application is for an insubstantial change to the Wolf Creek PUD master plan to reconfigure a preserve area on the last two unbuilt parcels in the entire PUD. Development has been completed on the rest of the 189-acre PUD. This project is located on the north side of Vanderbilt Beach Road just west of its intersection with Collier Boulevard. This PUD was last amended by others in 2013 to add additional property, and at that time the amount of required preserve was increased to 34.26 acres. This unsubstantial PUD change does not change that 34.26-acre preserve requirement, and this project remains in compliance with that. The Wolf Creek PUD states that the proposed area, lot, and land use boundaries on the PUD master plan are conceptual in nature, shall not be construed to be final, and may be amended from time to time. In compliance with that language, the applicant requests an amendment of the conceptual preserve area only on the last two unbuilt parcels in the PUD. This requested change does change the conceptual preserve acreage originally shown on the PUD master plan on these last two parcels from seven acres to three acres. But, again, the overall PUD preserve requirement remains unchanged. The only change here is going to be a new preserve exhibit, which I've got on the overhead, and it only affects those two unbuilt parcels. Staff is recommending approval, and we respectfully request that you join them in that recommendation. We're available if you have any questions. ACTING CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Thank you. Any questions for -- Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: On the visualizer, you said these two parcels. Show the two parcels, just for clarity. Okay, good. I want to make sure that we're -- that -- ACTING CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Anybody else? Nothing? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I have no issues, no questions. ACTING CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Was this part of another parcel and it was taken over? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. This is the back half of a project that was started called Portofino. It fell upon hard times, and this land was supposed to be the second half of the Portofino project. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. And are you switching these because of a road coming through here? I'm seeing kind of like a road come through on the eastern side. Or is that road already there? MR. ANDERSON: I think all the roads are in place. COMMISSIONER EBERT: All the roads are already in place. Okay. Thank you. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. ACTING CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Nothing? No questions? Mike, do you have any -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Staff report. MR. BOSI: Thank you, Chair. And on the visualizer I just put a representation from Google Earth. And as you can see, the property in question is just below the abbreviated clearing portion that just sits to the west of the development that's on the left-hand side of the screen. That -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Can you use your mouse to highlight that? Are you able to do that as you point? Okay, good. That's what we're looking at. Thank you. MR. BOSI: And I will note there is opposition to this planned PDI from members within the Black Bear Ridge subdivision, which is -- just sits to the east of the proposal over here. June 1, 2017 Page 67 of 79 As Mr. Anderson pointed out, the conceptual site plan that is just in that conceptual has the ability to be amended from time to time. The last time it was amended was 2013 and noted that the preserve requirement was designated at 34.26 acres. This PDI does not change that requirement. It does change the amount of preserve being allocated to the parcels in 3B, and Parcel 9 reconfigures it and reduces it by four acres. But it still will allow the PUD to be in compliance with the overall preserve requirements. The concerns from the individual from Black Bear was that if we do go down and allow for this PDI to move forward, then this would potentially impact their ability to utilize the preserves on their location in a passive -- and the passive recreational opportunities that are extended to the individual preserves. But per the code, the applicant is within his rights to seek the modification to the master plan and the preserve allocations, and as long as they're maintaining the minimums for the overall PUD, that's how we view -- that's how comprehensive planning and zoning staff would review the request. And based upon that, we are recommending a recommendation of approval with a condition that the revised preserve master plan exhibit that Mr. Anderson has put on will be associated with the zoning action. And I did want to mention, this is a PDI. Traditionally within the process, a PDI would go to either the HEX, the Hearing Officer's Office, or the CCPC, and that would be the final action that would be needed for a PDI, because a PDI is not -- is considered a change that's not adding uses, not adding height, not adding intensity to the Planned Unit Development. There has been some discussion amongst the process internally with the County Attorney's Office, the Clerk's Office as to whether that was still the appropriate manner to move forward with a PDI. In an abundance of caution, we are now going to have all PDIs that are heard by the HEX or the CCPC placed on the agenda of the Board of County Commissioners so the Board of County Commissioners can at least affirm the action that's being requested within the PDI. So this will be our first test case for moving the PDI forward. It's an action that's -- the signatory action is with the Chair of the Planning Commission, but it does -- will require it to be affirmed by the Board of County Commissioners. And with that, I could open myself to any questions that you may have. ACTING CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Thank you. Any questions for Mike? Anybody? No. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No questions. ACTING CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Do you have any registered speaks, or are they -- MR. BELLOWS: The first speaker is Bev Smith. MS. SMITH: Good afternoon. My name is Beverly Smith -- that's S-m-i-t-h -- and I am a full-time resident at Black Bear Ridge located to the east parcels that are in question with this application. I'm here to say that any reduction to the preserve located in Parcels 3B and 9 of the Wolf Creek PUD will constitute a special privilege to this developer. The only reason for the request of the reduction to his parcels is to accommodate a proposed townhome development consisting of 214 dwelling units. At the developer's own admission, they currently do not have access to that number of dwelling units within their parcels, and that is in accordance with a cost-share agreement between the existing developers of the PUD. Reducing the preserve in the PUD is not required to develop a community consisting of dwelling units currently assigned to the developer, which number is approximately 104. To try and incorporate a high-density community will not only reduce the PUD reserve to an absolutely minimum but is not in keeping with the intent of the planned residential PUD as provided by the county. Should this proposed development be permitted, there will be a minimal green space around these row homes and minimal green space for the common areas. The developer has a community a few miles away that will be the basis for the Vanderbilt Reserve. These homes have little or no front yards, minimal rear yards, and minimal driveway standards. They are stucco and wood structures with a few bushes and minimal amount of trees. Eliminating his four acres of preserve will only add to diminish any green space to this community. I strongly urge the planning board to reject the application based on the fact that it is not required to develop an acceptable community within the PUD standards, and it will also bring the total reserve area of the PUD to the absolute minimum, thus not allowing any future passive recreational use of preserves to any of the June 1, 2017 Page 68 of 79 existing developments, and it will constitute a special privilege to this developer. Thank you. ACTING CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Ray? Next speaker. MR. BELLOWS: Oh. Marc Allen. MR. ALLEN: Good afternoon. My name is Marc Allen, A-l-l-e-n. I just want to talk a little bit about the history of how this was brought in and the preserves. The bulk of this was originally not part of the Wolf Creek PUD, and it was brought in in 2007, and this is Parcel No. 9, and it had been referred to as the Medarose (phonetic) property. And when it was brought in in 2007, it was approved for 80 additional dwelling units. So for a density of four. And if you look at part of the master plan, a large section of that was preserved jurisdictional wetland. Okay. So in 2013, there was a amendment to the Wolf Creek PUD where the development of Palermo Cove and Raffia -- there was discussion, you know, should part of Wolf Creek go into Palermo or should Palermo come down into Wolf Creek having something to do with access through Wolf Road and Pristine. I don't understand all of that. But it was decided to bring a portion of Palermo Cove down into the Wolf Creek PUD. And when they brought that down, there was a section, a little thumb that you can see of green up around the Raffia development that was preserve. That was preserve, and it was designated preserve because it was part of Southwest Florida Management -- Water Management. But when it was brought in, although it had been preserve under Palermo Cove, it was subjected to the 25 percent assessment of native vegetation. So they took that six or seven acres, applied the 25 percent to it and came up with a smaller amount of native vegetation that was added to the native vegetation that was a minimum requirement in the Wolf Creek PUD, thus resulting in excess preserve. So that excess preserve has been identified by an outside developer and so we can decrease native vegetation and put in more housing units. That's basically what's going on here. So just as a Collier County resident -- I live here in Collier County. You know, I'd just be concerned about, why do we want to give up preserve. We're short on green space. We're seeing lots of development. Do we need to do that? Okay. Now, they have a right to request this because the PUD language, there's a certain minimum native vegetation, so this could be decreased. So they certainly can do that. But one of the abilities in the PUD for Wolf Creek is that you can develop your preserve for certain passive uses; passive recreation. You could put a boardwalk in, nature walk, those sort of things. But you can't -- in order to do some of those things, you have to take out native vegetation; otherwise, you can't put a boardwalk in. If there's no excess native vegetation, nobody can develop their preserves. So if this is granted, that excess vegetation would be removed and there would be no excess. So none of the other developments in the Wolf Creek PUD would be allowed to develop their preserves for passive recreational uses according to the Land Development Code or according to the PUD ordinance. So that would be a grant of special privilege to the developer, and we would lose our right to be able to do that. Just one other point with respect to preserves and the developments in Wolf Creek. To the best of my knowledge, the average preserve for the different developments, Black Bear Ridge, Raffia, Portofino, is about 18 percent. Some are more, some are a little less. If they are granted this decrease in preserve for this area that would be Vanderbilt Reserve, their preserve would be about 9 percent. So that would be about half of what the average preserve for the rest of the developments would be. And, again, you know, if the development plan for this is high-density multifamily with, like, 214 units with some of them nine units per -- like a row-house-type development, there wouldn't be a whole lot of space there for families or children to do anything. I mean, a better use for them would be to develop their preserve (sic) and leave the preserve. Thank you. ACTING CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: The last speaker, Terrie Abrams. June 1, 2017 Page 69 of 79 MS. ABRAMS: Good afternoon. My name is Terrie Abrams, A-b-r-a-m-s, a full-time resident of Naples, Florida, and I'm here to oppose reducing the number of preserve acres on the property in question. These guys have said it all, right? Why do we want to get rid of any more preserves when we have panthers running through there and bears running through there? And it's not needed. So there's no necessity for doing this. There's -- they have plenty of space. They only can build a hundred units, and it's going to eliminate us from ever doing anything with our preserves. So they're really taking away our right to install our passive recreational usage. And Marc talked about some of the percentages. So we have 18 percent of preserves; Raffia has 26 percent; Portofino has 16 percent. And it does take them down to 9 percent, and I'm hoping the staff report got corrected to reflect those numbers. I know there was a math error in that. And I'm also assuming that you guys have received our petitions and our letters from our homeowners. ACTING CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Yes. MS. ABRAMS: So please don't grant this reduction of preserves based on preventing us from exercising our rights in an unproven need. Thank you. ACTING CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: No other speakers. ACTING CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Does anybody else wish to speak that didn't get a chance? (No response.) ACTING CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I have a question. Is anybody from staff here to talk about preserves? I thought I saw -- oh, Summer, you're here. You can talk preserves. MS. ARAQUE: For the record, Summer Araque, Environmental Planning. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Summer, I guess the first question, with the -- as far as the preserve requirements, this will meet the minimum requirements? MS. ARAQUE: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And there's no mechanism for us to -- other than to stipulate that we could force them to exceed the minimum unless they choose to do so? Can we force them to exceed the minimum? MS. ARAQUE: That would probably be a question for your County Attorney's Office. Our review showed that they are meeting code and reconfiguring the preserve. There's no prohibition in the code against that, as stated in the staff report. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm not clear as to -- what I heard from the residents is they want us to force them to exceed the minimum. And other than the developer volunteering to exceed the minimum, there's nothing we can do to make them exceed the minimum, is that correct, or am I wrong? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, the way staff analyzed it is that the roughly 29 acres of preserve is required for the entire PUD and, therefore, there's no additional preserve required; however, in order to go forward they have to amend their plan to remove the preserve. So if they don't amend the preserve master plan then, technically, they're required to preserve more. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Understand that, yes. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: So I think the area that -- the answer is a little bit hazy in that there's a visual depiction of some additional preserves. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: So I think you could go either way, frankly. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, let me -- what is this preserve criteria I've heard about -- additional preserve for development of passive recreation? I'm not clear. MS. ARAQUE: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You can't develop preserve. That's what I've heard three times; they say it takes away our right to develop preserve. Well, you don't -- preserve is a preserve. You don't develop June 1, 2017 Page 70 of 79 preserve. MS. ARAQUE: I'll explain that. But first, for the record, the minimum preserve requirement for this PUD is 34.26 acres. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. MS. ARAQUE: Okay. In regards to the passive recreational uses that they're referring to, the LDC does allow certain passive recreational uses. Pathways is one. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. MS. ARAQUE: And in order to put in a pathway, you cannot take away from the minimum requirement. So if you're at your minimum and you want to put in a pathway, you pretty much can't put that pathway in because that cannot count towards your preserve requirement. You have to have extra preserve in order to put that pathway in. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Understand. MS. ARAQUE: We do make certain exceptions for boardwalks because you can still have wildlife and plants underneath those. Does that answer your question? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes, you did. So basically, to understand what I've heard, the additional preserve is -- what they want is to retain the additional preserve so that eventually they can create some passive recreation within the preserves? MS. ARAQUE: Correct. So for the other developments that are not within these parcels being amended, those developments, in the future if they wanted to put a pathway in, would not be able to. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, let me -- Mike, does the PUD require -- is there a requirement in the PUD for passive recreation in the preserves? Does it state that requirement, or was that something that was -- MR. BOSI: It's stated that it's an opportunity. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Opportunity. MR. BOSI: Those are permitted -- those are uses that are allowed within the preserve. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I understand. MR. BOSI: There's no mandate that it has to be provided. There's no mandate that it couldn't be provided either. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. You answered my question. ACTING CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Anybody else have anything? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Will there be a rebuttal? ACTING CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Would you like -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Rebuttal, yeah. MR. ANDERSON: Just very briefly. I would point out that the preserve areas that are platted on Black Bear Ridge are subject to conservation easements which have their own restrictions on what can occur. It may be similar to what's in the Land Development Code. But before they could do anything, they're going to have to address the conservation easement requirements. And part of it reads, the conservation easements may, in no way, be altered from its natural or permitted state. But as Mr. Bosi or Mr. Bellows said, if they wanted to do an aboveground boardwalk, that might be something that the county would permit. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Bruce, I have a question for you -- MR. ANDERSON: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER EBERT: -- just -- how many units are going to go in here? You have not brought that forward yet? MR. ANDERSON: No. That's not at issue. We're not changing the density in any way. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Bruce -- MR. ANDERSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- the point was made a couple of times that our approval of this proposal would amount to a grant of special privilege. Do you have a comment on that? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, I do. It's a Land Development Code requirement and option that we June 1, 2017 Page 71 of 79 comply with completely. There's no grant of special privilege when you're complying with the code. We're not asking for a deviation from the code. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. ACTING CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Anybody else? Nothing? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I make a motion to approve based on staff's recommendation. I didn't hear any other stipulations or requirements. So based on staff recommendations, I make a motion to approve and pass this to the Board of County Commissioners. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'll second. ACTING CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. ACTING CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. ACTING CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Opposed, like sign. (No response.) ACTING CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Thank you. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. ACTING CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: ***Okay. The next item is 9H. It's PDI-PL201600003463, Pelican Lake PUD. Are we all set? Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Recommend approval. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. ACTING CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Anybody wishing to speak on this item, please stand to be sworn in by the court reporter. ACTING CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Disclosures. Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: No, none on this one. ACTING CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: None. ACTING CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: None. ACTING CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: I had nothing. Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Just for the record, I was one of the residents notified of the zoning because I live within the radius. MS. GUNDLACH: Five hundred. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: In Fiddler's Creek, a street called Mulberry, so I'm within -- is it now 500 feet? Five hundred feet. But I did not attend the neighborhood information meeting because I'm well aware of this -- the history of this development, so it was not an issue. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I also remember when this came forward. And Stan and I -- you wanted 350 square feet rather than 308 for these extra units. Stan and I thought you should have 350, and I understand why you're raising them for flood level. I don't really have a problem with this one at all. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Is his motion still on the floor? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I didn't finish it. I thought -- I was going to pass it to Diane. Make a motion. I make a motion that we approve based on the recommendation as proposed by staff. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'll second. ACTING CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. ACTING CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Aye. June 1, 2017 Page 72 of 79 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. ACTING CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Opposed, like sign. (No response.) ACTING CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Thanks for the report. MR. ADAMCZYK: Thank you. I never have had such a short presentation, but... COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, but they're big billable hours. You've been here all day, man. They're big billable hours. MR. ADAMCZYK: As attorney for the HOA, I greatly appreciate you taking the time to look at the materials, and have a great afternoon. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I couldn't believe when I read this thing; it was a height issue again. ACTING CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Yeah, I know. I know. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Boy, Karen you should run these. You go through them quickly. ACTING CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Oh, yeah. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. Why can't Mark do this? ACTING CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Mark Strain, you mean? I wonder if he's listening. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: He is. ACTING CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: ***Okay. The next item up is 9I, and it is BDE-PL20160000481. It's 254 6th Street West, boat dock extension. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Madam Chair, is there any reason why we can't do these together? MR. BELLOWS: These are adjacent boat docks. ACTING CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: They're two different ones. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Two separate petitions. ACTING CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Two separate petitions. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Same owner, isn't it? COMMISSIONER EBERT: No. ACTING CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Well, yes, but it's still -- MR. BELLOWS: They're the same owner; two different applications; two different lots. But they're -- they are in the same ownership, and they're kind of like the MAC and -- yeah, they're just side-by-side parcels. ACTING CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Well, I think we should do them separate, probably. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. But just for clarification -- well, I won't jump to that. That's fine. ACTING CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Is there -- anybody wishing to speak on this item, please stand to be sworn in by the court reporter. Will you stand up, sir. There you go. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) ACTING CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Any disclosures; Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: No. ACTING CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: No. ACTING CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: No. ACTING CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: None for me. Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: None for me. ACTING CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay, sir. MR. STOKES: For the record, my name is Brent Stokes. I'm the owner of Stokes Marine, Incorporated. We're the contractor that was contracted by the property owner for constructing the docks that are currently there and existing and also for representing them in today's process for the boat dock extension. I want to start off by thanking staff for their effort in putting this application together. Having read the staff reports, I agree wholeheartedly with staff's recommendation and, not to be funny, but maybe we can set another record here on these two, at least the second one. June 1, 2017 Page 73 of 79 They are very similar applications, as you guys will see. It's going to be similar positions and similar points that will be made of interest. Just for the record, during the time of application, the two properties were owned by the same owner. One of the properties has since closed, and they are two different owners currently. ACTING CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Oh, okay. Thank you. MR. STOKES: One other thing I'd like to point out is I do have some -- I do have an additional exhibit that was put together and prepared based on some of the feedback from the neighboring concerns. So I'm anticipating a couple concerns there and have an additional exhibit to share with you guys today. ACTING CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Thank you. Do you have staff report? MS. BEASLEY: Yes. Rachel Beasley, for the record, Senior Planner. A staff report was submitted, and staff is recommending approval contingent on the CO of the house, which it sounds like it was currently now. ACTING CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Is there any questions from anybody? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Rachel, in the material we received, there is an overhead image, aerial image showing two red L-shaped figures that are supposed to be the slips, the docks. My question is, are they to scale? MS. BEASLEY: I believe the red -- I'm not looking at the exact. It looks like it's probably taken from the Appraiser's website and, more than likely, superimposed -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah, I think -- MS. BEASLEY: -- so probably not. I think that was just to kind of give a general overview of where they were in relation to each other. COMMISSIONER FRYER: There is a dock, I guess it's to the west, to the left, that extends out farther than these two red Ls. And so my question -- my question is, is that we can't say categorically from this image that they're going in next to one that already extends farther out into the canal; is that correct? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Excuse me. Madam Chair? ACTING CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Yes. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I'm sorry to interrupt. But we do need clarification on the ownership since the applicant's representative has indicated that there is a change in ownership. Is it for the first application or the second application? MR. STOKES: It is for the -- it is for 258. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. So we'll address it at the next. So sorry to interrupt. The next application. MS. BEASLEY: Okay. So you meant the -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Can you put that as an overhead, that picture? MS. BEASLEY: Sure. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. That image argues in favor of the petition. MR. STOKES: May I address that? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Please. MR. STOKES: Yes, sir, it is to scale. COMMISSIONER FRYER: It is to scale. MR. STOKES: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: All right. So they're going in next to a dock that already extends out farther. MR. STOKES: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Thank you. ACTING CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Anybody else have any questions? (No response.) ACTING CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: We have one speaker. Did he register? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. One speaker; Roger Miller. MR. STONE: Madam Vice-Chair, there are exhibits that the gentleman would like to pass out. June 1, 2017 Page 74 of 79 Would you like to accept those? ACTING CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Yes, please. MR. MILLER: My name is Roger Miller. It's M-i-l-l-e-r. I'm currently the acting president of the Dolphin Cove Homeowners Association. Robert Mantle, who's the president, had multiple heart attacks and is now in rehabilitation, so he couldn't be here today, and he made me acting president, okay. I'm full-time employed, you know. I'm a CPA, and I operate from my home. I work on an average of a hundred hours a week even though I'm 85 years old. I tell everybody I'm the biggest failure at retirement you ever heard of, okay. We -- the only -- we don't have a real issue with the expansion of the dock on Lot 21, okay. We do on Lot 20 because, as you can see, this is -- the mangroves that you see here is the out-grove of the -- of Robert Mantle's property, okay. If you make the assumption that the posts on the dock at Lot 20 are 10 feet across because the petition says that the dock already is 20 feet -- MR. STONE: Madam Vice Chair, I don't mean to interrupt. It appears that you're referring to the second item, Lot 20, which would be the next agenda item. We're currently discussing Lot 21. It's up to you if you'd like to hear that now, but it might be more helpful if you wait until we go through the next item. MR. MILLER: Okay. But my comments relate to both petitions. MR. STONE: Okay, okay. MR. MILLER: Okay? If you assume that the -- that there would be a 12-and-a-half-foot extension to lot number -- the dock on Lot No. 20, and most of the people on our street have boats that have a 10-foot width, it would extend the use of the waterway by 13 plus 10 feet, which would be 23-and-a-half feet, okay. I don't have a ruler to measure how far the distance is from the dock now to the mangroves, okay, but even at 23-and-a-half feet, it doesn't leave any room for two-way traffic on the street, which -- and as you can tell from Page 2, that you really have to come in on the left side of the waterway to even see if there's anybody coming in the opposite direction down the street because you can't see until the last minute if somebody's coming out if you're coming in, okay. So we don't have as much of an objection to Lot 21 as we do to 20 even though you'll see from Page 3 there's oyster beds in the whole area back of Robert Mantle's home. Okay. So it prevents you coming in from the left side. You have to come in on the far right-hand turn to get into the street. Okay. And so the -- all our property assessments on our street is based on having direct gulf access, you know, because the street leads out to Little Hickory Bay, and across the bay is the Barefoot Beach development which allows all of us to have access to Wiggins Pass. Okay. If you virtually close off to some extent, you know, the access to the pass because we can't -- it's very difficult to get out of the street, it substantially reduces our property values because that's what our assessments at the county are based on, having direct access by boat to the gulf. A lot of us have tried in the past to have our docks extended to where we could have larger boats, but nobody has ever been able to get a county submission to even be considered, so none of us on our street understand how this petition has ever gotten to this stage because none of us have ever been able to get this far. And that's about the extent of my comments. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Could I tell you something, sir? Up here. MR. MILLER: Sure. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I've been looking on Google Earth, and the distance from where it necks down to -- the mangroves you're talking about to the existing dock with the house with the red roof, that distance is 54 feet, but the distance from the mangroves to the seawall is 83 feet. Google Earth has a measure function. I guess they could pop that up on the computer if they want to see what I'm talking about. The existing dock out there sticks out; that one that Ned was talking about sticks out 37 feet. And the waterway starts widening up there. I can't see where you're going to have a problem with these. MR. MILLER: It widens up, sir, but where it widens up, that's all oyster beds. You can't go in that direction or the boat will get stuck. One of the homeowners got stuck there, and Sea Tow charged them $800 to pull them out of there. June 1, 2017 Page 75 of 79 I mean, I don't know if Google is correct or not, Stan, but it doesn't look like there's 54 feet here on this picture. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I've measured stuff off Google before, and they are amazingly accurate. I don't know how they do it. But Google is up on that -- MR. STOKES: I have a survey, a scaled survey. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. Let's have it. MR. STOKES: You guys have it, too. It's in your staff report Labeled AV-3. Okay. And this exhibit is the same thing that you're seeing in AV-3, but I've taken it a step farther. Okay. A, I put the water depths in a white color to make it more legible. But we had a surveyor go out to both properties, licensed surveyor do what's called a bathymetric survey, and he shot the elevations of the bottom of the canal floor or mouth to the bay all the way across from where the existing docks are, because those two docks that are shown as proposed in these pictures, as you all know from the staff report, are currently built and already approved. Okay. So we had him on 10-foot intervals; each one of those horizontal, for lack of a better term, lines is spaced 10 feet apart. And you see two depth measurements there. One is the depth measurement at the time of his measurements, and one is the depth measurements relative to mean low tide. He referenced mean low tide's elevation as stated from Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and he has that note on the survey. I have with me as well, if you are interested in seeing it, the actual survey not overlaid on the aerial that was done by my in-house CAD department. But the point is is that you've got from -- and, again, I don't know if you want to talk about this one now, but this is the property that's closer to the canal. You've got right around 80 feet from where our proposed boat lift will be to the mangroves directly across the canal, and you can scale that on Google Earth. You can count that -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Google Earth said 83 feet, so it's close, yeah. MR. STOKES: Okay. Pretty darn close. All right. The point I would like to make from a navigation standpoint is two things. One is related to water depth. The gentleman has suggested that there is shallow water to consider close to the mangrove hedge that you see on the opposite side of the waterway. Okay. Instead of just me saying it's deep or him saying it's shallow, we've got the documentation right in front of you. It's in your staff report. It's on the screen. You can see exactly what the water depths are. And on the left set of measurements you've got eight feet of water at the time, so you're going to be 7.4, eight feet, eight feet, okay. Those are right at the mangrove shoreline. And then as -- that's right where the list is itself. As we come closer to the entrance of the canal and closer to the edge of the existing dock, you've still got over four feet at the time of measurement and close to four feet at mean low tide. Okay. So you guys see that in your staff report. You see it on the screen here now. As far as navigation goes, my suggestion is is that our proposed boat lifts, with the installation of the current docks, does not restrict the room that is left for navigation any more than the canal itself does. And I'm showing you that on the screen here with this additional exhibit. And to document that point, I'd like to show you two things. I struck a line from the dock here all the way to the dock here. As you can see, I struck a straight line on there. Okay. Both of my boat lifts fall inside of that line. So my suggestion is is that one is not going to naturally navigate either into the canal or out of canal and clear the first dock, come inside, navigate down, fall in the curvature of the shoreline, and then have to navigate back out around this dock. Not to mention, we've already built these two docks. So, naturally, you can draw a point -- a straight line from Point A to Point B on the two docks that were there prior to our boat docks or prior to our BDE application today and miss our proposed boat lifts. Okay. Second point I'd like to make here is you see the two boats here, okay, there's less room right there than there is where we're proposing our boat lifts. Again, you can scale it out. You can see it's 20 to 40 feet less space. June 1, 2017 Page 76 of 79 To take it a step farther, I put a scale on those boat lifts, or sorry, on those boats. Those are 12-and-a-half-foot-wide boats; excessive for the width of the boats that are in that canal as you can measure on Google Earth on the existing boats that are in there. They're 35 feet in length. So from a navigation standpoint, my point is simple, that the water depth is there all the way up to the mangroves. It's documented with a bathymetric survey. The restriction on access or pinching or bottlenecking of access is less in the canal past our boat lifts than it is where our proposed boat lifts are; also evident from a scaled survey overlaid over top of the aerial. ACTING CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Thank you. MR. MILLER: Can I comment? ACTING CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: You can sit -- no, you've already spoke. You can sit down, please. MR. MILLER: Oh, I'm not allowed to comment again? ACTING CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: No. You already had your time. MR. MILLER: Oh. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Madam Chair, let me come at this a slightly different way. On Page 44 of the materials we received, the primary Criteria No. 2, whether the water depth at the proposed site is so shallow that a vessel of the general length, type, and draft as that described in petitioner's application is unable to launch. May I infer from that that if we did not grant this extension, it would severely limit the kind of boat that the owner of Lot 20 could have? MR. STOKES: Yes, sir. That's the very reason why we're here today. It's both lots, for that matter. We have a seagrass survey in your packet. We have the water depths in your packet. And the very reason that this design was selected, in coordination with the ownership and in coordination with our office team, was based on the water depth. I would have much rather submitted an application with our docks right against the seawall and put our boat lift in and stayed inside of 20 feet and not been here today. If it was that simple, we'd have done so. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So the issue is really whether or not the owner of Lot 20 gets to have a boat, at least a boat of any size? MR. STOKES: Sure. Had we built the docks up against the seawall, we have 20 feet to work with. The boat lift is relatively 13 feet. Okay. Had we built a 7-foot dock right against the seawall parallel with the seawall and not built this in an L shape, eliminating this access coming out and put the boat lift on the outside, I could have stayed within 20 feet, but I couldn't do so. There's not enough water depth right against the seawall. It's plain and simple. ACTING CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Yeah. You can see -- are you looking at Google Earth, Stan? The 3D and 2D one, the newest one? Yeah, you can see -- you can see real clearly the oyster bed and the buildup right next to the seawall on that. You can see -- MR. STOKES: You can see it clear as day. ACTING CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Yeah; amazing. MR. STOKES: And the bathymetric survey documents it as well. One other point I'd like to make is there was a comment that there was -- other BDEs had been applied for in the area and not obtained. Actually, the property right here applied for and obtained a BDE. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Which one? MR. STOKES: This property (indicating). It's out past 20 feet. You can verify that on Google yourself. My surveyor didn't do so. But it's out past 20 feet, and it's approved with a BDE, the very neighboring property. So there is a precedence of BDEs in the area being approved is my only point. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: It's about 36 or 37 feet long, the dock. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Point of -- ACTING CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Just -- MR. MILLER: I would like to say one more quick thing. The dock in this picture is the dock without the 13-and-a-half-foot extension. June 1, 2017 Page 77 of 79 ACTING CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Yes. MR. STOKES: The boat lifts are shown on there. You can see them in there. I've got the boat lifts, which are what we're asking for today. The docks that are drawn in the picture are the docks without the boat lifts. They're built; they're inspected; they're approved; they're behind us. What we're here for today is to request the approval of the BDE to allow for the boat lifts. And I do have the boat lifts in there, and both the proposed boat lifts and the existing docks and both lots fall inside the line that I struck from the neighboring docks on each side. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I understand the canal being -- MR. MILLER: This dock right here. ACTING CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Sir? MR. MILLER: It's the dock without the 13-and-a-half -- MR. BELLOWS: That's not the one. MR. STOKES: That's not my property. That's not the subject property. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Sir, this dock has the extension. This dock. That's the existing dock. MR. MILLER: I see; I see. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Do I understand correctly -- ACTING CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- that the houses here or the lots are in Lee County but the canal's in Collier? No? MR. MILLER: No, they're all in Lee -- they're all in Collier. ACTING CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Sir? Sir, you have to sit down now. MR. MILLER: Excuse me. ACTING CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: You have to sit down now, please. MR. MILLER: Oh, I'm sorry. ACTING CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Well, let's get back to the -- this is the Lot 21 that we're on. Is there any -- other questions or -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I have no questions. ACTING CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: -- anything? (No response.) ACTING CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Is anybody ready to make a motion or... COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I make a motion to approve based on the recommendation offered -- proffered by staff. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'll second. ACTING CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. ACTING CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. ACTING CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: All opposed, like sign. (No response.) ACTING CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER EBERT: You will give the County Attorney the new name on this because it's changed? ACTING CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: That's not this -- that's the next one. COMMISSIONER EBERT: That's next, okay. ACTING CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: That's the one we were talking about, but -- okay. ***Now this is 9J. This is BDE-PL20160001764. This is 258 6th Street West boat dock extension. And do they have to be sworn in again? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'll make a motion to approve. June 1, 2017 Page 78 of 79 ACTING CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. There's a different owner for this, though. We need to verify the owner? MR. STONE: Yes. The Property Appraiser's website actually still shows -- I think it's 258 Windover. When did this -- or I believe it's 258 Windover, LLC. When did the ownership change take place? MR. STOKES: I don't know the exact date. It was a day or two after the certificate of occupancy was issued. MR. STONE: How about -- how far back from today was it? Was it more than a week? MR. STOKES: A couple at most. MR. STONE: Okay. Sometimes there's a little lag time between the Property Appraiser's website being updated. If it is a different owner, I would advise Vice Chair to add a stipulation that they must provide evidence of the ownership and a new affidavit of authorization authorizing you to act as their agent. MR. STOKES: It was just brought to my attention. Both of the houses were listed for sale at their completion. It was just brought to my attention that one of them closed. It was a quick-closing cash buyer. ACTING CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: As a stipulation, or we can't vote on it? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, normally we do continue it until we have that information. Do you have any -- you know, any evidence you can provide today that you are here on behalf of the new owners? MR. STOKES: With me right now? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes. MR. STOKES: I do not. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Then I would say you have two options. One is you can continue it and do the vote then, but if you -- MR. STOKES: You could approve it with a condition that -- or I could represent them and there could be no one here to represent them. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, we don't have any authorization -- the issue is we don't have any authorization to proceed with the petition from the current owner. You applied -- you know, you applied for it on behalf of the prior owner, so that's what the issue is. If you're here saying, yes, you've spoken to the new owners and, yeah, you're here to represent them, then I would be okay with approving the petition, but it couldn't be signed or filed until they provide that authorization. MR. STOKES: I have no problem providing the written authorization, but I am not in a position to do so currently. I could provide it as early as tomorrow morning, but I don't have it right now. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I could withdraw my motion, or I could add what the attorney said. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: So if you want to approve it today -- it sounds like this is just a little slipup. You know, if you want to approve it today, we would say we wouldn't file until we received that information, and we'll give him two weeks to give that to us. If it doesn't come in, then the petition's withdrawn, and they'll have to resubmit or it's -- MR. STOKES: That would be very much appreciated. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. So you've got two weeks if that's the way you want to go. MR. STOKES: That's more than enough. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I do have a question. Were you representing the builder of these two new homes? MR. STOKES: Yes. I'm representing both at this point. But it's -- my representation started with the builder, yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. That's kind of what I was thinking, okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Or the builder who was the owner -- the property owner and builder? MR. STOKES: It was a spec home, and Windover hired a builder to build the home. So it -- I think I'm answering your question, what -- your intent of your question. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: And part of the reason I'm comfortable going forward is we're not actually June 1, 2017 Page 79 of 79 showing on the Property Appraiser records that ownership has transferred, so this is all a "he said, she said." We don't really know for sure. So that's why I would be okay going in that way. ACTING CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'll amend my motion to include the stipulation Heidi just listed. ACTING CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. And is there a second? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'll second. ACTING CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. ACTING CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. ACTING CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Opposed, like sign. (No response.) ACTING CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. MR. STOKES: Thank you. ACTING CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: You're welcome. Okay. We have no new business and no old business. Public comment? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Make a motion we adjourn. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Second -- third. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. ACTING CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. ******* There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:29 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION _____________________________________ MARK STRAIN, CHAIRMAN ATTEST DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on ____________, as presented ______ or as corrected ______. TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC.