Loading...
CCPC Minutes 05/18/2017May 18, 2017 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: ALSO PRESENT: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Patrick Dearborn Stan Chrzanowski Diane Ebert Ned Fryer Karen Homiak Joe Schmitt 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 Page 1 of 53 REVISED AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 9:00 A.M., MAY 18, 2017, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, THIRD FLOOR, 3299 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – April 20, 2017 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS 7. CHAIRMAN’S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. PL20160002736: A Resolution amending Development Order 85-5, as amended, the Pine Air Lakes Development of Regional Impact, providing for Section One: Extension Of Buildout Date And Expiration Date; Section Two: Findings Of Fact; Section Three: Conclusions Of Law; Section Four: Effect Of Previously Issued Development Order, Transmittal To The Department Of Economic Opportunity; and providing an effective date. The property is located at the intersection of Airport- Pulling Road and Naples Boulevard in Section 11, Township 49 South, Range 25 East in Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, PLA, Principal Planner] B. PL20150001776: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance Number 2011-08, the Addie’s Corner Mixed Use Planned Unit Development, to allow 349 multi-family dwelling units or Group Housing/Retirement uses in Tract C as shown on the Master Plan and 75,000 square feet of gross floor area of commercial development and Group Housing/Retirement Community uses in Tract A as shown on the Master Plan; providing for amendment to the Master Plan; by providing for revised development standards; and by providing an effective date. The subject property consists of 23.33+/- acres and is located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Immokalee Road (CR 846) and Collier Boulevard (CR 951), in Section 22, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. [Eric Johnson, AICP, Principal Planner] Note: This item was continued from the May 4, 2017 CCPC meeting to the June 1, 2017 CCPC meeting: C. PDI-PL20160000404: A Resolution of the Collier County Planning Commission for an insubstantial change to the Wolf Creek RPUD, Ordinance No. 2007-46, as amended, to add a preserve exhibit that revises the preserve configuration for Parcels 3B and 9 only, for property located on the north side of Vanderbilt Beach Road, approximately one-half mile west of Collier Boulevard, in Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 189± acres. [Coordinator: Eric Johnson, AICP, Principal Planner] 10. NEW BUSINESS 11. OLD BUSINESS 12. PUBLIC COMMENT 13. ADJORN CCPC Agenda/Ray Bellows/jmp May 18, 2017 PROCEEDINGS 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? COMMISSIONERCHRZANOWSKI: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Fryer? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ms. Ebert is here. Mr. Homiak -- or Mr. Stain? 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? COMMISSIONERDEARBORN: Present. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Thankyou. 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 -- COMMISSIONERDEARBORN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: — excused absence. Anybody else not going to be here on June 1 st? 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 1 st. 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. COMA41SSIONERDEARBORN: 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. COMMISSIONERDEARBORN: Aye. Page 2 of 53 May 18, 2017 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 P1,20160002736. Its 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 stat with Tom. MR. EASTMAN: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan? COMMISSIONERCHRZANOWSKI: 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. Page 3 of 53 May 18, 2017 But that's -- that's the other alternative, I would think, Stan. And if -- unless staff has another comment on it... COMMISSIONER CHRZANOW SKI: 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 CURZANOWSKI: 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. COMMISSIONERCHRZANOWSKL 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 Sherbome 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. Page 4 of 53 May 18, 2017 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 maxhnum 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 tine 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 Page 5 of 53 May 18, 2017 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 --1 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 Sboppes 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 — bow 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 Page 6 of 53 May 18, 2017 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'l 6 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 all 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 thunk 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 wiry 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 Page 7 of 53 May 18, 2017 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 -- Pra 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. Pm 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 Ion 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. CHA UVIAN 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. Corse back and show us or show the County Attorney and get concurrence. That Pm comfortable with. Page 8 of 53 May 18, 2017 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 fiom 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 Pm 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 Pm 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? Page 9 of 53 May 18, 2017 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 air 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 DR] 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 Page 10 of 53 May 18, 2017 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 chalice 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 comity 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, thats not our issue. MR. ARONOFF: I agree. I agree. MR. KLATZKOW: That's not our issue. MR. ARONOFF: Agreed. I agree with that. COMMISSIONERCHRZANOWSKI: 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 Ion here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If there's no other questions of the applicant, let's move to staff Page 11 of 53 May 18, 2017 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," Pm not talking about individual lots. Pm talking about the project as we originally looked at it. MS. GUNDLACH: We do have some staff records that show the square footage, and 1'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: Pm 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 1 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. CHA UvIAN 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, mid 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. COMMISSIONERCHRZANOWSKI: 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 staffs 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 pmt 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 IT 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 Page 12 of 53 May 18, 2017 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 -- CHA UVIAN 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. COMMISSIONERDEARBORN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Patrick. Discussion? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Ijust 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: Thankyou. 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. COMMISSIONERHOMIAK: 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 Page 13 of 53 May 18, 2017 hmnokalee 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 swom 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. COMN41SSIONER 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 thein 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 hmmokalee Road fairly close to the intersection of Imtmokalee 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. Page 14 of 53 May 18, 2017 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 hmmokalee 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 PVDs 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 coimnunities 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. Page 15 of 53 May 18, 2017 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 berth. 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 staffs 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 rm -- 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 walls 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 -- Page 16 of 53 May 18, 2017 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 fust 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 its 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'in 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, Page 17 of 53 May 18, 2017 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 conunitment regarding that very sane 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: Thats 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. Pm Wayne Page IS of 53 May 18, 2017 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? MIR. 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? MIR. 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 Page 19 of 53 May 18, 2017 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 rin 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 pointhig 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 canmake 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 Page 20 of 53 May 18, 2017 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 Page 21 of 53 May 18, 2017 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 cabal 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. Page 22 of 53 May 18, 2017 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. Ifs 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. Wbat 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. Ijust wanted to make sure we're on the same page. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Again -- now we have anew 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. CFIAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, gentlemen and ladies, let's take a break for 15 minutes. Page 23 of 53 May 18, 2017 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: Pm 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: Pm 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 thunk Page 24 of 53 May 18, 2017 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 Page 25 of 53 May 18, 2017 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 -stay 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. 1 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, its 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. Page 26 of 53 May 18, 2017 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 beard the concerns from our neighbors, we took a hard look at our laud 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 bow 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. hi the renderings that we have put forth here, we do show, I mentioned earlier, it was the 24 cabal 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. SAM 40NS: Pm 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 hmnokalee 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. Page 27 of 53 May 18, 2017 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. COM 41SSIONEREBERT: 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 cornments and everybody's feedback, that's critical. I would think Tailor Morison would hopefully be allowable with that, I would hope. Page 28 of 53 May 18, 2017 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 fi-om 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 its 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 -- Page 29 of 53 May 18, 2017 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 1 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 justpulled the PUDs. Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So there's your difference in time frame. But, second of all, when Addie's Comer 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. Page 30 of 53 May 18, 2017 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: Itis. The CDD is stili 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 Pm 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. Page 31 of 53 May 18, 2017 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 -- COMMIS SIONER 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 coining 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 I 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 Ist, and all that clarification should be there at that time. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Good. Thank you. Page 32 of 53 May 18, 2017 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, its 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 away 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 Sheriffs 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 -- CHARUVIAN 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 Pm 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 --1 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. Page 33 of 53 May 18, 2017 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. Coimnissioner, 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: Ob, 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 SCI MITT: I lived it till Ihave 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: Ijust threw out a mile radius, but whatever you've got. MR. JOHNSON: Zoning Manager and I can't think of anything offliand. 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 hnmokalee 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 Page 34 of 53 May 18, 2017 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 therefor a while, although it's just two miles from my home; Igo 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 hmmokalee, 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. CHAIIZMAN 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 DEAR -BORN: 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 balf-mile distance from the intersection of 951 and Immokalee. I think they're pretty close to that. I think — I'm not positive. hi 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 Page 35 of 53 May 18, 2017 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 hmnokalee? 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 its 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? Page 36 of 53 May 18, 2017 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 hnmokalee 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 hnmokalee, the bridge itself is being widened, and we're adding lanes. There will be a dedicated right -turn lane to get you west on hmnokalee. 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: Thankyou. 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: 1 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 Page 37 of 53 May 18, 2017 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 -1 -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, Pm 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 Pm 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 its 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 terns 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. Page 38 of 53 May 18, 2017 But, rather, I guess what concems 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 tall 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. COMMISSIONERCHRZANOWSKI: Could I -- (Applause.) COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKL• --say something? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Please. I've got to ask you not -- to refrain from clapping, please. Stan? COMMISSIONER CBRZANOWSKI: 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 Page 39 of 53 May 18, 2017 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 continent 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: Par 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 Page 40 of 53 May 18, 2017 apartment units, but I think its 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 Ijust don't think the development is going to certahily 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. CHAHUv AN 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 Page 41 of 53 May 18, 2017 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 -- COMMISSIONEREBERT: 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 marry 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 Page 42 of 53 May 18, 2017 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 miderstand 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 fi-om 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 muvmum 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 cormnunity. 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 Pm 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. hi 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. Page 43 of 53 May 18, 2017 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 areasonable 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. Page 44 of 53 May 18, 2017 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. hmmokalee, 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 -- hmnokalee 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. Pd 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 its a 15 -foot -wide Type B required buffer in Page 45 of 53 May 18, 2017 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 hmnokalee 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 hereto 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 staffs 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 cormnitments 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. Page 46 of 53 May 18, 2017 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 recoimnendation, 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. CH AIRMAN 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. Page 47 of 53 May 18, 2017 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 atit. 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 thein 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. CI IAIRMAN 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. Page 48 of 53 May 18, 2017 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 flee 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 cabals 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 cabal 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 Page 49 of 53 May 18, 2017 believe, their landscape architect there would be IS 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'Il 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 I? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The June 1 st 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. COMMISSIONERCHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONEREBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONERHOMIAK: 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 Julie, 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? Page 50 of 53 May 18, 2017 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. CHAII2MAN 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 -- fist 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? CFAIRMAN 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 1 st. 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. CHA UVIAN 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. CHA UVIAN 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 Page 51 of 53 May 18, 2017 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 snake 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. Pm 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. COMMISSIONERHOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. Page 52 of 53 May 18, 2017 COMMISSIONERDEARBORN: 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 1 — 20--1 , as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. Page 53 of 53