The URL can be used to link to this page

Attachment-8996June 27, 2017 Page 1 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, June 27, 2017 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Penny Taylor Andy Solis Donna Fiala William L. McDaniel, Jr. Burt L. Saunders ALSO PRESENT: Leo Ochs, County Manager Nick Casalanguida, Deputy County Manager Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney Crystal Kinzel, Director of Finance and Accounting Troy Miller, Television Operations Manager June 27, 2017 Page 2 MR. OCHS: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seat. Madam Chair, you have a live mike. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Good morning. MR. OCHS: Good morning. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It's a pleasure to see everybody here. I'm very pleased to see my colleague to my right here, Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We've very happy. And on that note, Commissioner Fiala, would you like to lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I would. Would you please stand and put your hand over your heart, and we'll all say together... (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, if we'd like to remain standing for the invocation. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah. I'm acutely aware I did this backwards, but I was so excited to see Commissioner Fiala here. REVEREND DUNCAN: You weren't excited to see me? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I am, but we've missed her greatly. Item #1A INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE GIVEN BY REVERAND BEVERLY DUNCAN OF NAPLES UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST MR. OCHS: Commissioners, we have Reverend Beverly Duncan from Naples United Church of Christ to lead us in the invocation this morning. REVEREND DUNCAN: Thank you. Let us pray. June 27, 2017 Page 3 On this day of deliberation, we pray to the spirit of all that is good and true, that the members of this body might remember who they are and who they represent, a human panoply of need, of comfort, hunger, abundance, wholeness, pain, joy, ingenuity, ease, determination, discouragement, and hope. So may their decisions and their votes reflect the generous spirit we invoke this morning to surround, guide, and bless each one and the work they have before them. With thanks, we offer praise for each of them for their service to our community. Amen. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. It was a beautiful prayer. Thank you. Item #2A TODAY’S REGULAR, CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA AS AMENDED (EX PARTE DISCLOSURE PROVIDED BY COMMISSION MEMBER FOR CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA.) – APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED W/CHANGES MR. OCHS: Commissioners, good morning. These are your proposed agenda changes for the Board of County Commissioners meeting of June 27th, 2017. The first proposed change is to add Item 5A to this morning's agenda under presentations. This will be a short presentation by Dr. Michael Savarese from Florida Gulf Coast University giving the Board some good news on a recent grant application. The next proposed change is to add Item 11H to the regular agenda. This is a recommendation to approve expenditure of tourist development taxes for excavation of Clam Pass inlet and some regrading of the adjacent beaches. That item is added at the staff's request. June 27, 2017 Page 4 The next proposed change is to withdraw Item 16F4 from your consent agenda. This was some administrative work that had to do with the recently adopted Immokalee impact fee installment payment pilot program, and that withdraw is made at staff's request. That second reading is coming up before you go on your break, and we will incorporate some of the administrative issues as part of that adoption at your next meeting. And the final change on today's agenda is to add 16H1 to your consent agenda. This item was brought forward at Commissioner Fiala's request. It's a recommendation for the Board to grant a short-term consent to the Fiddler's Creek Community Development Districts 1 and 2 to allow for some increased mosquito ground level spraying to help combat the mosquito issues in Fiddler's Creek. And, again, that was brought forward at Commissioner Fiala's request. One agenda note this morning, Commissioners, having to do with Item 16J7 under constitutional officers. The executive summary from the Clerk's Office inadvertently noted that the referenced disbursements were June 30, 2017, and that should be disbursements approved through June 14th, 2017. And just a reminder, we have court reporter breaks scheduled for approximately 10:30 a.m., and then approximately 2:50 p.m. Those are all the changes I have this morning, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. And before we take ex parte, I would ask my assistant, Sherry, to bring my ex parte out here so I can declare it. Thank you very much. MR. OCHS: Yes. Madam Chair, also, just again, for the record, and I failed to mention on the add-on item for the mosquito spraying in Fiddler's Creek, that we have contacted the Mosquito Control District, and they're fully aware and are going to work with the leadership in the community development districts there. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much for that. June 27, 2017 Page 5 MR. OCHS: You're welcome. Any changes to the agenda, County Attorney? MR. KLATZKOW: No, ma'am. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Ms. Kinzel? MS. KINZEL: No, thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel, any ex parte? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Oh, no. You are asking different questions when you get to me. There you go. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Ex parte? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. Now, do you want to do them all? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We're going to do -- the ones we have the hearing we'll do at the time of the hearing -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: -- but any other ones, yes, you have -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Consent and summary? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I have -- I believe that I have none on consent and summary, unless there's been a shift here. No. On consent -- no changes to the agenda, and consent and summary, no ex parte. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. That's great. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I have to confess, first of all, I was reading till all hours. I haven't finished -- I didn't finish my agenda until 11:30 last night. I'm a night person. Anyway -- and something I noted on there -- and I just wanted to note this. And I don't know if something can be done about it at this late time, but I notice that, you know, we usually have some extra money that we have for affordable housing, and so -- and we need to get rid of it sometimes before it -- before it's taken from us. June 27, 2017 Page 6 And I was thinking, we've been trying to incentivize other forms of housing rather than just very low. Like, for instance -- and I'm thinking of one in particular. This was what popped in my head at 11:30 last night. On the Bayshore area on the corner there, we got stuck -- the county got stuck with the $320,000 bill that somebody had used from HUD and then because they didn't use it and they wasted it, we had to come up and match that. And I won't go through all the particulars. But, anyway, the new developer that was going in wanted to build a nice place. They actuality wanted it to build between 60 and 80 percent so that they would have amenities and everything; really, a nice place, but they had to come up with the $320,000 before they could do that. So what they did in a very low-income area already is they had to reduce what they were building so that they could make the money out of it to pay it back. And I thought, this would be a perfect opportunity to take that money and apply it to housing. It's still affordable housing between 60 and 80 percent, and we could do something like that. And I was wondering if something like that could be handled. I know Leo and the affordable housing director were in my office -- and I never thought of it at the time -- and they explained what they were doing and so forth. And I thought, is this something that could even be applied? And I don't know -- I don't know if -- Crystal, I didn't talk to you about this either. But I don't know if that is -- if that would even qualify. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Maybe what we could do is pull that item for discussion -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: -- and discuss it at that time. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: If we could do that. So which agenda June 27, 2017 Page 7 item is it? MR. OCHS: I don't know. COMMISSIONER FIALA: 16D -- 16D11 or 12. MR. OCHS: 16D14. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, maybe it's 14. MR. OCHS: Perhaps or -- I'm sorry -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Why don't we just discuss that on County Commission Communications and then direct staff to take some -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, this would give them an opportunity to actually bring that -- that guy who wanted to build a better housing there cannot, and this might just help him to be able to do that. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I think -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Still meets the requirements for 80 percent and below. But if you would prefer not to -- MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, it might be instructive to just let Ms. Grant summarize a little bit about the item that's on the agenda and whether that has any direct bearing on -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: At this time? MR. OCHS: Yes. If you don't mind, just for a minute. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Are you comfortable with that? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, yeah. MR. OCHS: Commissioners, or Commissioner Fiala, are you referring to 16D11, which is the recommendation to approve a couple of SHIP sub-recipient agreements to allow a couple sub-recipients to do owner-occupied rehabilitation of homes, or are you talking about the one-year HUD action plan? COMMISSIONER FIALA: It was the money we had left over that we were giving to a low-income builder, right. MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. That was 16D11. June 27, 2017 Page 8 Kim, do you want to explain briefly what that item does? MS. GRANT: Sure. Good morning. Kim Grant, Director of Community and Human Services. Very briefly, Item 16D11 is related to our SHIP program, and this does, in fact, allow for housing. And in this program we can actually go up to 120 percent AMI. And this item that's on the agenda is to continue our owner-occupied rehabilitation program. So if you're already in your home and you need, for the most part, health, safety, or welfare repairs to your home, we would do the repairs for you. So that's what this item is for. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is this where we were giving a block of money to somebody to do that? MS. GRANT: Correct. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: For rehab. Not new construction. MS. GRANT: Right. For rehabilitation, not new construction. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I'm afraid then I did not understand that. I thought it was money that we had to dispose of. And what I'm trying to do is find ways to incentivize the housing that right now we do not do. But even going up, as you said, to 120. You know, just so that when we get some other types of housing for -- MS. GRANT: Sure. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- these young people out in the workforce who still have to drive to Fort Myers. And we've been trying to do that for a while, so... MS. GRANT: Commissioner, I have one. MR. OCHS: Let me just suggest, Commissioners, maybe that discussion fits into 11F which is an item that you are going to discuss this morning, a number of county-owned parcels that the Board asked us to identify. Do you mind if we take it under that item, ma'am? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, we could sure try that, yes. I June 27, 2017 Page 9 think that that would be a good idea. MR. OCHS: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Because I'm just trying to think of any way to incentivize. MR. OCHS: Sure. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We're going to get there. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Ex parte. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. And ex parte, okay, under the consent agenda, I have nothing; unusual for this woman and -- oh, and under the summary agenda, I have -- no, I don't even have anything under the summary. Okay. Thank you very much. Nothing at all to declare. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Go ahead, Commissioner Solis. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No changes and no ex parte to declare under the consent or the summary agenda. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And I have no changes and no ex parte under the consent agenda as well. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I have no changes. I have nothing under the consent agenda; however, under the summary agenda, which item I need to get in front of me, I have had discussions regarding the food truck. So it will be -- I believe it would be 17D. I've had discussions with staff, I've had discussions with the owner of the property; I have had discussions with the architect. And after that, there's been no -- nothing else on the summary agenda. Thank you. Oh -- and excuse me. And on the auto supply store on 17B, yes, I have had discussions with staff regarding the auto supply store, and that's it. Thank you. MR. OCHS: Commissioners, you need a motion to approve today's regular agenda as amended. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: So moved. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. June 27, 2017 Page 10 COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Everybody's looking at me. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries unanimously. June 27, 2017 Page 11 Item #2B MAY 23, 2017 – BCC/REGULAR MEETING MINUTES – APPROVED AS PRESENTED MR. OCHS: Item 2B is approval of regular meeting minutes from the Board of County Commissioners meeting of May 23rd, 2017. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Do I hear -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Second. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries unanimously. Item #5A PRESENTATION BY DR. MICHAEL SAVERESE, PROFESSOR OF MARINE SCIENCE, FLORIDA GULF COAST UNIVERSITY, TO ANNOUNCE THE CONFIRMATION OF THE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION (NOAA) GRANT AWARD - PRESENTED MR. OCHS: That takes us to our first add-on item this morning, Commissioners. It's Item 5A. This is a presentation by Dr. Michael Savarese, Professor of Marine Science at Florida Gulf Coast June 27, 2017 Page 12 University, to announce the confirmation of the NOAA grant award. And this item was added at Commissioner Taylor's request. Dr. Savarese, good morning. DR. SAVARESE: Good morning, everybody, and thanks for giving me a couple of minutes of your time just to share the good news. I'm Mike Savarese. I'm a faculty member at Florida Gulf Coast University, and I'm a Collier County resident and been living here for 20 years. Many of you probably remember back in April I and my colleague Peter Shang from the University of Florida gave a presentation announcing the tentative award from NOAA, the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration. That award is now official, so I'm allowed to officially announce it here in public. This is an award that comes from NOAA's NCCOS program, the National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science, and it's actually federal money that comes through the Restore Act, which is monies that were provided by BP after the Deepwater Horizon spill. And the program is dedicated to handling future environmental problems along the gulf coast. This particular proposal that's funded is entitled web-based decision support tool for adaptation to sea level rise. In brief, it's just a way of providing Collier County, its municipalities, and its managers of urban and natural resources an understanding of what our region might look like in the future as sea level rise continues and as storms continue to impinge themselves upon the coast. The proposal was originally developed by Peter Shang at University of Florida and myself representing Florida Gulf Coast University. That involves 10 investigators from a variety of institutions across the state and across our national boundaries. What this work will do is it will provide a number of support tools for the county, for the cities, for resource managers, and involves June 27, 2017 Page 13 a series of maps, simulations, and animations that illustrate and predict the impact of sea level rise and storms on the landscape. And the way the project is designed is we've targeted three future dates: 2030, 2060 and 2100, and for a variety of sea level rise magnitudes and rise rates and for a variety of storm scenarios. So what it will provide the county, it will provide the county with sort of a suite of possibilities of what the future might hold for us. The tools are specifically to illustrate the potential impact on both the urban and suburban landscapes on natural lands, both those buffering our developed portion of the county, and on public lands in eastern and southern Collier County, on coastal dunes and beaches, and upon the rural interior. So it's very comprehensive in terms of its target area. The project spans three years. The start date has actually been backdated to June 1st, so we're officially begun. And it will be a three-year project. And over each year a number of products will be unveiled, released, and communicated with all of you. The key to success -- there are really two keys to success of this project. The first is having a good collaborative communication plan. This is a million dollars of free new science, free to the county, not free to the federal taxpayers. Actually, it's free to the taxpayers as well because it's BP money. So this will provide a million dollars of best science upon which the county, its municipalities, and its managers can do its planning. The first part is to be able to make these tools accessible and meaningful to the stakeholders, people in the government, again managers of various types. So we've developed a fairly elaborate communications plan with two teams of stakeholders. There will be an urban resilience team, the people that are more interested in what happens to the urban and suburban landscapes; and then a natural resources team, the people that are more concerned with providing June 27, 2017 Page 14 natural buffers and maintaining the natural landscape. And those teams will meet twice per year, and each of those meetings, these products will be laid out, they'll be explained, and then a series of workshops and conversations will ensue after that so that everybody understands what's going on and so that the information can be used in the most effective way. All the products, by the way, will also be available as a web-based interactive tool. So the information will always be available to you. So there's no worry about intellectual property. The second part that's critical is using this information in an effective way. When I was here back in April, I made the claim or the pitch that it's important that this science be put to use, which requires the county and its municipalities to have some sort of planning effort. So, again, as I did in April, I would urge the Commission, the Board here, to seriously consider a way of developing some urban/suburban planning effort that moves in concert with this project. Dr. Shang and I will come back in September 26th, so I guess you have to bear with me yet again, and at that meeting, we'll give you a formal presentation. Peter will actually be here. We can talk about the specifics. And in the meantime, over the next couple months, I'll be working with the city and county managerial staff to get this communications plan moving forward in anticipation for a rollout in September. So I want to thank you all for your support. I should tell you that -- and I mentioned this back in April and I'll say it again. I really believe the success of this proposal is based not solely, but principally upon the support from this board and from the City Council from Naples. It was both this board and the City Council that provided statements of support, and that, apparently, carried great weight in our review process, and the agency was very much impressed by the fact this region was coming together for such a massive undertaking. So June 27, 2017 Page 15 thank you for that as well. And I have time for questions if you have time for questions. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel, any questions? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I have none. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Nope. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Nope. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Just one statement. DR. SAVARESE: You know, usually when I'm teaching, I won't leave unless somebody asks a question. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Well -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: How you doing today, Doc? DR. SAVARESE: I'm fine. I'm happy to leave now. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Are you studying Lee County? DR. SAVARESE: Sorry? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Are you studying Lee County? DR. SAVARESE: We are not studying Lee County. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: What county are you studying exclusively? DR. SAVARESE: Collier County. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Collier County. DR. SAVARESE: Collier County. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good question. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Only Collier County. DR. SAVARESE: Only Collier County. That sounds like an underhanded comment, but the reason why Lee County is not participating in this, it's just it gets too big and too expensive, so... CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I just consider -- I just think that's the most extraordinary thing about this. June 27, 2017 Page 16 DR. SAVARESE: Yeah. That is the most extraordinary thing. And the expectation is, if this goes well, these same tools can help Lee County, and we'd be happy to assist them as well as, so... CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. DR. SAVARESE: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. We're excited. Thank you, sir. MR. OCHS: We're excited as well, Commissioners. We think this is a great opportunity for some collaboration to do some great forward planning on our storm surge models and sea level rise and all the resiliency in the beaches that need to come together. Thank you. Item #7 PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERALTOPICS NOT ON THE CURRENT OR FUTURE AGENDA MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to Item 7, public comments on general topics not on the current or future agenda. Mr. Miller? MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, I have one registered speaker for public comment, M. Michael Mogil. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I don't know if he's here. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: He's walking up. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: There he is. MR. MOGIL: Good morning, everybody, and I'm sort of honored to follow the last speaker, because I'm a retired meteorologist from NOAA, so nice to see that. My name is H. Michael Mogil. I work in Naples at the Mathworks Tutoring Center. We tutor a lot of kids in math, science, and you name it. I'm here, actually, today to talk about massage June 27, 2017 Page 17 parlors. I have a business in The Strand where a massage parlor just got busted as part of this big ring of massage parlors, yet three years ago when I tried to get a business license in my building, I was told by the zoning people that my use was not allowed under the PUD. And I said, hmm. That's strange. So I read the PUD. The PUD lists all these businesses. I will tell you that massage parlors are not on the list. But yet they got a business license somehow. I haven't researched it, didn't find out how they did it, but I had to go through three months of reviews and hearings, $2,000, and couldn't use my office space that I was paying rent on. In the process I discovered that the business codes that are used in Collier County -- and they may have changed since then -- were dated in the 1980s. There's no business codes dealing with computer technology or anything like that. I raised the issue with the review people in zoning, and they said, oh, massive project to recode everything. And I wonder why that's the case. If we really want small businesses in Collier County, why can't that be an item that's addressed and get those business codes up to date by the new standards and set up a process where businesses don't have to go through a three-month, $2,000 process to get a simple business license? I wanted students to come in and tutor them to help them in the Collier County school systems, and I had to go through the mill. I don't know what the massage parlor had to do. All I can tell you is business was great in the massage parlor for the whole three years I've been there, and the people that were running it were driving Lexus Q8s. So all I can tell you is we knew something was afoot, but we had to wait for the authorities to deal with it. But I would just like to see legitimate small businesses get through this whole zoning process and the PUD process and everything else to be able to get a business license and conduct June 27, 2017 Page 18 business and make us much more user friendly like the people in Lee County for setting up small businesses. Thank you for your time. I'm certainly willing to be part of any type of community review, organizational view in the county to provide input. I think it's important enough, and that's why I took time out this morning to come in. I'm also going to talk about another item, but I'll leave this one for now. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. Thank you. Any questions? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I do. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Just real quick. Have you communicated with the commissioner from your district with regard to your issues? MR. MOGIL: No, I haven't, because I thought it was way beyond just me. I've already taken care of the process. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right. MR. MOGIL: And I've worked for the government before, the federal government before, and this is, I believe, a good forum to bring it up. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Just as a suggestion, send an email to your commissioner. We have a system here called AIMS, Agency Information Management System. And this is informational for everyone: If you have an issue, we are your elected complaint department. We have an opportunity with the AIMS program to assist folks such as yourself that have these issues. And via email, that comes to your commissioner, then to the County Manager, who is departmentally in charge of all of our operations, and then all the way to the individual who you're having an issue with. And then there's time responses all the way back to your elected complaint department to facilitate what it is you're looking for, so... June 27, 2017 Page 19 MR. MOGIL: And I appreciate that, except in this case there was a three-month window to go through the process. School was starting. I needed to go through that. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It's not a cure-all. I'm just sharing with you there's a known deficiency, several, and that's a way for us to be able to work on the systemic issues that we have. I don't mean to belabor the point; I just wanted to make it clear. MR. MOGIL: And they were systemic, and that's why I appreciate your hearing me. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. MR. MOGIL: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much, sir. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I also had my light on. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh, go ahead. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was just wondering, you know, we've noticed that a lot of our rules on the books and so forth are a little outdated. Some of the things, for instance, gas stations used to be just like a two-pump or four-pump gas station, and now they're 24. And we do need to update them. What department would you go to to update something like this? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. Ma'am, it's the SIC codes is what he's referring to, those classifications. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You have over 400 PUDs. They're all specific ordinances. I've had this discussion with the County Attorney. You'd have to review each one of those PUDs and update those codes specifically in front of the Board unless you did a wholesale change. So that's the problem that the PUDs are approved by ordinance. Even if we update our SIC codes to the new NAICS codes, all your ordinances are the old SIC codes. So when someone comes in, you've June 27, 2017 Page 20 got to cross-reference them. This is probably an exception, I can tell you, because, you know, bringing people through. And I'm happy to sit with the gentleman and meet with the department and make sure that we take care of this going forward. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Can we not add it, add computer technology of the last century to our codes? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's not the technology. Your ordinance itself, your PUD ordinance -- and Commissioner Solis has experienced it on the Planning Commission. Your SIC codes are under the old PUDs, and that's how they were adopted. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: But rather than change what we have, can we add to it, or do we have to -- do we still have to go through 400 PUDs? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Your old ordinances all reference the old SIC codes. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh, so you'd have to update all those codes. MR. CASALANGUIDA: And you could do a revamp, but you'd have -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: There's no time like the present to start. MR. KLATZKOW: But there's no need. You could set up a process where if a business was substantially similar to everything else in the PUD, they could be allowed, and you could set that up with the Hearing Examiner. It could be a very quick process, or through staff. MR. MOGIL: I don't want to get into a whole big detail here, but I will tell you that in The Strand where I applied for a tutoring center there was already a tutoring center. They declared themselves as office space. I was honest -- let no good deed go unpunished -- and I said, I'm going to have students come in, and I'm going to tutor them. I was summarily called on the carpet. June 27, 2017 Page 21 So the issue is -- some of the coding is the issue, but the other part is the people in zoning should be able to make a decision without having to go before a Hearing Examiner that a tutoring center where somebody comes in for an office visit is no different than an insurance company where someone comes in for an office visit or a medical office where someone comes in for an office visit, and those are allowed in The Strand and had already been approved. So it seems to be there might be some internal problems as well as the SIC codes. But surely adding something in the SIC codes that addresses computer technology or some of the new things, as you said, why not get started on changing it now if it doesn't have to be changed instantaneously and revamp them, because other offices are going to come into these PUD areas, and you're going to be faced with the same problems. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I think -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders, your light was on, sir. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah. A few months ago we were talking about some business-friendly issues for Collier County and how to make Collier County a little bit more business friendly. I raised that issue early on because I'd gotten several complaints from business folks that had not problems similar to this but problems dealing with some of the process. And so I think that it would be good, not for today's discussion and not for the next meeting, but as we get into the fall. Perhaps it would be good to have a discussion bringing in the CBIA, the Chamber of Commerce, and some other folks and let's just have a chat about some of the problems people are having in general, because this is isolated. I understand the reason for this; because we have an ordinance that says you can have certain uses, and it doesn't include that. I understand all that. But there's a way to fix this. And so I would June 27, 2017 Page 22 suggest that we take a look at it in the fall. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Do I have consensus here that perhaps staff could -- I mean, I guess we have to look at revamping the SI -- what is it, the SIC code? Is there consensus here to ask staff to start that process? Not that that process has to be completed in six months, but to at least begin that process? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Look who walked in. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Here comes the reviser of everything we live by. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Can I just say -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Of course. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- this issue came up when I was on the Planning Commission, and in a perfect world, I think it would be nice to be able to do this with the flip of a switch. My recollection of that discussion was that it is somewhat of a monumental task. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Because in each of PUDs it references the old numbers and codes, whatever, would have to be essentially amended. I mean, that's a lot of public hearings. It's a lot of staff time. I think there's probably a better process for dealing with this short of going back and having to make all these changes to these old PUDs that really don't have these issues. MR. CASALANGUIDA: And there is, sir. I think a quick comparable and compatible use process, which we have some of, but streamline that a little bit rather than go through 400 PUDs and have public hearings on what SIC code lines up with which NAICS code. So we'll come back. I mean, that's something we've talked about in terms of both the County Manager and the Zoning Director, how do we streamline that, and that's something we can surely look at. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: So we're not going to give June 27, 2017 Page 23 direction for them to go revamp it yet. We're going to bring it back as a discussion item in the fall, talk to the community, and allow staff an opportunity to give us some solutions to the -- to the process as opposed to specific direction on one methodology. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And the CCPC can always handle them, just as you were saying before, as each one comes before them. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Tell everybody what that stands for. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, Collier County Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: There you go. MR. BOSI: Good morning, Commission. Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning Director. And I will remind -- and it's not just the CCPC. It's more streamlined than that. It's the Hearing Examiner. It's normally a -- it's a two- to three-month process. The issue is staff can't make that decision, adding a use to a PUD by themselves, administratively. That is something that needs an action of review from a public hearing. The Hearing Examiner provides a streamlined process. We can most certainly -- we've worked with the business community, especially on ones when they're looking for a quick -- you know, a quicker turnaround, we can try to reduce times as quickly as possible. But we would look forward to a further discussion in the fall about some of the opportunities that we may have. MR. MOGIL: Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Don't forget to email. MR. MOGIL: Yes, sir. MR. OCHS: Commissioners, before we move to your public-hearing items -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No other speakers. MR. OCHS: No speakers, no. That was it, right? June 27, 2017 Page 24 MR. MILLER: That was our only registered speaker for Item 7. Item #11A APPOINTMENT OF MR. THADDEUS COHEN TO THE POSITION OF GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT HEAD – APPROVED MR. OCHS: Okay. Madam Chair, if I may, if we could move quickly, before our public-hearing items, to Item 11A. This is a recommendation to confirm the appointment of Mr. Thaddeus Cohen to the position of Growth Management Department Head here in Collier County. Commissioners, your Ordinance 2013-40, commonly referred to as the County Manager's Ordinance, requires that the Board of County Commissioners confirms the Manager's appointment of our four key department head positions. Mr. Cohen is being recommended to fill our Growth Management Plan Department Head position after an extensive search by a national recruitment firm. He brings extensive local government and state government experience. His leadership skills and education make him, in my opinion, an ideal candidate for this position. He has, again, extensive background not only in urban planning and community development but also infrastructure design and construction management, being a registered architect. He's worked throughout the state, as I mentioned, both in city and state government serving in Governor Bush's administration as his Secretary of the Department of Community Affairs. So it's my pleasure, Commissioners, to seek your confirmation of the appointment of Mr. Thaddeus Cohen to our Growth Management Plan Department Head position. June 27, 2017 Page 25 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I'd like to make a motion to confirm Mr. Thaddeus Cohen as our new head of Growth Management Plan in Collier County. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Congratulations, and welcome to Collier County, sir. MR. OCHS: Thank you. Commissioners, Mr. Cohen would like to just make a brief comment to the Board. Either one, sir. MR. COHEN: Chairman, Manager, thank you very much for your support. I'm excited about the opportunity. I've had a chance to meet with some of the department heads who will be my colleagues. And it's a great group of individuals. The things that are happening here in Collier County are exciting, and I'm looking forward to be part of the ongoing process. This is going to be a great time here in Collier County, and I look forward to being able to work with you and the management team and my colleagues to be able to make great things happen here. Thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. MR. OCHS: Congratulations. MR. COHEN: Thank you. June 27, 2017 Page 26 MR. OCHS: Commissioners, thank you. And that moves us now to your advertised public hearings. Item #9A ORDINANCE 2017-28: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2011-08, THE ADDIE’S CORNER MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, TO ALLOW 250 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 – ADOPTED MR. OCHS: Item 9A is a recommendation to approve an ordinance regarding the Addie's Corner mixed-use planned unit to allow 250 multifamily dwelling units or group housing retirement uses in Tract C and 75,000 square feet of gross floor area of commercial development and group housing and retirement community uses in Tract A. Commissioners, this item does require ex parte disclosure be provided by commission members, and participants are required to be June 27, 2017 Page 27 sworn in. So ex parte, ma'am. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I'm looking to you, Commissioner McDaniel. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yeah. I was looking the other way. Sorry. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Sorry. I looked the other way. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. I have had meetings, emails, correspondence. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I, too, have had meetings, correspondence, emails. I met with Sam Miller and other homeowners from Esplanade, and I've also spoken to the Hearing Examiner. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I also have had meetings, correspondence, emails. I've met with Mr. Yovanovich, Wayne Arnold, Mr. Gensen. I've received numerous letters and emails from the property owners adjoining the development. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And I have received numerous letters, emails, meetings with the developer, and the representatives. And, Commissioner McDaniel, the 85 people that attended the town hall meeting that I had, many of them spoke about that as well. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Eighty-five? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's a good one. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Eighty-five? I think, short of you, he wins. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I want a recount. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yeah, I'm thinking there was somebody else counting there. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I've had meetings, correspondence, emails, calls; I've met with the developer and his representatives, met June 27, 2017 Page 28 with the citizens, and a large group. We've received emails and calls from March this year through June, so it's still happening, so thank you very much. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: A little housekeeping before we begin this. We are not going to use our buttons on this. What we are going to do is going to go methodically. The petitioner will present, we'll be -- methodically, one by one, we'll be able to ask questions. The staff will present. We'll be able to, you know, consecutively ask questions of them. Then we'll hear from the public. If you have any questions for the public, we can ask them. The public hearing will be closed, and then we'll be able to, once again, ask questions. So there will be three bites at that apple. I would ask you just for -- to try to keep this moving along, that we -- even if you have to write down those questions, save them, and ask them at the appropriate time. Thank you very much. Mr. Yovanovich? MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. Good morning. For the record, Rich Yovanovich on behalf of the petitioner. With me today I have several people that can answer any questions I can't answer: Dave Gensen with Barron Collier Companies; Dan Waters with Peninsula Engineering; Steve Sammons, also with Peninsula Engineering; Bruce Layman is our Environmental Consultant; and Wayne Arnold with Grady Minor & Associates is here; and I think Norm Trebilcock is still here in the back, our traffic consultant. I was watching who stood up during the swearing in, and I didn't see anybody from the neighborhood. I may be wrong, but I think that's a good indication, because I think we spent a lot of time working with the neighbors in Esplanade. As the manager mentioned, this is a -- and I put on the visualizer an aerial. Hopefully you can see the yellow area, which is the property June 27, 2017 Page 29 in question which is approximately 23 acres in size. What we're doing is we're converting the rear portion of the property from retail and office to residential and senior housing, and the front portion will be 75,000 square feet of retail and office. The request is for 250 units of multifamily. If you look, you'll see it's an overall reduction in traffic from what's currently approved in the existing PUD. We spent a lot of time addressing two concerns of our neighborhoods, Esplanade and the residents within Esplanade. One was, what will they see when we ultimately build our project, and what will the traffic concerns be. Obviously, we're reducing traffic based upon our project, and I believe they've had meetings with your staff about the long-range plans/improvements for Immokalee Road. From what-they-will-see standpoint, we spent a lot of time, and in your backup material is the enhanced buffer that we will plant along the western portion of the property starting from Immokalee Road up to the preserve that is depicted on the master plan. And I will put the master plan up on the visualizer briefly. So the enhanced buffer will be from -- basically from here, Immokalee Road, all the way up to the preserve. And the details of those plantings have been agreed to and worked out with not only your Planning Commission but also the residents through their homeowners association and the developer. We've all three entered into an agreement addressing the planting plan that will be the enhanced buffer. And what this does -- and in the backup is the actual details that go along with the buffer. One thing I have to add is that the exhibit dealing with the buffer will add a hedge that will also be included in the buffer, so we'll add that to the documents that are part of the approval. And all of that is -- all of those exhibits are not only part of the PUD but part of a separate agreement with the HOA and Taylor June 27, 2017 Page 30 Morrison, the developer of the Esplanade. We have also agreed to make some revisions to some of the uses in the PUD that were brought up by the residents after -- after the Planning Commission, but we agreed to do those. And I'll put those on the visualizer real quick. They're not major or difficult. We've agreed to eliminate dance halls from the PUD. I guess, keeping with the massage theme, we've eliminated dance halls, and we've also agreed to eliminate moped rentals and motor vehicle rentals. Those were uses that the neighbors asked us to eliminate from the PUD that are in the SIC codes that you talked about briefly. As long as this won't create a problem for us in what we're asking, the gentleman who spoke during public comment, ironically, I had that same situation come up for the woman who tutors my children. She wanted to start a tutoring center. And tutoring is classified as Vo-Tech schools under the SIC code, so -- and it specifically says tutoring, so that's where you are, and staff's constrained because that's what the SIC code says. She ultimately moved to a different location because she couldn't wait the three months to go through the process. She wanted to be up and running when school started this year. So we would like to add, as long as it won't create any problems for us, based upon the previous speaker, both tutoring services and computer services to the list of already allowed uses in the PUD. We think they're pretty innocuous, but we would like to add those since -- so we won't run into the same issue that the gentleman before us ran into and the woman I know. But we will only do that as long as that's not going to create any problems for you or staff if we can add that. With that, I think that's all the changes we agreed to and the revisions to the buffer plan. That's the abbreviated version of the presentation, but we can always get into much greater detail if you need us to. Your Planning Commission recommended approval June 27, 2017 Page 31 unanimously, and your staff's recommending approval, and we request your approval. That's all I have. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Any questions, Commissioner Saunders? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: (Shakes head.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Nope. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: So you did say that you eliminated massage parlors, didn't you? MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't know -- I didn't see them in there, but we did eliminate dance halls. I guess that became a concern. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I did have one question. One of the -- they were talking about the transportation, the roads and so forth, and they said how many -- what levels you are and so forth. I wonder, does that account for all of the development that's already approved plus -- as far as transportation goes, the roads, plus the developments that are going through the system that we know will be approved? Will the roads still be able to accommodate all of it? It has C, D, C. And I just wanted to know if it can accommodate all of the things that are planned for the area. MR. YOVANOVICH: I usually defer to Nick or Norm if they want to answer it, or Trinity or Mike Bosi, whoever. Everybody's jumping up. But to answer your question as I understand it is, yes, it accounts for what's been approved and a reasonable projected growth rate over the next period of time and factors in our traffic into that situation. But, yes, we do a planning study that your staff reviews and make sure that we're not going to trigger a failure of the road system. MR. BOSI: Good morning, Commissioner. From staff's June 27, 2017 Page 32 perspective -- and we just had this conversation with Commissioner Saunders yesterday related to Immokalee Road. At the zoning stage there's a cursory review for concurrency in terms of trip availability, and at this time there are trips available. And when they would come in for a plat, that's when our concurrency is actually applied and the actual checkbook concurrency is measured against the number of trips that are projected for the project against how much are available. And we do that; you know, every year we make sure that those balances and those ledgers are maintained and updated. So this has been through the cursory zoning review as well, but it will also have to go through another stage of concurrency review when they go to plat or SDP. MR. YOVANOVICH: And just so you know, we're already in the Site Development Plan, so we're going through the more detailed review at this time as well. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No questions. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I have a question, a couple questions. Could you put up the visual of the way this development is divided now and what it was before and what it's going to, if you have it, please. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's the -- you mean the proposed master plan? Is that what you're asking for versus -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes, with the tracts identified, yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah, this is very helpful. MR. YOVANOVICH: This is what will be the retail tract, retail and office tract, and this is the multifamily tract back here or the senior housing tract, but we're in for multifamily right now, and that's Tract C. That's the preserve; water management. So that's how the master plan is laid out, and then this is the enhanced buffer along the west June 27, 2017 Page 33 boundary with the details of that in your package and part of PUD. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And the underlying zoning of this is mixed use, is that correct, it's a -- MR. YOVANOVICH: It's a mixed-use PUD, yes. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. So where's the commercial? MR. YOVANOVICH: Commercial is up front, Tract A. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And group housing. MR. YOVANOVICH: And multifamily's in the back. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So how do you anticipate that front will be developing? MR. YOVANOVICH: If I were a betting man, I would say that that's going to be retail up front. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. I saw "and group housing," so I wondered how that was going to work, because that's -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand that's an option but my -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Group housing is not commercial, is it? Is it considered commercial? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, that's interesting. Group housing is actually considered institution since it's not considered residential. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: So it's an institutional use, and we could put that on the front if we elected to as an allowed use. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You can put institution -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I believe that's on the front, too, right? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: -- in commercial? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I didn't know that. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. We have it on the front and in the rear if we choose to do it, but right now we're talking about multifamily on the rear and, more likely, retail up front. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. You've asked for several June 27, 2017 Page 34 deviations. Could you put those deviations up, please. I believe it's deviation -- the one where you're asking -- I believe it's in this one, that you're asking for the roads to be narrower, 10 feet off the width of the roadway; is that correct? MR. YOVANOVICH: It would be No. 4, yes. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I live on a local street. It's a residential; it's single-family home. It's probably 30 feet, if it's that, and I can tell you how difficult it is. Maybe 40 feet -- how difficult it is to transverse that street when there are garbage pickup, when you've got drop-offs with UPS or FedEx. I'm questioning why -- I mean, I understand you get more land and you get more land to develop, but I'm not so sure that that Deviation 4 should be justified. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, Deviation 4 has been a routine deviation for private roads, which this will be. The width of the pavement doesn't change based upon the road right-of-way. The width of the pavement will still be the 24 feet in width that you normally drive on. What you have is now utilities can either be in a separate utility easement and not within the road right-of-way, is typically what happens when you reduce the road right-of-way width. You're not changing in any way the travel lane width with the reduction. It's simply how we deal with utilities, water and sewer and private utilities, to get access to the different parcels. But the travel lanes do not change. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So if I'm understanding, so what happens is the utilities are besides -- are outside of the right-of-way for the road; is that correct? They're off -- MR. YOVANOVICH: They're adjacent, yes. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: They're adjacent. MR. YOVANOVICH: Instead of being within the 60 feet, they're adjacent. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. And then I believe you're asking June 27, 2017 Page 35 for a 200-foot distance increase in the distance where you have to put parking places to your recreation, meaning it goes from 300 to 500? MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm not sure that that's -- I think what we're -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And that is justified because you say that you want to get people walking? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, that's for the recreational facilities within -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- the project. And, typically, when you are a smaller project like ours, people are going to walk to their recreational facilities. They're not going to drive to them. This is not a big project that's going to require a long distance to get to those recreational facilities. And based upon the proximity of the buildings around the rec -- to the rec. facility, it makes no sense to provide that additional parking. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: What level of service are you doing for the group housing in terms of their medical -- required medical care? I'm assuming this is a retirement home; am I misunderstanding group housing? MR. YOVANOVICH: If we go the senior housing route, there's a list of required amenities that we're supposed -- or required to provide, and I used to know them all off the top of my head because I remember when they came into existence. They're typically, you know, the pull cords you have to have, you have to provide dining and service -- thank you. You have to provide dining service, you have to provide a wellness center and things like that for the seniors. You need to make sure that they can be adjusted in place as people become -- need, you know, like kitchens and things like that to deal with those issues. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: But in terms of the distance, what I was questioning is -- and I'm very familiar with Moorings Park and June 27, 2017 Page 36 facilities like that. A lot of times guests will drive, but the people -- they do walk or they do take their golf carts, and they have golf cart transportation. Usually it's chauffeured from place to place. So when you said either/or, so it's either senior housing, which you mean group housing, or it will be residential? MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Okay. And the residential will be multifamily? MR. YOVANOVICH: Multifamily, yes. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Okay. I would agree to the walking for the multifamily. I'm not sure that the group housing would do. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, we'll have people who will help them get to -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah. But there's parameters to develop it. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. If you'd go back to the one map before, the one before you put up the deviations, if -- I don't see interconnectivity within your development to -- for pedestrians to interface and, even by bicycles, for instance, to Esplanade or to, I believe, the undeveloped piece to the right. There's only one road. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, there's -- well, first of all, to the east -- I always do this. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I know. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. To the east you do have interconnectivity. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: He was trying to figure out which way was right. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. So over here, that's the Tree Farm PUD. June 27, 2017 Page 37 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: They also contact with us, which will bring them to Immokalee Road, and will bring us to 951. So there's interconnectivity between these two projects here. There is a sidewalk in front of -- or a pathway from front -- on Immokalee Road on the north side of that canal. So there is walkable interconnectivity that way from the residents of Esplanade. There used to be an actual interconnection point for vehicles between Esplanade and this project, but the way Esplanade ultimately got development, vehicular connection, it was at their option, and they chose not to have vehicular interconnection. So that was taken off of the master plan as part of this approval. But there's pedestrian access through the sidewalk system within Esplanade to get to Immokalee Road and then, obviously, to our project, that sidewalk, and then there's vehicular connection to our east. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. So you're telling me that the Esplanade development doesn't want any pedestrian access to their development from yours, is that correct, pedestrian? I'm talking -- MR. YOVANOVICH: They have through the existing sidewalk. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: On the Immokalee Road -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: -- but not through the development itself. MR. YOVANOVICH: They have not requested it, and it's a lot of green space for them. And I'm sure if they wanted it, they would have requested it. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Thank you very much. MR. YOVANOVICH: And if I can, the previous deviation we're talking about as far as parking -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- and it only applies to the multifamily June 27, 2017 Page 38 part of it, not the senior housing. So we're not asking for a deviation for anything related to the senior housing. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. All right. Oh, and one request. I'd like you to remove the use the -- as you have eliminated dance halls and mopeds. I'd like gasoline stations pulled out of there, too, please. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't think we're willing to agree to that. We have, I believe, an interested -- and it's not Racetrac. We have an interested gas station on that parcel, and we'd like to leave that in. It has not come up as an issue with the Planning Commission or your staff. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Then I'd like that gasoline station item to be a conditional use, go through a conditional use. Any gasoline stations planned for that piece needs to go through a conditional use process. MR. YOVANOVICH: We've just gone through the same process you would go through for a conditional use by doing a PUD hearing with the public hearing process in front of the Board of County Commissioners, in front of the Planning Commission, our NIMs. So we respectfully would say that we've addressed that through this process, and we've not asked for any deviations for any of the siting requirements of gas stations or any of the development standards for gas stations, and we'd like to see that use stay in the PUD as a permitted use since we've been through the same process you would go through for a conditional use. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Thank you. MR. OCHS: Would you like a staff presentation, ma'am? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes, sir; please. MR. OCHS: Is there any presentation staff beyond -- MR. JOHNSON: Good morning, Madam Chair, Commissioners. For the record, I'm Eric Johnson, Principal Planner in the Zoning Division. June 27, 2017 Page 39 This petition or, actually, this property is located within an activity center, and the Growth Management Plan, the GMP, intends for commercial activities as well as higher residential densities. The eligible maximum density for this site is 16 dwelling units per acre. The project was reviewed by the Planning Commission at their May 18th hearing. The Planning Commission had requested a number of changes. Those changes are reflected in your PUD document, your ordinance. The Planning Commission unanimously approved or recommended to approve the item; however, there were several speakers there expressing their concerns, so that's why this item is placed on advertised public hearing. The petition is consistent with the Growth Management Plan, so staff is recommending approval. The Planning Commission is also recommending approval. During the presentation, I overheard Mr. Yovanovich indicate that there's going to be a hedge along the west property line that shares with Esplanade, and I believe that this would be it. I believe this is the hedge that is being referred to, and also the difference between what's in your packet and this drawing is that the landscape buffer has been changed from a D to a B, which is consistent with what was agreed to at the Planning Commission. And also, on this Exhibit C, the buffer is changed -- the label, anyway, is changed from a D to a B, and there's this hedge as well. So that's -- and also, Mr. Yovanovich -- or the master plan had been changed to indicate that the project is proposing 11.45 dwelling units per acre. So I just wanted to take care of some housecleaning measures. That really concludes my presentation. I'll be happy to answer any questions you have. Thanks. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders? June 27, 2017 Page 40 COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I don't have any questions. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Nope. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: (No verbal response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No, ma'am. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I have a couple questions. Institutional buildings, which is the group housing, they -- does fit within a commercial part of a PUD; is that correct? MR. JOHNSON: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And can you tell me what the density, please, is of Esplanade. I'm sorry. I know I'm asking questions that -- I did my homework. I, too, worked very late last night. MR. JOHNSON: I'm going to refer to my staff report. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. MR. JOHNSON: And on Page 3 of 21, I believe the Esplanade Golf and Country Club was approved for .74 DU's per acre. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Then the PUD to the north -- that's Esplanade. So it's .74 -- Esplanade is .74 units. MR. JOHNSON: That's correct. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. So that would be the north and the west? MR. JOHNSON: That's correct. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And then the Tree Farm? I believe that's the one to the east. MR. JOHNSON: That's due east. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Do we know what that -- MR. JOHNSON: Yes. That was approved for 175,000 square feet of commercial, seven DUs per acre; seven dwelling units per acre. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Seven? June 27, 2017 Page 41 MR. JOHNSON: That's correct. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. So when you said this is according to our Growth Management Plan, our Growth Management Plan says that anything in a mixed-use PUD you need to take a two-mile radius and balance the intensity of what is being proposed to what's around. What we've got are .74 units in Esplanade density; is that correct? MR. JOHNSON: That's correct, 0.74. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Then to the east we have seven units; is that correct? MR. JOHNSON: That's correct. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: But in this one we have 16. MR. JOHNSON: Eligible. They're proposing a little over 11; 11.45. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay, okay. But the hotel -- if the hotel goes in there -- MR. JOHNSON: Hotels aren't counted towards density, residential density. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. So it's 11, not 16? MR. JOHNSON: That's correct, 11.45. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. And are you concerned about the lack of pedestrian ability in terms of connecting to the other PUDs around it? MR. BOSI: As the petitioner indicated, there will be interconnection, I think both vehicular and pedestrian, to Tree Farm. And remember, where -- to the east of this property is where the more intense activity center uses are arranged, and that's where your household goods and services are going to be obtained. So where the interconnection makes the most sense, it is being provided for by this plan. And there was early indication when Esplanade came on that June 27, 2017 Page 42 there eventually would be an interconnection. That development has made the decision that an interconnection, based upon its current configuration, does not make sense. So this facility will have the available pedestrian and vehicle interconnections to the east and to the south to Immokalee Road, which gets you to the larger systems. So they've satisfied that interconnection. And from a planning perspective, they are providing a multimodal opportunity, not just for vehicular, but for bicycling and for pedestrian access, particularly to those commercial activities and opportunities that sit to the east, you know, where those households will receive the goods and services. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So the residents have told me that they were told by staff that within a certain period of time -- and I don't know if it was five years or three years or eight years -- an overpass is planned for Immokalee and Collier Boulevard; is that correct? MR. BOSI: I'd have to defer to Trinity Scott on the specific timing of the overpass. MS. SCOTT: For the record, Trinity Scott, Transportation Planning Manager. The current improvements at Immokalee and 951 will accommodate a future overpass; however, our Long Range Transportation Plan does not have it included within the 2040 cost feasible plan. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: 2040. Did you hear that? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's good to know. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That was news to you, right? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: When you said that they said there was going to be an overpass, I'm thinking about the 2040, and I'm not seeing it in there, so... June 27, 2017 Page 43 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I believe it's at Pine Ridge; is that right, Trinity? There's another overpass planned somewhere. MS. SCOTT: At 951 and 41, we have a similar situation. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Forty-one. MS. SCOTT: Collier Boulevard, 41, where we are planning based on the improvements that were previously completed at that intersection where we planned for a future overpass, where we have set aside the necessary right-of-way and have made those maximum at-grade improvements that will accommodate a future overpass when it's necessary. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. MS. SCOTT: And we'll incorporate that into the Long Range Transportation Plan as those projections laid it. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you for that clarification. I guess we'll open up the public hearing -- public speakers. MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, we have one registered public speaker, Bill Griffith. MR. GRIFFITH: Here? MR. MILLER: Either one, sir. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I think he needs to be sworn in. He wasn't here when they did the swearing in, just saying. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Were you sworn in, sir? MR. GRIFFITH: No. MR. OCHS: We need to swear you in, if you don't mind. Raise your right hand. (The speaker were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. GRIFFITH: Sure. Yes. My name's Bill Griffith. My wife and I reside in The Quarry. We're full-time residents here. We vote here. The information -- everything presented by the Planning Commission, I think it seems to all be focused toward the particular June 27, 2017 Page 44 development. My concern is who is looking at the scope of -- the total scope of development, and how much of development is going on Immokalee Road? I understand there was a -- and I'm not sure what entity did it, but some kind of report about the -- Immokalee Road is going to be basically nonfunctional very soon because of the heavy traffic and heavy development. We see development going in at all different places on Immokalee Road, and I just wonder who -- whether it's the Commission, somebody from the state, who looks at what is happening in the big picture. I don't hear it at this -- anything about that in this hearing. And I just wonder, you know, what it's going to be like when we're down the road, you know, five years, 10 years. Who's looking at that? You can't really -- Immokalee is six lanes now. Are you going to be able to really make it wider? I don't think so. And I don't really see any concern for that aspect of what's going on here by the Commission, the Planning Commission, anybody that I can tell. And then the other thing seems to be -- just reading the paper about other developments. It seems like developers are able to come in. They put forward a plan. It goes through the Planning Commission. It's approved by the Commission. And, thereafter, they seem to be able to make an awful lot of changes that kind of get, you know, just sort of slipped under the rug without any real oversight or any comparison or consideration of the big picture, what's happening to overall development and the use -- the roadway, Immokalee Road, and that sort of thing. And I would just say, that certainly represents my view and my wife's view. It also represents the view of several other full-time residents at The Quarry who just are not able to be here today. So June 27, 2017 Page 45 thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. Any questions? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. No questions, just to reply to this gentleman's message to us. Here, right here on one of the pages that we have to read, it says, staff notes that Immokalee Road is projected to fail the required level of service past the current five-year plan projection. Staff is diligently working on various network improvements such as the recently approved authorization to reinitiate the Vanderbilt Beach Road extension project, which would serve as a parallel corridor within the network. So they are addressing this, and they are working on this, and I just wanted to -- MR. GRIFFITH: And when would that extension be done? COMMISSIONER FIALA: They just -- as I said, it just says they're starting -- they're working on it right now. MR. GRIFFITH: So if Immokalee's going to fail, why are we even considering some of these other developments? COMMISSIONER FIALA: We're preparing for it because it's projected to fail. So what they're doing right now is trying to make sure that it does not fail. MR. GRIFFITH: Well, you drive it in season. There are days when it's failing right now. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Can I make a statement, comment? Am I allowed to follow up on that? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And this isn't an adversarial statement, sir. There are four land use plans that are currently under review in Eastern Collier County that encompass all of the developable lands east of 951; the rural fringe mixed-use district, the Golden Gate Estates June 27, 2017 Page 46 Master Plan, the Immokalee overlay, and the RLSA. And I highly recommend that you become participatory in those processes. You'll learn where the plan infrastructure, in fact, is. You'll learn where the growth and development, in fact, is going to go. You'll see who is comprehensively looking at the growth and development and the intermodal systems that we currently have in place, and you won't have to ask that kind of a question here. MR. GRIFFITH: Well, you know, I think the question is valid, and I say this: Having a plan, having two plans, three plans, four plans, it's all well and good, but if the plans don't work and they don't produce the desired result, you know, that doesn't really make any difference. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Agreed. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chair, just real quickly. I had a meeting with transportation staff, and I guess there were some other folks in that meeting as well, talking about Immokalee Road and the fact that there are some projections that it will get to a Level F at some point if certain improvements aren't made. It was a very good presentation. Staff has a tremendous number of fixes to that. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And so I understand the concern that in five or seven years that road may fail or reach a level of F service under certain -- at certain times of the year and at certain hours of the day, but that's something that we're going to be working on to make sure that doesn't happen. So, I appreciate your concern, and I know The Quarry's had some issues in terms of access and all, and staff's working on trying to fix those. They've done if for a couple of other developments where there June 27, 2017 Page 47 was some trouble getting onto Immokalee Road or getting off Immokalee Road into their developments or making left turns. So staff's working on all those. If you've got a specific issue, then you need to let us know what that is, and we'll try to get transportation staff to fix that problem. MR. GRIFFITH: Well, we -- I think we were aware of those efforts and some of those specific issues. But, again, my concern is the big-picture issue and what's going to happen, and I don't think what we're doing is sustainable. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much -- MR. GRIFFITH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: -- for coming in here, sir. And I just would like to say to you, you know, that we need to be reminded because, frankly, the buck stops here. And if we don't keep the growth of this community in our foremost mind and look at the big picture, then we're headed to a place that I don't think anybody wants to be. And I can assure you that staff -- they don't have sleepless nights, but I've heard more than one time about, you know, the road. We can't -- we've got to be careful. And they're very cognizant of it. So we're working hard but, at the same time, it's project by project, and sometimes we need to look at the bigger picture. So thank you for your comments. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Well, we do look at the big picture. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So -- all right. The public hearing is now closed. MR. YOVANOVICH: I just have a few follow-up comments based upon some of the comments that were made. I just want to address some of the density-related comments. A couple things. First of all, the Tree Farm PUD, which is the PUD to the east, or my right, was approved; it's part in the activity center, part June 27, 2017 Page 48 not in the activity center. So the seven units per acre for Tree Farm is for the portion that's not in the activity center but into the residential density band that would allow it to go up to the seven units per acre, and Tree Farm had the 16 units per acre as part of the activity center portion of that. So from a density standpoint, we're actually a step down from what the activity center use was allowed for, the Tree Farm PUD. Now, Esplanade is a unique PUD. It used to be known as Mirasol, and that one took probably 10 years to get through the process. A portion of it is in the urban area, and a portion of it is in the rural fringe mixed-use district. And it was not even receiving lands. It was neutral lands for that. So when you're looking at the density, you're including significant acreage that was allowed to be developed at one unit per five acres. So when you see this blend of a lower number of density, it's because of that significant acreage that had a very low allowed density in the first place because it was neutral lands under the rural fringe mixed-use PUD use district. But the urban portion of the project peaked out at its maximum density, if I remember correctly, when we were going through that at the four units per acre you were allowed. I'd have to go back and check my math, but I'm pretty sure it peaked out on the number. So that .74 for Mirasol is a little bit -- a little bit misleading when you compare it to the other projects just because of the significant portion of lands that were in the neutral lands. We actually -- again, we are reducing the peak-hour peak trips by I think it's 224 trips because we are converting to a residential use from an already approved retail use, so I think we're bettering that situation. So those are the comments I just wanted to quickly address based upon comments from the Commission and the public. But we're available to answer any more questions you may have regarding the June 27, 2017 Page 49 project. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Any questions? Commissioner McDaniel? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I did have one, and it's just -- I thought, Rich, in the review that there originally was some vehicular access out of Esplanade through the southerly portion of Addie's Corner to -- MR. YOVANOVICH: There was. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- to the -- I know that we had -- I say "we." I know that there is vehicular access for this development, but I thought I saw originally -- prior to the security gate for Esplanade, I thought that there was some vehicular connection which would help alleviate some of the traffic from the residents of Esplanade to be able to come over to the inter -- or through the intersection and to the commercial and the other available infrastructure there to the east. I thought I saw that at one time. Did that get removed? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, we removed it because the original master plan for the Addie's Corner PUD did have a vehicular interconnection point if the residents of Esplanade wanted it. Now, as you can see, Esplanade has been developed. It's to our left, on the west. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: On the west. MR. YOVANOVICH: There's now a lake. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: So the vehicular interconnection clearly was not elected to occur by the residents of -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: So that -- did I see on the pictures just a pedestrian traffic, bicycle, and walkers and such. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. Walkers can get there through -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I just thought I recalled that I June 27, 2017 Page 50 saw that in some of the backup documentation, and I thought that that might help alleviate. But when you have a road, traffic goes both ways. It's just not for the access of the folks in Esplanade. There is a -- MR. YOVANOVICH: And they elected to -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Not have that; got it. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- not have that, so... COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Any questions, Commissioner Solis? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: (Shakes head.) COMMISSIONER FIALA: So okay, fine. No more questions. I'll just make a motion to approve. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Second. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'll second that, and that incorporates the changes that have been outlined. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All those in favor of the motion to approve, say aye. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign. Aye. And I'm opposing it because it does not follow the Comp Plan. It doesn't follow our Growth Management Plan regarding that two-mile radius of balancing the densities. Four units an acre is June 27, 2017 Page 51 different than 11. So I will -- excuse me. And -- thank you very much. And I think what we'll do now -- it's not 10:30, but I think we will take a break before our next hearing. MR. OCHS: Be back at 10:30, ma'am? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: 10:30. Yep. Thank you for that. (A brief recess was had.) MR. OCHS: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your seats. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much, County Manager. MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. Item #9B ORDINANCE 2017-29: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 04-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) TO RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (RPUD) FOR A PROJECT KNOWN AS THE TRIAD RPUD, TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF 44 SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF PALM SPRINGS BOULEVARD AND RADIO LANE IN SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 10.75± ACRES; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 05-11, June 27, 2017 Page 52 AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE NO. 05-23, THE FORMER TRIAD PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE – MOTION TO APPROVE PER AGREEMENT REACHED BETWEEN PETITIONER AND ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS AND INCLUDES STAFF STIPULATIONS – ADOPTED Item #9C ORDINANCE 2017-30: AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 04- 41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (RPUD), TO RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (RPUD) FOR A PROJECT KNOWN AS THE MAC RPUD TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF 44 SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF PALM SPRINGS BOULEVARD AND RADIO LANE IN SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 10.76± ACRES; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 05-50, THE FORMER MAC RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE – MOTION TO APPROVE PER AGREEMENT REACHED BETWEEN PETITIONER AND ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS AND INCLUDES STAFF STIPULATIONS – June 27, 2017 Page 53 ADOPTED MR. OCHS: That takes us to Item 9B on this morning's agenda. If you'd all please take your seats, please, so we can begin the meeting. Thank you. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I think they needed longer than 11 minutes. MR. OCHS: Commissioners, Item 9B also requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by commission members, and all participants will be required to be sworn in. This is a recommendation to approve an ordinance that changes the zoning classification from Planned Unit Development, PUD, to residential Planned Unit Development, RPUD, for a project known as the Triad RPUD to allow development of 44 single-family dwelling units. And -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: County Manager? MR. OCHS: -- it would be appropriate, Madam Chair, to take ex parte. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Are we going to consider doing them both at the same time, or is that not appropriate? MR. OCHS: I'll look to the County -- they're separate -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Separate PUDs, but they're beside each other. MR. KLATZKOW: Applicant's choice. Rich, do you want hear them both at the same time? MR. YOVANOVICH: The way we did it at the Planning Commission was we present them both since they're kind of mirror images, and then there was a separate vote taken on each. And I've prepared my presentation as if you're going to hear them both concurrently -- June 27, 2017 Page 54 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- and then take separate motions. I can adjust. That's not a big deal, but... CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Of course. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So you have the Triad and the other one. MR. OCHS: That is the MAC RPUD, Madam Chair. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Then there's another one that they've thrown in, and it says, like, Hadley Place or something like that. What is that? Same thing. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, it's the same project. It's the actual name of the project that D.R. Horton is going to be calling this project when they develop it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I see. So that really kind of confused me -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Sorry about that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- because I thought, if we're talking about the two, what do we do with the third? MR. YOVANOVICH: That was it, yeah. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. That will be included with the two that we're talking about? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It's kind of the parent of the two. MR. YOVANOVICH: Essentially when -- assuming we get approved, the combined project will be called the Hadley project. COMMISSIONER FIALA: All right. Thank you. MR. OCHS: So, Madam Chair, if you're going to take them together, it would be appropriate for the Board to make ex parte disclosures on both and then -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: On both. MR. OCHS: -- for the court reporter to swear in anyone who wants to give testimony or speak to both the Triad and the MAC June 27, 2017 Page 55 RPUD. MR. MILLER: For what it's worth, Leo, most people have signed up to speak for both, B and C together on one sheet. MR. OCHS: Okay. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Is that -- I hope that's clear to everyone. All right, good. All right. Commissioner McDaniel? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. I have ex parte on both items that we are going to hear concurrently, both a combination of emails, meetings, and correspondence. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I spoke with -- well, I've had meetings, correspondence, emails, and I've spoken with a lady named Cathy Gorman, and actually then I went and took a ride through the area and went down all the streets just to make sure that I was familiar with what they were talking about. I also reached out to the Hearing Examiner and to somebody on the Planning Commission on both of these. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I, as well, have had meetings and received emails, meetings with Mr. Yovanovich, Mr. Everett from D.R. Horton, I also met with Cathy Gorman, and I've received emails from both Ms. Gorman and Attorney Douglas Lewis. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And, Madam Chair, I've had meeting with Mr. Yovanovich and Wayne Everett as well as received emails from Mr. Lewis, Mr. Lapore (phonetic), and several others. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's good. And I have had meetings with Mr. Yovanovich, I've had a meeting with Ms. Gorman, I have had emails and calls from -- a large email from Mr. Lewis, and I also took a ride through the neighborhood, got the lay of the land, sighted the June 27, 2017 Page 56 two PUDs that we're discussing this morning, and drove back through the neighborhood among the streets there. So that's good. So would everyone that is going to give testimony please stand and raise your right hand. You need to be sworn in, or you will not be able to give testimony. Thank you. MR. OCHS: That includes if you're a registered speaker. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. Mr. Yovanovich? MR. YOVANOVICH: Good morning. For the record, Rich Yovanovich on behalf of the petitioner of both of these projects. I'm going to put on the visualizer just a general location map first and then specific. The projects are basically mirror images of each other fronting on both Radio Lane and Palm Springs Boulevard. And that's a general location map of where the projects are. I want to -- I'll do a little bit closer aerial. The parcels are each approximately 10.75 acres in size, and I said they were located with frontage on both Radio Lane and Palm Springs Boulevard. Both PUDs, essentially, are identical. They're approved for 86 multifamily units within each PUD for a total of 172 multifamily units that can be constructed on the property. Our request is to eliminate the multifamily use and replace it with single-family use, 44 units within each PUD, for a reduction down to 88 single-family units or residences within each project. I will put on the visualizer the MAC PUD first, master plan. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It's upside down. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It's upside down. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Then I don't want it that way. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It's easy to read that way. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. So that's the project that is on the west of Radio Lane, left side. June 27, 2017 Page 57 And the master plan for the project on the right is the mirror, basically the same image, with access on Palm Springs Boulevard. We've set it up to where our preserves are adjacent to the residence to our north in both projects. There was a question that came up regarding the -- we're going to have a swale and a -- what's that -- retaining wall. I don't know why I couldn't remember that -- a retaining wall for that swale, and there was a question about what are you going to see from the residents' side of that retaining wall when we meet the code-required plantings, so I want to give you a photograph of what you'll see with the required plantings. So, as you can see, when you're on the residents side looking back at our project, we'll be planting those grasses in front of the retaining wall so you won't even see the retaining wall that's part of the project when we build that. So that was a concern that we heard from some of the residents and commissioners when we were meeting with commissioners about that concern. There were also -- there was also concern regarding how was this project going to impact the drainage for the neighborhood, and that's -- that's frequently a concern, and it's more frequently a concern when you have an older subdivision that was developed under different standards than what are the current standards for the project. And there was an extensive discussion about that in front of the Planning Commission, and Mr. Kurtz spoke about that. But, essentially, what we're required to do -- and Mike Pappas is here to answer any questions you may have from our side. And I forgot to introduce my team. I've got Wayne Everett from D.R. Horton who can answer any questions; Mike Pappas is our engineer; Patrick Vanasse is our planner from our -- they're both from RWA. Mike Pappas, as part of our process, is required to drain -- to June 27, 2017 Page 58 design a system that will retain our water and release it at the county's promulgated rate for releasing it. So he's prepared an analysis and can share it with you in greater detail if you want him to that analyzes the pre versus post water discharge. And the current discharge rate is way higher than will be in effect when we actually develop our project, retain our water on site, and then we release it at the county's promulgated release rate. There are also concerns about the swales in the area. Obviously, the swales in front of our project, we will improve those swales when we're putting the sidewalks in in front of our project on Radio Lane, as well as the sidewalks we'll be putting in on Palm Springs Boulevard. So we'll be addressing the swales in front of our projects. Mr. Kurtz spoke at the Planning Commission and is well aware of drainage issues in this area and has assured the Planning Commission that, you know, staff has the resources and the machinery necessary to properly maintain swales within the county's right-of-way. There was a portion of the outfall system across I-75 that the county didn't own easements over those drainage swales. The county has acquired the necessary easements and now can maintain those swales as well, and this is what Mr. Kurtz testified to at the Planning Commission. I think he's here and can confirm what I'm saying. So from a drainage standpoint, we believe we've addressed the comments about the concern about drainage. We're required to go through a South Florida Water Management District permitting process to get approved. If we don't meet the required drainage for that, we will not get our Water Management District permit, so we will go through that process. We will not get approved if we don't meet the standards that are set forth for the project and other projects in Collier County. One other comment that has come about is the desire for a wall to be constructed along Palm Springs Boulevard. We are -- we cannot June 27, 2017 Page 59 agree to put a wall in front of Palm Springs Boulevard between the berm combination and the planting combination and your requirements under your code for opacity related to the hedge that's required. When you're driving along Palm Springs Boulevard, you're essentially going to have a berm-hedge combination approximately six feet tall from the existing road elevation. So we're comfortable that the berm-hedge combination provides the necessary visual blocking that the residents may have with -- what they've expressed is if there's a single-family home, they don't want to see the air-conditioning units while -- when they're traveling along Palm Springs Boulevard. So our project is in keeping with existing neighborhood. The project was approved for multifamily. And we're asking to reduce that density for a single-family project. We have single-family and duplex units, or attached single-family units, however you want to refer to those, in the zoning behind us, which is RFM12 with a cap of seven units per acre. We're trying to achieve price points that are consistent with the neighborhood and is, I think, consistent with some of the commissioners' statements about bringing price points down. I'm not calling this affordable housing. We're still trying to get in the upper 2s, lower 3s as our price points, but that's the target price points for this project, which we believe is in keeping with the homes behind us. And D.R. Horton is, ultimately, going to be the developer if the PUD is approved. So we have met with the neighbors, we've addressed the comments that we can and, basically, have gone as far as we can in addressing all of their comments. I think drainage is an issue that you can confirm with your staff that will be addressed through the permitting process. We are -- your staff has recommended approval of this project, June 27, 2017 Page 60 and your Planning Commission, but for one deviation, which was the inverted crown, recommended approval of the project. Your staff also recommended denial of the inverted crown, and we're withdrawing that request for the deviation for the inverted crown. Although we don't think it's an inferior road, we have agreed to withdraw the request for a deviation to do an inverted crown. So we'll do the regular crown road with -- and we always had sidewalks on both sides of the street, whether it was inverted crown or not. The sidewalks will be on both sides of the street. And with that, I think I've addressed the overall project and the revisions we can agree to make as part of our presentation. And did I leave anything out, Patrick? I think I've covered everything, and we can answer any questions you may have regarding the project. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders, any questions? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah. I don't have any questions on either one of those agenda items. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No questions. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. You mentioned something about -- you kind of glossed over target -- target price point. What is your target price point? MR. YOVANOVICH: Oh, I thought I -- maybe I didn't say it loudly enough. 290,000 or upper -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: 290,000. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- uppers 2s, upper 200,000s. (Simultaneous speakers.) MR. YOVANOVICH: I said upper 2s, lower 3s, and that meant hundreds. June 27, 2017 Page 61 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. 290,000, okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: The upper 2s, yes, and the lower 300,000s. COMMISSIONER FIALA: All righty. Second thing is -- and this is the thing that Cathy Gorman mentioned most frequently, and that is they're very worried about the drainage in that area. You mentioned it as well. And you say, of course, you'll take care of all of that and so forth. I wonder if you don't. Will you guarantee that if there is flooding after -- you know, after you have built your homes, that you'll go back in and fix that at -- the developer will fix at their expense to make sure that these people do not have flooding that are already there? MR. YOVANOVICH: So if we incorrectly build our project, will we fix our mistakes within our project? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: I believe we're -- I think we're kind of required to do that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I don't know. I just want to give them some assurance that you will. I mean, a lot of times you hear rumors -- I can't say that they're true or not -- where people are flooding and the water's draining right off the property that was built up higher than theirs, but they don't want to fix whatever the problem was, and then the guys next door are having water all the time. So I just wanted to have some assurance for the people that are already living there, that they won't have to deal with any flooding problems caused by the new development. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, the only thing I could say is we'll go through the design process and get the appropriate permits, and we will build it according to the appropriate permitting through the District and Collier County. And so if we don't build it according to the appropriate permits, June 27, 2017 Page 62 we'll come back and fix it to make sure it's according to the appropriate permits. You know, what you have is you have an older subdivision that's already experiencing problems. The natural thing -- the natural reaction's going to be is, this project made it worse, but all the analysis is going to show we're actually not going to make it worse. We're going to make it better. But I'm not -- I can't cure some of the ills of the past that may already exist. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Now, I was not aware that they already had flooding problems. Is that true? Okay. I see a couple heads nodding "yes." Okay. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: So is mine. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, mine's a little wet, too, right now. But I understand. No, and that's -- and I get it. They're an older subdivision that didn't have necessarily the same level of infrastructure as newer communities have. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. That's all for now. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I have no questions. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Is staff going to present? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We were all looking there, and they all went that way. MS. GUNDLACH: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, I'm Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner with the Zoning Department. And this morning staff is recommending approval of the MAC and Triad PUDs, as they are consistent with our Land Development Code as well as our Growth Management Plan. And with me this morning I have a number of staff specialists, should you have any questions, and it would be our pleasure to answer them. June 27, 2017 Page 63 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. Commissioner McDaniel? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I have no questions. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: (Shakes head.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I have no questions. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I'd like to hear from Jerry Kurtz, Mr. Kurtz, regarding the lay of the land of the entire area so we can understand what's going on here, please, and perhaps a diagram of what the developer is proposing to do. MR. KURTZ: Good morning. Jerry Kurtz, for the record, County Stormwater Manager. I do have a map that might be good for the visualizer just to discuss as we kind of work around the area and the neighborhood. So Palm Springs neighborhood has been on our stormwater, kind of, challenge list for many, many years. Some of the notes on this exhibit show the efforts we've undertaken going back many, many years. The water does flow from south to north, which can be challenging, as the natural slope of the land is typically from the north to the south. We're pushing from the south to the north up under I-75 and into the Golden Gate Main Canal. Golden Gate Main Canal is controlled by water-control structures, and it discharges at a specific discharge rate. So both of these things set the stage for how fast the water can leave the area. And water does leave the area quite well. There's one segment in the outfall path that has yet to be -- it's existing and it's functioning. As resources and funding comes into our stormwater program, we prioritize projects and work. This is a prioritized project, June 27, 2017 Page 64 fairly reasonable in cost, between 100- and 200,000 to just go into that one section, I think it's in green, and to improve it just by removing some excess vegetation, and that will allow the water to flow out a little bit more efficient. But it is, again, facing the Golden Gate Main Canal. So whatever level the Golden Gate Main Canal is will dictate the rate at which water leaves the property. The other noteworthy thing about the neighborhood is, like many, many other areas around the county, the old -- some of these old developments were built with very little water management engineering. Very little elevation was added. You know, today to make water management work really well, we add elevation. That's why you see all the trucks on the road hauling dirt. This old neighborhood, as many old neighborhoods we have, was built at basically the existing elevation. And I'm speaking more on the northerly portion. If you look at the whole Palm Springs neighborhood from north to south, is kind of how it was developed. So the north section was developed many, many years ago. I believe the plat was dated 1968 or '9. So in the '60s and '70s. So that northern portion, basically there's no fill. There was a small lake dug, not really engineered. I say that because there's no water-control structure on the lake. It just -- the water gathers up in the lake and flows out kind of into our receiving ditch. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Mr. Kurtz, just point out -- when you're talking about it -- I think I know where this is, but -- yeah, just tell us where you're talking about within the neighborhood. MR. KURTZ: Okay. So -- sure. Sorry about that. So up here is the oldest part, and these are the lowest homes. There's the lake I mentioned. So all this water comes north into Golden Gate Main Canal here. But the water management system, very typical of the day, is a roadside swaled system. It's an open system. June 27, 2017 Page 65 And the water gathers there and slowly flows out in through the system. Here's the portion of the system that needs a little work. We're going to try to get it scheduled and done in the upcoming year, and -- but I can tell you today, as I've witnessed and walked this area, the water does flow through the entire system; flows very well. Over the years, many improvements done, this section. We worked with the school board up here. They put in pipes because they didn't want open ditch next to their school. So looking at the dates here, we've literally been working on this for 10, 12, 15 years making it work a little bit better every time. We did a really significant rehabilitation program in the neighborhood on the swale systems several years ago. And currently working with -- all the water management maintenance is done by the road maintenance staff; currently working with them on a daily basis here in other parts of the neighborhood, and we've significantly improved the perimeter ditches and the outfall path for the neighborhood. I think water management, especially this time of year, is misunderstood with the standing water, and the water will stand in the swales every day as we get rain every day. When the rains subside and become less frequent, the water will drain; either percolate into the ground, which is what we're looking for to restore the aquifers, or the excess water will run off into the system as fast as the system allows. It's very wet out there today. I've never, frankly -- I've only been doing this 28 years in Collier County. I've never seen standing water in areas in June that I'm seeing this June. Usually the water that I see standing for long periods of time happens in October or -- September and August. So we're having an early rainy season and a lot of standing water. And any other questions, I'm glad to answer for you. June 27, 2017 Page 66 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So what are they -- give us an idea what the plan is for this PUD, these two PUDs to be developed. How are they -- how are they addressing the water issue? MR. KURTZ: So one of the things that's, I think, misunderstood or unknown about water management, when you take a piece of undeveloped property, it's basically -- it's undeveloped so there's not a lot of hardened surfaces to create runoff; however, the land, when it gets saturated, has a runoff rate. It's an uncontrolled runoff rate when saturation occurs because there's no structures to control the runoff. When it's designed and developed, a modern water-management system is constructed. And one of the beautiful things these water-management systems do is they control the runoff rate. So the system can capture the runoff, which will be greater and at a higher rate, but it won't leave the property. It goes into the water-management system where it's what we call attenuated, and then it's squeezed out through the outlet at a controlled discharge rate. And the modeling and the engineering for this site, as well as every other site, tell us that the developed runoff rate is going to be less than the undeveloped runoff rate. And that's why we go through all these water management calculations and modeling and design. So I'm confident to say that when this project is built, the runoff coming from the property will actually be a little bit less than it is today. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. Any other questions? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And it's more of a comment than anything, and it had to do with what Commissioner Fiala brought up when the applicant was up. And, you know, when you were talking about looking for assurances from the developer with the potential for the flooding in the nearby surrounding area, looking at this map, I think it can be the assurance from the county that we're going to expend the necessary funds to take care of the drainage issue that has June 27, 2017 Page 67 been ongoing here since 1962 and allow for the government to assume the responsibility for that, which we should. And it's very appropriate that they're asking this question right in this budget cycle when we can have a discussion about where we're going to expend the funds and the like. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Kurtz. MR. KURTZ: You're welcome. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Can I ask a quick question? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Of course. You've got some questions. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Just very quickly. The streets in the Palm Springs neighborhood, those are all county-maintained streets. MR. KURTZ: Yes, they are. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And in there -- in the neighborhood there's -- I think you said there's a swale system -- MR. KURTZ: Yes. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- and that's about it. Who owns the lake? MR. KURTZ: The lake is owned by the county as well. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: As well, okay. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And I know I had several -- Commissioner, I had several -- or not several. I had a couple of people complaining about the internal swale system between the homes, between the streets, and we, through the AIMS system, had staff go out and look, and several of the residents had actually built fences through the right-of-way that were prohibiting our staff to be able to get through and actually clean those -- those drainage easements or those drainage areas between the homes in the northern portion of Palm Springs, so -- but I think they've rectified that. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Is the lake tied into the swale system or not? MR. KURTZ: You know, it is, but not the way you see a modern June 27, 2017 Page 68 lake being tied into a system. It merely -- the grading of the site allows the overflow of the swales to flow into the lake, and then on the north side there's another little cut in the lake bank which allows the overflow to flow out. So it's an uncontrolled -- it's really an un-engineered system, but it works. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: It's not really a water-management feature. It's a lake. MR. KURTZ: Well, it functions as water management. You know, every lake is a -- provides a bit of storage and attenuation, so it's helping. The lake's helping. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah. I mean, I think I would just comment that I would echo what Commissioner McDaniel said. I think the resolution of the flooding issues is really greater than the PUD, and I understand the calculations that have to be met and the formulas that have to be met for a new development to handle its own runoff and that that system is verified, and it has to meet the criteria. But I think the resolution of this issue is probably a bigger effort, and it's probably more something that falls upon us, the county, unfortunately -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- than anyone else. Thank you for clarifying. MR. KURTZ: And you're going to -- sorry. You're going to hear, probably, more concerns about that from the residents, and I can assure you that we're aware. Again, we're trying to -- and like all our other challenging areas in the county where old low development is meeting new higher development, we understand the challenges. We have efforts in place to keep this -- improving this and watch it, monitor it. And anything we can do to get the water out and prevent flooding of homes, which is the most critical and catastrophic, that's what we're doing. And we're well aware of the particulars of this neighborhood. June 27, 2017 Page 69 And I've got to say, with my partners in Water Management, with the Road Maintenance Department, we are on it, and we have it covered, and we have a few little other items to do to make things work even better. And we're not ignoring the situation by any means. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And then I would also add, having lived with swales in the Pine Ridge area, it took me a long time to get my arms around the fact that it actually is something that's designed to hold water as opposed to just move it. But 20 years later, I think I got my arms around that. So thank you for clarifying all that. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I have a quick question, Madam Chair. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Of course, yes. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Somebody else's light's on. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: No. My only issue -- and it's been addressed -- was the drainage issue. I've obviously met with a lot of the -- not a lot -- but several of the residents nearby, and it sounds like you've got things under as good a control as we could have it at this point. MR. KURTZ: Yes. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So I appreciate that. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And this isn't verified, but this is a representation that was made to me. There was an allowance for a reduction in the on-site retention from a requisite of 15 percent down to around 9. MR. KURTZ: I don't know the specifics of that, but I can tell you that the project has to be designed and permitted and constructed meeting all the criteria that everybody else has to meet. So as far as water management, I don't believe there's any deviations. They have to meet the South Florida Water Management District criteria as far as retention and all of that. June 27, 2017 Page 70 COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I understand. And as I said, it was a representation, and I didn't verify any kind of -- any kind of minimum criterion, so -- and I'm sure that -- the applicant's already talked about the necessity for permitting with the District as well, so thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I have another question precisely on that, but I think I'll wait till we've heard testimony. Thank you. And then -- it's more the -- maybe this is the time, but what is the chronology of an applicant wants to develop this property? It's -- and they've already gotten some kind of permits from South Florida Water Management District, but then the plan is developed. Then they have to go back and get that approved. Is that the way this is done? MR. KURTZ: Yeah. The rezoning typically goes ahead first, and the rezoning is more of a land use kind of analysis and things of that nature. But often the applicant goes ahead and begins the design process with the Water Management District, because that can be a lengthy process. So the two kind of can run concurrent. I don't know if I'm answering your question there. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, no -- you know, that's fine. There's been some inference. And it's not in any negative way. It's just, oh, my gosh, look, there's some differences here, and it's called Hadley, and it's MAC and it's Triad, and this is the final -- this is the final step where you're telling me, no, it's not. They have to go back again for final approval, I'm assuming, once the rezone is authorized by this board; is that correct? MR. KURTZ: Yes. Yeah, the rezone has to come first, and then the site development review and approval will happen subsequently. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well -- and I was just going to add that -- and maybe you can verify this, that, ultimately, there's the land June 27, 2017 Page 71 use portion of this that relates to what's going to happen in the different areas of the land, then there's the SDP process which comes through and develops the development plan and the permitting for what's actually going to be built. That's where the water management aspects of this are approved and reviewed. The Water Management District portion of this, ultimately that's a different permit, right? MR. KURTZ: Yes. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: But whatever ends up being built, those two areas of permitting have to -- they have to match. I think that's part of the concern has been you've got these two areas of permitting going simultaneously with two different agencies, and somehow one will be one thing and one will be another. At the end of the day, those two area of permitting have to reflect the same project being built. MR. KURTZ: They do, and they will, yes. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. MR. OCHS: Matt? MR. McLEAN: Yes, absolutely. To answer your questions related to these concerns, this rezoning process is essentially the entitlement process that runs through Mike Bosi's group. Once the entitlement process is completed, then these respective consultants and their engineers need to complete their designs to make sure that all the infrastructure that they're going to ultimately build out on site meets our Land Development Code as well as the Water Management District criteria, as well as the Department of Environmental Protection permitting. All that permitting, essentially, comes back through our development review division where staff reviews all of that information as well to make sure that all those permits are in place and consistent prior to construction occurring on site. June 27, 2017 Page 72 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And I'm sorry, would you, just for the court reporter, give your name, please. MR. McLEAN: Yeah. Matt McLean. I'm the Director of Development Review Division. MR. KURTZ: And, Commissioners, I just wanted to say I'm going to stay. I know you'll hear from the neighbors that are concerned about the drainage in the area, so I'm here to answer more questions should you need me to come back up. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Are you going to build a little -- a temporary hut out there while this is going on so that they don't have to go too far to -- MR. KURTZ: You know what, we're working these issues all around the county currently. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah, absolutely, you are. MR. KURTZ: All around the county. This is not a unique issue to Palm Springs. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Mr. Kurtz, you and I have worked on a few of these, and I can attest that you are a man of your word, and you do stay involved. And thank you very much for that. MR. KURTZ: You're welcome. Thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. I guess we have some public speakers. MR. MILLER: Yes, Madam Chair, seven registered public speakers for this item. Your first speaker is Chris Hagan, and he will be followed by Wendell Vaught. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And if for some reason you've come in in the middle of this hearing and you haven't been sworn in, please know, before you give us testimony, you need to be sworn in. Thank you very much. MR. HAGAN: Good morning, Commission. My name is Chris Hagan from Hagan Engineering. The residents of the adjoining June 27, 2017 Page 73 subdivision have retained me to do a little engineering review and work. I do want you to know that the applicant and staff have worked really closely with us to address almost all of our concerns going forward. But we want to make sure a couple of things get into the record. We'll start with Palm Springs -- well, yeah. We'll start with Palm Springs Boulevard. There we go. Now I can hear it. What we wanted to look at here, at the Palm Springs is -- is this the right side up there? Oh, there we go, okay. We do have a big grade separation. You'll note the road is down here at elevation 9 to -- or 9.8 to 11, and the perimeter berm on this project is going to be all the way up at 13. So we're going to be -- that's going to be significantly elevated with the homes behind it. And there are some slope issues there in that -- the cross slope shown in their ERP application to the District show a 3-to-1 slope on the inside which would -- by county code, would require that it be planted with native grass, not sodded, which may -- because that will be in the county's right-of-way, may become a bit of a maintenance issue. Nothing significant. Let me check my notes. Now, they are improving the swales along the roadway also. Of concern is the roadway swales, as you head north along Palm Springs, are not in as good a shape. As Jerry had alluded to, you know, it's an older subdivision, and those swales have filled in, and a fear is is that this new swale will not be able to drain from north -- or from south to north through that area, and we need to make sure that as part of that AIMS system that we look at trying to get those swales improved to move the water further along. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I don't know that AIMS is capable of running water uphill. Just saying. We'll try. MR. HAGAN: That's why we want to do the ditch improvements June 27, 2017 Page 74 in that area, sir. The applicant has made some efforts on the retaining wall along the eastern side to do the grass plantings. That will work with regards to buffering and drainage. So there's no objection to that at this point. The cross-section in Palm Springs Boulevard is -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I'll let you go forward. MR. HAGAN: -- is significant, and the grade separation may require some type of a retaining wall or any other configuration. And I'm just bringing it to your attention so that when it comes through for PPL, staff's knowledgeable in it, and it is in the record. Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Where would you put the retaining wall? MR. HAGAN: If it were me -- and that's always a dangerous statement -- I would look at someplace in the landscape buffer to put in a small retaining wall to help break up that. It would allow you to put a vertical elevation separation. It takes it out of the right-of-way so it's not a county operation and maintenance issue in the future. And it wouldn't have to be significantly large to make up the difference. But it would help with regards to that. Possibly put it towards the back of the L, landscape buffer easement, and do the plantings in front. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And what is it going to help, putting a retaining wall? MR. HAGAN: It would because it would -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: How? MR. HAGAN: -- allow the grade separation. Right now you've got some steep slopes, and what that would allow you to do is you could go flatter and then go vertical as opposed to a steeper slope all the way up. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh, I see. June 27, 2017 Page 75 COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I think all of those issues will be fleshed out during the SDP process, right? MR. HAGAN: PPL process, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Hagan. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Wendell Vaught. He'll be followed by Douglas Lewis. Mr. Lewis, if I could have you stand by at the next podium. MR. VAUGHT: Hello. For the record, my name is Wendell Vaught. I'm a local business owner here. I have actually just a couple interests in this. I've recently read, what I found out, Hadley Place, environmental resource permit application, environmental supplement section of C. I just actually need a little clarification on a couple things. Basically, we're addressing water issues, which is very important, of course, obviously, with the flooding issues that are presently going on and have the potential in the future as well. I know you're going to be putting in a lake there, and up to 3-foot -- without going through everything, up to 3-foot deep at some times. And I was just wondering, is there such a thing as a littoral zone? I guess I ought to explain. A littoral zone is where the water kind of has a beach, but it goes into the water. And it's not just a drop off, because you're creating, basically, a dead lake if you don't have any kind of areas where the beach around the area can receive any kind of sunlight for plant communities and stuff like that. I think, you know, what you're doing is important, and I appreciate everybody's interest and effort. It's been an educational opportunity for me so far. But I was wondering, as far as the health of the whole thing, that was my first concern was the water issues. We're looking to store June 27, 2017 Page 76 water in the place, and we have to do so, of course, but are we going to try to make it a healthy water-storage facility, such as having littoral zones on the edge. Is that -- did anybody -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: That's -- I mean, that's part of -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Two steps away. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right. That's part of the permitting process. And, again, I'm not an engineer, but I've played one on television sometimes. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Holiday Inn Express? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right. You know, the contour of the lake is something that's taken into consideration. There's a design to that. I think the ERP permit process takes that into consideration. I don't think you can even have a -- (Simultaneous speakers.) MR. VAUGHT: Well, they do in a lot of the developments. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah. I mean, that's -- MR. VAUGHT: And that's the thing. Hopefully we're getting -- we're building better. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Sure, sure. I think that's part of the standard process for developing a water management system. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And we have a fetch formula that's utilized to calculate the width and breadth and depth to allow for a healthy pond. That's all part of the design criterion that our staff utilizes when they come back through to us. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Are you talking specifically about the lake? MR. VAUGHT: Well, the lake in itself, yes, ma'am. Just to see, again, a healthy lake as opposed just to water store -- a tank. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. MR. McLEAN: Again, Matt McLean, Director from Development Review. June 27, 2017 Page 77 Absolutely. All the lakes within Collier County are required to have littoral sections within them. This particular lakes or system of lakes that will be ultimately developed on this property will also be required to provide those littoral areas on there pursuant to our Land Development Code. And we will review that at the time of the subdivision plans, the PPL plans. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: But what about the existing lake in the older part of the neighborhood? Is that the lake you're speaking of? MR. VAUGHT: No, ma'am. But that is a healthy lake. It is a water storage facility for sure. But it's also because of the way it was, I think, identified earlier as just a natural course so where the water would eventually puddle up, if you will, and it has created a lake. And, again, I walked this property, and I've been involved a little bit from a distance, unfortunately, with this whole thing. But I literally walked this yesterday. And that particular lake, if you take out the fertilizers and stuff that they're doing, the management of the county parks, the lake itself is actually a fairly healthy ecosystem. And because of that, if it's all just one drop in the bucket, if you will, then it certainly doesn't have an opportunity for plant life to grow around the ecotone is what it's called and then, and then because of that you're not going to have the little bugs and the little fish and bigger fish and that whole -- that's what I was asking. But I appreciate the clarification on that, sir. Thank you. Another thing I'd like to bring up is -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I'm sorry. Well, we asked you -- I'll allow you but, perhaps, as quickly as possible. MR. VAUGHT: Okay. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. MR. VAUGHT: Sorry. Well, I guess I'm kind of like the Lorax; I speak for the trees. There's a lot of old-growth pine trees in the area, and there is evidence that there has been Red-cockaded woodpeckers -- June 27, 2017 Page 78 they're referred to as RCWs -- in the area at some point. It's in the local area. I've done a lot -- my background is forestry. I retired with the Division of Forestry on the management team of Picayune Strand State Forest at the very end. And, you know, we did a lot -- obviously there's a lot of money involved, a lot of reserve and such involved in preserving the RCW, the Red-cockaded woodpecker. This particular area, when I first was told about this, I didn't believe that it had potential for RCW habitat. They're very specific in their sites that they have to live in. And this particular area is actually -- I was amazed at how many large old-growth trees that there are in that area. And I was wondering, are we looking at preserving any of those? Because in a lot of developments, unfortunately, you know, they take everything out and bring exotics in. But these particular trees, some of them -- and I'd love to do it on my time and my expense. I could bring in people, and I'd be happy to do it, looking at the ecosystem there as a whole, because it has potential to be RCW habitat. That's my professional opinion as we speak. And I could bring in other people that could verify that or correct me, and I'm fine with that as well. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I think that's probably a discussion you would have to have with the developer. I'm pretty sure that's the way it would go, but help me with this, because I'm not sure how we -- MR. McLEAN: Again, Matt McLean, for the record. When it comes, again, to the site development permitting plans, there will definitely be a preserve required on site. Based on the proposed plan with the PUD, they've already identified the areas in general where the preserves are going to be located, as you all can see from the document and the conceptual master plan related to that. So staff will make sure that the assurances are provided that those June 27, 2017 Page 79 will, ultimately, be put into a preserve status within those particular areas so that, again, they are consistent with both the PUD document and our Land Development Code regulations. There will be a lot more specific environmental data that we will review at the time of the subdivision plans related to the preserve and the habitats within them for assurances of the habitat as well as for assurances that those particular areas will have the exotics removed out of them, and after those exotics are removed, if there's supplemental plantings that are required, that will also be part of that overall approval process and construction phase at that time. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. MR. VAUGHT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Thank you. MR. VAUGHT: All right. My pleasure. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. Perhaps you would work with staff on that. MR. VAUGHT: I'd be -- if I could help you in any way, I'd be happy to do so, please, at my expense. Thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. MR. MILLER: Your next public speaker is Doug Lewis, Douglas Lewis. He's been ceded three additional minutes from Kate Colasanti. Could you raise your hand, please, to indicate you're here. And by Bob Colasanti. Thank you. He'll have a total of nine minutes, and he will be followed by Cathy Gorman. MR. LEWIS: Well, good morning, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Doug Lewis. I'm a partner with the law firm of Thompson and Lewis. I'm a registered lobbyist. I'm here today representing Robert Colasanti. He's a neighbor who resides at 670 Pine Crest Lane. I'm also here with Mr. Chris Hagan, who's spoken already. And he's here and available later if you have follow-up questions reading drainage, buffering, or screening. June 27, 2017 Page 80 My client bought his home before the development of the site by D.R. Horton and will reside in the neighborhood long after D.R. Horton sells off its inventory. Now, we also understand that this site is going to be developed, and it's this balancing act between the rights of the developer and the property owner that brings us here together today. After the Planning Commission hearing, we presented certain reasonable requests to the developer. For the record, it's my understanding and I'm pleased to report that we have agreement on four points. First that we're all in agreement, I think staff's in agreement, we've talked today, and the record's pretty clear that the county's responsible to maintain the offsite north/south drainage ditches both on the east and the west PUDs. The developer will install sidewalks on both the Palm Springs Boulevard, and they'll make swale improvements in the right-of-way, and those are much improved and much needed. We also understand that the inverted crown roadway will not be installed and, finally, we understand that the developer will meet the 60 percent open-space requirement and that staff has assured us that the PPL -- that they'll confirm that in the PPL process. Chris Hagan had noted the ERP submittal didn't show compliance, but in speaking with the applicant, they've assured us that they'll meet that by reducing the maximum building envelope to create that additional open space so we get the 60 percent. Returning to our agreement on drainage. I just -- there's a couple things I wanted to put in the record. First, our engineer is in agreement with the applicant that the as-designed project should not result in a worsening of the drainage condition. We make that clear. Second, we understand that the existing older neighborhood is older, and it's lower, and that's one of the challenges we face with new development, and we understand the new development will be higher June 27, 2017 Page 81 elevation. Third, the applicant, staff, and my client are in agreement that the county should provide proper maintenance of the swales and other county water management facilities. That's really important. Real action, real money required to make some significant improvements. Staff and the Planning Commission had -- they did have the benefit of Chris Hagan's report. He's clearly documented the drainage and swale maintenance problems. The owners are happy to have a member of staff come camp out, take video. We can really get that looked at, but we would like to see some improvement. I think we owe that to the residents of the future community as well, that they don't inherit that problem, that we improve the condition. I also want to get on the record that specifically my client has reported that -- and my client's here today to confirm -- that these swales -- and this is important -- within that 72-hour window are not -- they're not properly draining, so the water's retaining. That's a problem, and we'd like staff to take ownership of that and get that fixed. In this regard, there were certain commitments that were made by staff today and also at the Planning Commission. I want to get a couple of those in the record. At four hours, 56 minutes, and 33 seconds, committee person at the Planning Commission, Edwin Fryer, asked if the county's prepared to spend funds if this new development cause problems. His answer -- Mr. Kurtz answered yes, because of the engineered -- it's -- because it's engineered and controlled at quantified discharge rates. He also committed to make it work -- THE COURT REPORTER: Can you slow down a little. MR. LEWIS: -- to make it work better because all of the development in the area, meaning there's a lot of development, and we're committed, we understand that there's a lot of pressure being put June 27, 2017 Page 82 on that system, and we are committed to make it work. He also acknowledged that the -- as we talked about, that the ground falls to the south and that the water needs to go north against the grade, and he said that the residents are really the experts. They can see the problem. And his testimony was that they're going to really defer to the residents. So we hope that that happens. And as you mentioned, Commissioner Taylor, we trust that he's a man of his word. So we'd like to see some improvement there. In our post-Planning Commission discussions, the applicant said that they will meet the minimum code requirements but that it's not willing to take any further action to address the types of neighborhood considerations that you would look at or evaluate under your Land Development Code Sections 10.02.08 and 10.02.13.B.5, particularly those requirements as it relates to the buffering and screening or as addressed in the current PUD documents. Now, the uniqueness about this is there are existing PUD commitments, and they are here to amend those PUD commitments, and we're here to make sure that those commitments that were made that benefit not only our clients but also their future residents, that those stay in there, and I'm going to talk about those briefly. There's just a couple of points. As the applicant is seeking code deviations for its benefit, this body -- and I want to make this clear -- you're fully within your rights to add reasonable rezone conditions that are permitted under the law. They're asking for -- if they came in here and said, all we want -- we don't want any deviations, whatever the code permits, we just want to rezone or downzone, there's no issue, but they are asking for deviations. So in this regard, my client has three requests, reasonable requests: First, to protect the residents and the children, we're asking the developer commit and seek to have -- to seek to apply for -- now, June 27, 2017 Page 83 they can't control it, but they'll commit to request construction access off Radio Lane, and we've asked for that. They've denied that request. We asked specifically that the language that's found in the existing PUD ordinance for the Triad RPUD be incorporated, and it reads, the developer shall request from the county transportation division a temporary construction access permit on the eastern portion of the project off Radio Road. We'd just like to see that traffic used on that bigger road to protect the neighbors and the children that are there. Second, it's my understanding that staff and my client are in agreement that a Type A buffer is required along the north boundary of the Triad RPUD. Now, that is currently not depicted on the master plan, so I'm okay with that as long as when we get into the PPL stage that it's clear it's a Type A buffer. I've had discussions with the applicant. I think we're in disagreement on that, but I think staff and I, from my understanding, we're in agreement. I did note the picture that Mr. Yovanovich presented regarding the sawgrass plantings. And our engineer mentioned, there is going to be a 6-foot-wide swale there on that north end on the Triad, there's going to be a retaining wall, and we're acceptable to the sawgrass planting. We think that's a great way to screen that wall. We just want to make it clear that at the PPL there will be a Type A buffer. Finally, as part of the Type D buffer along -- this is along Palm Springs Boulevard, we did request a decorative wall. Alternatively, we would ask -- and I think this is what's unique there. There's about a 2-foot elevation, and our engineer talked about the slope. So when you're driving, you're kind of looking up, so it's a higher development. So the existing Type D buffer, when you look at -- and the prior -- the actual prior PUD had a deviation in the height. So we would like to see, as an alternative, either allow the vegetative planting in terms of the screening of the hedges to be higher so that we can try to create some kind of a buffer both to protect the June 27, 2017 Page 84 residents so they're not looking out on the roadway as they're looking out their side of their yard, and then we're not -- the residents aren't looking at the A/C units on the side along Palm Springs Boulevard. I think that's a reasonable request. It was in -- I believe it was in the existing PUD; just a deviation to allow either higher vegetative planting or maybe a more dense planting; some kind of additional screening would be great. I think that would be a great enhancement. And in lieu of a wall -- we would prefer a wall, but if we can't get a wall, we'd at least like to see some additional screening. And with that, I appreciate -- that's all that I have. Thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Any questions? Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I'm -- by the way, I'm sorry that I'm standing here. But I just had my knee replaced, and it's really painful, so I have to move around a little bit, so -- but I don't want to leave the room. I just want to be a part of it. I'm sorry about that. No, I have no questions. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. All right. Thank you. MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, your next speaker is Cathy Gorman, and she will be followed by Jonathan Smith. MS. GORMAN: Hi. First I'd like to thank the commissioners who drove through the neighborhood; that was really nice, and it does help us. I also want to go to what we heard Mr. Cohen say at the very beginning of this meeting where he said it's an exciting time to be in Collier County, because I have to agree. I've lived here 25 years. I've lived -- we built the house that abuts to this property 14 years ago. So I keep hearing "old." And I just don't think of my house as old, but I guess it is. What we're really here talking about is I sort of think at times it's been where we've heard one thing with the MAC and Triad, the other June 27, 2017 Page 85 thing with Hadley Place. And all that we're trying to do as the neighbors is, first of all, understand, because I have had to go to Engineering 101 in the course of one month to try and keep up with this because we have had these issues. I looked at my other neighbors that are here that are not speaking, and I said, do you think we have flooding? And we all looked at each other and said no. So, Donna, thank you, but -- like, I really don't believe that we have flooding. We do have a lot of swale issues, as you keep hearing. In our particular house, we had -- a little bit of water is normal. People have always had, as you wrapped your arms around, and no problems until three years ago when the county came in, the road system came in, and they changed things when they were doing Davis Boulevard. And now we have got standing water for five and six days. That's hard for me, personally, because my neighbor right across the street has none. So they kept coming back to our swale, and they kept digging it deeper and deeper and deeper. My last correspondence was with Commissioner Henning, and it was that I would like to get back to him at a future date. And I will now be seeking that AIMS program, especially for my personal swale. But what keeps happening is it keeps just getting deeper and deeper. So I didn't contact him, because it's not fixing it. What we're asking as neighbors is so simple. When they came to us, they said they would do nothing for the neighborhood that did not benefit them. That was a statement that was said at the neighborhood meeting. I heard that they heard with the last group, that when they met with their HOA, that they then did enhanced buffers. They have not met with us as a neighborhood that I am really aware of except at the neighborhood meeting at which we were told -- we weren't asked. We were told. I've listened to it so many times. I am exactly aware of June 27, 2017 Page 86 what they just referred to at the exact minutes of that meeting. That was before the planning board. I've also listened many times to the neighborhood meeting. The bottom line, what we're asking for is enhanced aesthetics. We are -- I don't want to live in fear, but we are highly concerned with the flooding that is potential. Hopefully it will be nothing. They will maintain everything as they said, but in the real world it doesn't always happen, and we're asking that they do us no harm, and we're asking you to help us make sure that that happens, that this is handled. And I'm also asking for actually a buffer of D type. From what I can read of the buffer that are laid out, it wasn't A. They said they could do a B. We are thinking a D, because we're trying to keep the noise from Davis, which now can bounce down. The bowling alley is right here; that noise comes across. You've now removed the vegetation. And my final question is really simple, and I'm not sure -- the preserve. Simply, are they going to level the preserve and then try and rebuild it, or are they going to go in and leave the big trees that have been spoken about and work around them? If I could just get an answer to that, that would help me so much. Can they answer? MR. McLEAN: Again, Matt McLean, for the record. Related to your preserve question in particular, the existing native vegetation will be required to remain as it is. So if there's existing mature trees within those preserve limits, they'll be required to be -- remain in place. There is probably some exotic vegetation that's also within those preserve areas that are going to be established as conservation easements. Those particular species of exotic vegetation will be required to be removed. So you will see some vegetation that will be removed out of the preserve area, those exotic vegetation types. As well, there may be a requirement for supplemental plantings June 27, 2017 Page 87 depending on the amount of exotic vegetation that's ultimately removed. MS. GORMAN: And the requirements for the supplemental plantings come from? MR. McLEAN: That will all be defined within their Preserve Area Management Plan, which our staff will be reviewing at the time of the subdivision plans to make sure that those assurances are put in place. MS. GORMAN: Okay. And then my very final question. Commissioner Solis, when we met we spoke about an easement that went across the preserve, kind of making that one preserve two preserves with the easement. Is that removed for sure? Could I just check on that, please. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And maybe -- yes. My understanding is, is that there was -- MS. GORMAN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- this bisecting kind of gap in the preserve. The Planning Commission required that that be removed -- MS. GORMAN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- and that's one of the conditions. MS. GORMAN: Thank you, then, for your time, and thank you for really paying attention for us. We appreciate it. MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, your final registered speaker for this item is Jonathan Smith. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Sounds like Commissioner Solis is better than AIMS. MR. SMITH: Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. For the record, I guess I'd like to put on public record, I guess, the Ordinance 05.50 with the MAC PUD that states on Item D, the developer will work with the committee of residents of Palm Springs neighborhood and provide them with renderings of the required Type June 27, 2017 Page 88 B buffer along with Palm Springs Boulevard at Radio Road prior to the submittal of SDP application to Collier County. Their input will be requested regarding the type and style of landscape buffer, specifically the installation of vegetation screening or privacy wall in accordance with the Land Development Code requirements. My comment, I guess, is the access to the Radio Road as opposed to the Palm Springs Boulevard entrance. And if I may, it's a plan that shows that the -- it's easily a number of different ways of acquiring access onto Radio Road without losing any of the density that is requested. They still have 44 units with the size and the depth that they are looking for. And it meets fire code and every other -- all the other type things that would matter. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Is this your drawing, sir? MR. SMITH: I drew it up. I work at a civil engineering firm. I'm familiar with the -- I've been drafting for 30-some years, or 40. I'm sorry, 40 years. But it has the landscape buffers and, like I say, it meets the fire code for the fire trucks. They have the 50 foot for the access for the alleys for any utilities or ingress/egress to the lots. There's no reason that -- right now the way the plan is set up, you have basically the entire development of Palm Springs Boulevard doubled coming into the main entrance of Palm Springs. So it's going to be a real problem the first thing in the morning when everybody's trying to fight to get that -- there's only, like, 150 feet from the first road to the intersection of Radio and Palm Springs. So I think by the time you get four or five cars in there trying to get out at the same time with traffic coming from Tuscany Isles and Circle K, this is going to be a madhouse and a safety issue. I'd just like to put it on the record that it's a -- it's possible. A lot of the developments that we've done have a single entrance into and June 27, 2017 Page 89 out as opposed to a double entrance. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I like it. MR. SMITH: That's all I want to say. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. MR. SMITH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. The public hearing -- that part is closed. I know what you call it, public hearing -- public speaking part of the public hearing is closed. So we'll bring the petitioner back up, please. If you have any closing remarks, and we certainly have, I'm sure, some questions here. MR. YOVANOVICH: How about if we do questions, and then I'll do closing, if necessary. Is that okay? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Commissioner Saunders? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Just a couple things. There was some comment -- and I may have misunderstood it -- concerning construction traffic, request that it come in at a certain location. Is that something that you can address? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, we looked at that, and the way -- the sequencing of the actual construction of the project will not work for us to actually have our construction come off of Radio Lane. It will need to come in off of our project entrances, so we did look at moving construction access to Radio Lane, but it doesn't work for the sequencing of actually constructing the project. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Another comment was made concerning a Type D buffer instead of a Type B buffer. MR. YOVANOVICH: Which I heard a Type D buffer along the preserve area, and that's actually a required Type A buffer, which is what we've agreed to do. And the preserve itself, as you know, there's a requirement that it be a minimum width of, I think it was, 52 feet at June 27, 2017 Page 90 one point, and it's in the PUD. So that's the real buffer is the preserve plus the supplemental plantings that will go into the preserve. So that preserve far exceeds the required Land Development Code buffer. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I have no other questions. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Just to clarify, have you considered access off Radio Lane? Is that something that's even feasible? I mean, I know that there's -- Radio Lane, there's a curve there. There would be three entrances onto Radio Lane within very small distances. Is that even something that's -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, we -- to be quite candid, we did not do a detailed in-depth analysis because we just stuck with the access points that were previously approved as part of the PUD. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: The existing PUD has access -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. It has those same access point on Palm Springs Boulevard, and we do have concern about going onto Radio Lane and having to basically start our process all over again, because we are in for our plat and plans and ERP, and we're pretty far along. That's why there's this detailed discussion we're having on some of the topics that you would normally you wouldn't normally have at the PUD stage. So we've looked at it. I can't tell you we've done a detailed study. But we stuck with the assess points that were previously -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Approved. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- approved. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis, anything more? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. So, in other words, even though that might help the traffic a little bit, as far as extra access goes June 27, 2017 Page 91 off of Radio Lane or Radio Road, whichever, you're not going to put that in? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, we have -- well, I've got to say -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: God bless you. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That's three. MR. YOVANOVICH: We have -- first of all, we don't think that's going to change the traffic flow one way or the other by having one access point on Radio Lane versus two access points on Palm Springs Boulevard. Ironically, staff usually -- well, each side will have two. Staff usually requires us to have two means of ingress and egress from our projects and doesn't like it when we go to one, and we only go to one when we can't make it work to have two. So we're going with the two. The traffic analysis is a reduction of traffic from what's previously approved. We had 172 multifamily units, and we're going down to 88 single-family units with the same access points that were previously found to be okay for 172 units. So it's -- we kind of -- we've looked at this. We've laid this out to be a topnotch quality D.R. Horton project, and it's a project we want to build. The modifications that are being requested by the neighborhood is, frankly, not something that D.R. Horton wants to put their name on and build with the modifications with access off of Radio Lane and the like, and we tried to stay with the spirit of what was previously -- previously approved. We're not saying we're not helping. We are. We're helping the traffic situation by actually reducing the traffic, because we're going to 88 single-family. And I would keep in -- I know, Commissioner Fiala, you were around back then. I don't think -- no, none of the others were. The neighborhood didn't like the multifamily when it was approved originally as MAC and Triad. They wanted single-family. June 27, 2017 Page 92 So we're going back to what the neighborhood wanted, which is something consistent with what they are, which is single-family and attached single-family. So we see it as benefit to the community, not a detriment, by going from a multifamily to a single-family. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm not real comfortable with that yet, but I will move on to the buffer, the landscape buffer. And you're required by code to put an A in, right? But the more -- the more beautiful, more full buffer would be a D, right? MR. YOVANOVICH: I'll bring Patrick up, because I forget how the grading goes on the A, B, C, and D. But I'll have your staff come up -- but we have a preserve along the residences. The master plan -- I don't know where it went, so I'll put another one up. So I think that that's the side of the project that Ms. Gorman is concerned about. But I'm directionally challenged, as you know, so I hope I got it right. You'll see we have the deep preserve abutting the single-family residences that adjoin the project. So I think they're going to have their preserve that they want because they've got the preserve there instead of homes up against them. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, then show me where the buffer would be in that area. MR. YOVANOVICH: The actual buffer itself? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, we'll have one -- Patrick, why don't you come up. MR. VANASSE: For the record, Patrick Vanasse. Flip this around. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah, there we go. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's north, right? North is north. June 27, 2017 Page 93 MR. VANASSE: This is north. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Good. MR. VANASSE: Okay. So the Type A buffer, we actually have a depiction right here from the code. It's a tree every 30 feet. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But those are just little plants, right? I mean, they don't have to be -- MR. VANASSE: They're trees. Smaller trees, and then they get bigger over time. There's no hedge required. And what we've done is we specifically designed the community to put our preserve where we abut the adjoining community. And instead of providing a Type A buffer where the only plantings would be one tree every 30 feet, we've got, at a minimum, 52 feet of vegetation. That's going to be a preserve as discussed. We're going to have to go in there, remove exotics. If there are -- if there's a need for supplemental plantings, we will do so. But we believe that the proposed preserve, which will act as the buffer, far exceeds a Type A buffer. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I -- just me personally, I would prefer to see that buffer along with the preserve that you've got. I prefer to see the buffer look more full, more -- higher, more dense. I like a D buffer myself, and so do these people. So I'm just telling you what I think. And I am still concerned about that -- about the road coming in and out. Anyway, those are my comments. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel, any comments? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes, ma'am, comments. Comments, questions. Mr. Yovanovich, I would like to -- and I would like to ask a procedural question, because it's my understanding basically we're here today to approve the -- a zoning request. We're not into the SDP with June 27, 2017 Page 94 specificities of types of buffer and walls and those sort of things. It's not -- and is it common practice for us to stipulate that in this segment of the hearing? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It's better. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. Buffers -- buffers are things that are discussed during zoning. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'm just asking. I'm just asking. I wanted to make sure that we were on task, because I know there's going to be additional layout and that sort of thing. And, Mr. Yovanovich, you made a comment earlier on about already in for plat and filing for these other processes, and I would like to ask how much time was given to the alternative route that was shown by one of the draftsmen with regard to the access out onto Radio Lane. MR. YOVANOVICH: You mean before they did their original submittal? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: I would probably venture to say little to none because we stuck with access on Palm Springs Boulevard because that's where the condo project -- or the multifamily showed their access. So -- and I thought I said we didn't really study that. It came up at the Planning Commission. We've looked at it since then, but -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And how much do you estimate it would cost to give a little more consideration to that? MR. YOVANOVICH: How much will it cost? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. Because you know as well I, when you're making -- when you're going through these processes, it's a matter of expediency through the system to do concurrent filings knowing that you're at risk on the second and third approvals as you come through -- June 27, 2017 Page 95 MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- for what, in fact, you are asking for today, so... MR. YOVANOVICH: And I'll be corrected, if I say anything wrong, by my client, but I'm sure we have looked at that, and if it was something we could give on today, I would have been given the authority to give on that today, and I'm not given the authority to give on that today. So we are -- we have looked at it enough to know that that's not an option that we're, at this point, willing to move forward on for the project to go to single-family. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right. Well, that was where -- that's what we were talking about was the access on and off of Palm Springs. That's the -- MR. YOVANOVICH: And we are putting a dedicated left turn lane in Radio Lane onto Palm Springs Boulevard as part of the project. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: As a widening of Radio Lane itself? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: That was going to be my question -- I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No, you're not -- please, this is us. This isn't me. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Just -- that whatever the traffic impacts -- improvements to Radio Lane, I don't know if there's going to have to be improvements to Palm Springs, but that's another issue that's going to be looked at during the process as well, right? MR. YOVANOVICH: And it's being looked at right now, I'm sure, by Matt's staff. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right. And, I mean, for me -- and I understand -- this was originally a multifamily -- June 27, 2017 Page 96 COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- development. It was vetted that way. The access was vetted at that time to be on Palm Springs. You cutting the density in half -- you know, I mean, I can appreciate why it's the least amount of change to what was already approved as possible is the reason you just looked at the access where it was. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, it was -- clearly had been accepted -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Correct. I guess that's my -- MR. YOVANOVICH: -- with more units than what we're asking to do. It wasn't path of least resistance. It was what had already been accepted. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right. Okay. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I have no further. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Nothing further. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You haven't convinced me that you've looked at this alternative-access issue. I respect the fact that it came at the planning board, but I don't think -- you know, you're in the planning stages right now. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm sorry. I'm just trying to get the answer. I know your question. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, take your time. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: This could end up being a double-edged sword for the owners because they could end up with a multifamily development with access. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And it's -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Maybe, maybe. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: It's a double-edged sword. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. As you know, frankly, we do think June 27, 2017 Page 97 we've studied it enough to know that we can't do it. It's not feasible for us to switch the project to have access on Radio Lane, and that's what I was just confirming. Because, you know, we're looking at it as we've studied it, we've presented what we believe to be a good project. The only concern we had from your staff or the Planning Commission was whether or not the roads themselves could be an inverted crown. We've taken that off the table and said, okay, we'll go to the regular crown. And we believe we have a better project from a traffic standpoint than what could be built today if our request is denied. And our request is what our request is, and that's what you have to vote on is our request. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I think Ms. Scott's behind you to talk about the traffic issue, which might alleviate my concerns, maybe. MS. SCOTT: For the record, Trinity Scott, Collier County Transportation Planning. We were actually looking at this more from the standpoint of the construction access based on what was brought up at the Planning Commission. But what I will tell you -- and I went back and I reviewed the minutes from when the multifamily was approved and the prior transportation planning director, Don Scott, there was a lengthy discussion about this. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Do we know him? MS. SCOTT: Yeah, I think we do. There was a lengthy discussion about the multifamily projects taking access from Radio Lane, and really nothing's changed out there. A lot of the concerns that were brought up were, yes, I understand that there are roughly 70 to 80 single-family homes that sit to the north of this property, but there were also 400-plus multifamily apartments at June 27, 2017 Page 98 the end of Radio Lane, and that certainly generates a lot of traffic as well. Rough calculations, over 2,000 daily trips on Radio Lane versus 800 from the existing uses, as well as the CAT bus. The Collier Area Transit bus does run routes along Radio Lane, and they actually turn around in that area, as well as we checked with the Collier County Public Schools. They run seven routes in that area along Radio Lane. They also do run on Palm Springs Boulevard as well. They confirm that they do pick up the children back behind the site. So we would have some concerns about taking their primary access off of Radio Lane. It was not evaluated. It would have to be evaluated. And what I would say is that the neighborhood information meeting and what's been publicized has been the access off of Palm Springs Boulevard. So the residents, while those are rental units, haven't had the opportunity to have their say about changing that access. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have a question. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Trinity, say, for instance, there was another access point -- and it just occurred to me. Say, for instance, it came off Radio Lane versus Palm Springs Boulevard, does that mean that people could use it as a cut-through to get to someplace or another? Would that actually generate more traffic within that neighborhood rather than less? MS. SCOTT: This particular can roadway -- Radio Lane is different. It used to be the main Radio Road. It's been re-routed. It's really a cul-de-sac road at this point. I don't see folks using it as a cut-through. I'm not saying that folks don't cut through the Circle K parking lot, because we know that does happen. They come off of Davis and cut through there. But for this to be a cut-through, I don't see that, because it would not punch all the June 27, 2017 Page 99 way out to Davis Boulevard. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. The screening, the higher screening along Palm Beach Boulevard (sic), is that doable? MR. YOVANOVICH: How about we commit that we'll have no A/C units on the sides of the streets facing Palm Springs Boulevard? That was the concern. They didn't want to drive down the street and somehow see over our 6-foot-tall -- by the time you do the berm and the hedge, or whatever we're going to have, they didn't want to see A/C units. We'll commit that the A/C units will be on the other side of the house -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Or a interior. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- so you can't see it from Palm Springs Boulevard. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I think that's better. Okay. And how open are you to -- and this is an open-ended question, of course, and I don't mean to put you on the spot -- MR. YOVANOVICH: But you are. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: -- but how open -- but I am. How open are you to continue working with the neighborhood as things evolve; not necessarily changing completely everything, but I heard enhanced aesthetics on more than one occasion. And I can respect what's -- you know, they're losing their woods and bringing in civilization, and I get it. I'm sure it's going to be beautiful, but how open are you to working with the neighborhood as it evolves? MR. EVERETT: Hello, Wayne Everett with D.R. Horton. I just wanted to speak on that, because what we're talking about here and even when we get to the plans and plat stage would be the minimum code requirements. You would not go through and see any June 27, 2017 Page 100 one of our communities from Marco Island up through Sarasota on the public street side that is code minimum. We want to sell homes. We want to sell homes quickly. We enhance all of our landscape on the street sides. We want to draw people in there. We want them happy to live there. We want a community that looks nice. So, in short, more than happy to work with the neighborhood on enhancing that view. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. Thank you very much. And then for staff -- and I guess it would -- Mr. Kurtz or maybe -- yes, perhaps. Your last name? MR. McLEAN: Matt McLean. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good thing you came this mornings, huh, Matt? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. The swales. We've heard testimony, the swales, the existing swales within the residential community are -- do not work to the degree they need to work on Palm Beach (sic) Boulevard. I'm assuming that's where this is. Is the county going to be investing time and energy and money into that? MR. McLEAN: I think that's a twofold answer. One, certainly Jerry Kurtz has already provided testimony today that the county will continue to monitor the stormwater management system in the county's area of responsibility to continue to provide the maintenance required to allow the stormwater to be conveyed throughout that geographical area. As part of the subdivision plans, there will also be improvements required along Palm Springs along the front edge of both MAC and Triad PUDs which my staff will be reviewing to make sure that there's assurances that those improvements will also work in accordance with the existing conditions that are out there on site. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. June 27, 2017 Page 101 Any questions? Any others? (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. If there's no other questions, I think I would entertain a motion. MR. OCHS: Public hearing closed? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: The public hearing is closed, yes. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chair, I'll make a motion to approve the Triad RPUD with the understanding that there will be no air-conditioning units as outlined by counsel, or they'll be placed -- not that there won't be any, but that they'll be placed as -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Those will be harder houses to sell, but... CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Talk about selling your property. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And I'm making that motion with the other conditions that staff and the petitioner have agreed to, and I'm making that motion because I'm convinced that this is not going to negatively impact that area; it's going to improve it. It's going to be a lot better than what could have been build there if you went with the existing plan, and I'm confident that we have control over directing staff to make improvements and work in that neighborhood. It's not up to the developer. It's up to the developer to make sure that they don't negatively impact the drainage situation, but it's up to us if we're going to improve it in the existing neighboring. So I'll make that motion to approve under those circumstances. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And I'll second. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'll just weigh in and say that, you know, I feel that we at least -- I at least, just for me -- I at least would like to do something to show the neighbors -- show that neighborhood that we do care about them and that D.L. Horton cares about them -- or D.R. Horton cares about them as well, and something just little, like making this buffer into a D rather than the A. And so right now, I'll tell you, I'm just kind of stepping back, June 27, 2017 Page 102 because these guys came here, they had a lot of concerns, we're going to try and fix most of them if we can. Definitely -- we're going to definitely guarantee them that we're going to make sure that the drainage is adjusted so that they have no flooding or anything, but I just -- I'm holding out for the buffer, so I won't second it. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I did second it. I have a comment, if I might. Just as a point of that discussion. I mean, I met with the neighbors, and I -- you know, I've lived here for 37 years, and the northern portion of Palms Springs is the ones that suffer the most with regard to the excess water runoff and the like. You know, I saw that drawing that was shown there with the access points out onto Radio Lane and thought that was a pretty nifty idea just to alleviate some of that traffic, but I also know and understand that the land ownership comes with permitted allowed densities today that wouldn't allow for much discussion of the neighborhood at all. If these folks came to us and asked to build the multifamily units that are, in fact, permitted here, there would be little to no discussion as far as what we're, in fact, having. And I can understand the rationale of the reduction of traffic because of the overall reduction of density. So I just -- that was the point that I wanted to share. It's kind of a double-edged sword when we start talking about the additional -- you know, the additional buffering and the like and the access points along the way, because there are already approved vested property rights here that the applicant could come and develop, and we wouldn't -- we would have little to nothing to say. So just as a point of discussion. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis, would you like to opine? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: You know, it seems to me that the fact that the site's been laid out the way it has, the buffer, and the most separation that they can provide to the neighborhood is the way they're June 27, 2017 Page 103 doing it. I mean, I think that's significant in trying to do the best for the neighbors and put the new development as far away as they can. Certainly a 50-foot preserve, in my view, is certainly more than even a Type D buffer, I would think, at the end of the day. It's a preserve. It's going to preserve what's there. The exotics have to come out, but if there's more plantings that have to go into that preserve based upon the analysis that has to go in -- yeah, I think this is a real double-edged sword for the neighborhood because, as Commissioner McDaniel has pointed out, if somebody wanted to come in and put 176 units, was it? MR. YOVANOVICH: Hundred and seventy-two. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Hundred and seventy-two multifamily units in there, we wouldn't even be having a discussion. They'd be in the permitting. So I'm going to support the motion. I think -- in the grand scheme of things, this big a reduction in density and what they're trying to do, I think, is the best we can do. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I'd like to see if we can maybe assuage my colleague's concerns a little bit with the increased buffer on the northern side to see if there would be a consideration of the developer -- and I would welcome you taking the time to talk to him. We could recess and come back at one -- it's going to be your choice -- but to maybe increase that buffering as you would increase and have excess buffering as stated throughout the county in your developments because you want to sell homes. Maybe this time, as a gesture to a neighborhood that is an existing neighborhood -- it's tough, but it's an existing neighborhood. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Can I ask staff a question? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Of course. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Can buffering be placed in a preserve, if it's a preserve? June 27, 2017 Page 104 COMMISSIONER FIALA: It isn't in the preserve. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: We're talking about the north property line right where the -- where it abuts the neighbors. MS. ARAQUE: Summer Araque, Environmental Planning and Development Review, for the record. They can put supplemental plantings in there, but we have certain criteria. We don't want to plant the preserve to be a buffer because then that kind of contradicts what that natural habitat would be like. Like somebody else stated here, there were historically Red-cockaded woodpecker here. This type of habitat probably doesn't lend itself to planting a buffer in the preserve, and that is contradictory to our code. MR. KLATZKOW: But you could relocate the preserve. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Say that again. MR. KLATZKOW: You could push the preserve back, say 10 feet, and buffering goes here, and now your preserve starts there. So you're not putting the buffering in the preserve. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Isn't the buffering along the side, though? MR. McLEAN: Matt McLean, again, for the record. There's actually two pieces of these PUDs, the MAC and Triad piece. And there's actually -- as the County Attorney's indicated, there already is a strip of property that's left that will not be part of the preserve up against -- adjacent to the residential neighborhood that the applicant's identified where they're going to be placing this small 3-foot-high retaining wall and planting -- plantings on the outbound side, the residential side of that to block that wall out so it's not visible for the adjacent neighbors. There was an exhibit that was provided, a picture that was provided that showed those plantings, and then -- so then you'll have -- beyond that you'll have the backdrop of the overall preserve as well. June 27, 2017 Page 105 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Yeah, let's get that up. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Were you -- I'm sorry. Were you talking about the north boundary line that abuts the wall? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah. Can we get the -- can we see -- can we site this on the map? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Not this one but, yeah. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: -- on the map that shows that part that's being left. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It's the one up underneath this picture, unless you took it out. There you go. Right there. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Open space. Open space, buffer. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Open space, Leo. There you go. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: There we go. COMMISSIONER FIALA: See, along the sides. That's what I'm talking about. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: You're talking about east and west sides? We thought you were talking about the north buffer. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You're talking about to your right and to your left? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's east and west. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That's east and west. We thought you were talking about the north. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I can't even remember left and right much less anything else. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: This is your right. This is your right. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. So you're talking -- so you want them -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, this is -- the buffer that we're June 27, 2017 Page 106 talking about wasn't, in my opinion -- so, you know, I'm here to listen, and you can correct me if I'm wrong. I thought this buffer was along the sides so that that would kind of like enhance that area, not the preserve, because the preserve is a natural buffer which you really don't mess around with. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I think what was requested was additional plantings along the preserve. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I think so. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: On the north end. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah, on the north side. COMMISSIONER FIALA: If that was it, then I apologize for that. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yeah. That was what was requested. And you're talking about buffering on the east and west? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I was. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, we had agreed -- Commissioner, we had agreed to work with staff -- staff -- the neighbors -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: The neighbors. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- on extra plantings along Palm Springs Boulevard, those buffers. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: In the middle? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: In the middle? COMMISSIONER FIALA: In the middle, yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. Those are the ones we understood that -- you know, and then we move the air conditioning over to the other side of the house, and then we would do the enhanced plantings -- we would meet the neighbors along those buffers. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Every time I see a Type A planting, they have these little minuscule things there just located every so often. Usually they die out before they take hold anyway. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, the road -- the road buffer is a Type June 27, 2017 Page 107 D as in dog. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: The Type A was along the preserve. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: The preserve. And then on the east and west -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Does that clarify it? Does that clarify it? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. What about the east side and west side? That's -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: What kind of buffering? That's just -- that's just -- you're just leaving that? MR. YOVANOVICH: Along the road. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, on the east -- the boundary on the far east and the far west. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: On the outside. MR. YOVANOVICH: The far right and the far left? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's a Type B as in boy. Now, I'll get Patrick up here if you have to know what's in -- how many trees and all that. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And you're leaving some of the original growth trees in there? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, right? Patrick? Apparently there's not much there. So I don't want to have anybody misconstrue that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And how do the neighbors feel? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, there's -- nobody's requested any change in the buffer along the outside. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, to the far left is the bowling alley. So that -- I can't imagine the bowling alley would be too upset with our project, and to the far right -- where did my aerial go? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We have closed the public June 27, 2017 Page 108 hearing. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think we did already. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes, we did. So asking them how they feel is going to be tricky. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: There's the bowling alley. MR. YOVANOVICH: On the far right is another road. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So there's no -- yeah, the buffer's on the outsides, there's a road and then there's the bowling alley. There's no -- that's never been brought up as an issue. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Here or at the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And there is Type B buffering on the east and west side. I got to stay on the east and west. I can't go right and left. This is perimeter buffering on the outside. MR. YOVANOVICH: And the far west is the bowling alley, and the far right, that community has its own wall, okay, if that helps, along the road. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I can't hear what the neighbors have to say, and I also want to make sure that their needs are met. I mean, we can't do everything, but drainage was the big -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. So would you feel comfortable -- would it be better to -- we'll recess, and we'll have a 45-minute lunch, and in that time period -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let's have an hour lunch. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: An hour lunch, and you can talk with the neighbors? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. We're going to adjourn until 1:13. And the motion on the floor stays, I would think. June 27, 2017 Page 109 COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: The motion is still -- the motion and second are still there. I think you just recessed until 1:13. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. MR. OCHS: And you've close the public hearing, so you'd have to re-open that potentially. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Can she not speak with them individually? Can we not speak? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: The hearing's been closed, yeah. Public comment's been closed. MR. KLATZKOW: You'll have to disclose it as part of the ex parte. So if you want to do that, you'll have to simply disclose the conversations you've had. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I did disclose already that I spoke to them. MR. KLATZKOW: Right. But if you're going to speak to them now, then you'll just disclose again. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. (A luncheon recess was had.) MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, you have a live mike. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. We're going to call this meeting back to order. And I'm going to ask my colleague -- who must keep moving behind me because she's had a recent knee operation, so she's going to be moving back and forth. It's important to keep her health -- did you -- do you have anything to declare in terms of speaking to the neighborhoods? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I haven't. I don't know where they are. I don't know if they've spoken to Trinity. I don't know if they're outside or what. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: But you have not had the opportunity to speak to them? June 27, 2017 Page 110 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Since then. Yeah, I talked to them outside. And do you have their message? MR. LEWIS: I do. MR. OCHS: Madam Chair -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I don't think -- MR. OCHS: -- is it necessary to re-open the public hearing? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I don't think we can. It was -- MR. KLATZKOW: You can. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We can? MR. KLATZKOW: Sure. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh. All right. Well, let's -- MR. KLATZKOW: Three votes. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Let's re-open the public hearing then. MR. OCHS: Well, you need a motion to do that? MR. KLATZKOW: Make a motion to re-open the hearing. Three votes, and it's open. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I'll make a motion to re-open the hearing for just a moment. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I'll second that motion. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Consider the public hearing opened, reopened. COMMISSIONER FIALA: We'll just do this quickly, right to the point. I know you're an attorney, but try. June 27, 2017 Page 111 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: One speaker. MR. LEWIS: All right. Quick and to the point. We've had a meeting with the applicant, and I think we have made a little bit of progress. Hopefully we've got something resolved. Let me recite what I think we've agreed to. Patrick, if you can put up on the visualizer the RPUD Master Plan exhibit so we can take a look at that. So while that's coming up, we discussed the -- we discussed the north boundary, so we -- there's been some discussion about the north boundary and the preserve. We understand that along the northerly boundary of both RPUDs, and that's the boundary as you see on the map -- yeah, that's great. That's now north. So north of that preserve area you'll see the single-family community. Now, this is only one of the PUDs. This is the Triad PUD. There's also the MAC PUD. This is on the west side and then on the east side. So that entire northerly boundary, as you look at this drawing, there's no -- it's showing the preserve actually abutting the property line. On the other side, which I believe is the Triad side, which is not there -- I don't know if you've got that available. But that side, there actually is -- there's a gap. It's about seven feet, plus or minus maybe eight feet between the property line and the preserve. And today there's been testimony from the applicant that there will be a 6-foot-wide swale that will carry water over to that easterly drainage that runs north/south. There will be, I think, a 3-foot-high retaining wall, is that correct, that will help treat that preserve as really an additional stormwater, because they really undersized the lake, so they're going to have a little bit of preserve ability, and they can do that, but they're going to use that. So they'll have the retaining wall. So when the residents look in their backyard, that picture that Mr. Yovanovich showed earlier -- and he had this -- the type of planting June 27, 2017 Page 112 that we're okay with is a Fakahatchee grass. And we understand that that entire northerly boundary is really a Type A buffer. The preserve will be used to meet that buffer requirement. We're okay with that, because we'll be looking out at a nice preserve. But there's a couple pieces we want to make sure happen. So the Fakahatchee grass will cover that wall so -- and it's fairly dense, so we're looking at -- really, when you look at that preserve, they'll see the Fakahatchee grass and they'll see the canopy top of the preserve. So we're expecting that. That's why that Type A buffer's there. There's an 80 percent opaque requirement on that Fakahatchee grass, which will block the wall so you're not looking at a concrete wall. The other thing that I think that we agreed to -- see that's on the entire northerly boundary. Now, the current PUD drawing does not show a Type A buffer on that, but I want to make it clear that we're agreeing that it's a Type A buffer, but it's being met through the preserve, and we're okay with that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And this is both the developer and the -- MR. LEWIS: The property. I've met with -- yeah, again, I only represent one of the property owners, Mr. Bob Colasanti, but I -- we met with all of the owners that were here today, and those wanted to give comment, they've all commented. And I think -- my understanding is we have an agreement. The -- with respect to the preserve area, there -- obviously there are exotics in those preserves, so we understand those, as part of the maintenance, will be removed. What we're concerned about is that through -- and right now we don't know at this point, but we don't want to see -- you know, we're looking at a very lush, dense area. We don't want to see it start to get skinnied up. So if there are planting requirements, which there very well likely could be, we understand from the applicant -- our understanding is that they will use wax myrtle June 27, 2017 Page 113 in the preserve as their planting, and we're good with that. And we would anticipate that if they're going to do some replanting there, that the planting occur, and the more dense application of the planting occur along that north edge so the residents are looking at a very nice dense preserve, so we're okay with that if the applicant's good with that. MR. YOVANOVICH: Can we do these one at a time, if you don't mind? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Pardon me? MR. YOVANOVICH: Can we do these one at a time? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Do what? MR. YOVANOVICH: What he's talking about one at a time, because -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I thought this was all -- I was just going to ask him again if this was also agreeable to the developer and to the people. MR. YOVANOVICH: I only want to clarify the first one is only on Triad, because that's where the retaining wall is. When he was saying along the entire north, I just want to make sure that was just the Triad PUD, which is the grass. MR. LEWIS: Yeah. To answer that, the Type A buffer requirement, as I understand it -- MR. YOVANOVICH: But the first one -- MR. LEWIS: -- is because you're buffering two single-family residential. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's the No. 2 item. MR. LEWIS: But that was the first item is a Type A buffer along the entire northerly boundary that's met by the preserve. A subset to that is along the Triad RPUD, because you have, as we walked through and discussed, the 6-foot-wide swale that runs east/west and then the retaining wall, I think there's about a 7-foot gap June 27, 2017 Page 114 that you're showing in that range, seven to eight feet between the property line and the preserve. Because of the retaining wall, so that we're not looking at a retaining wall, I think our agreement with the applicant was that there would be planting there to screen the wall, and the planting is a Fakahatchee grass, which you showed, which is acceptable to my client. I think it looks nice. So they'll be looking out -- the expectation. But to agree with you, Mr. Yovanovich, that only applies to the Triad because, again -- MR. YOVANOVICH: That's all I was asking. MR. LEWIS: -- there's no retaining wall on the MAC PUD. They're not using that for their drainage discharge. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So -- MR. LEWIS: So the final -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Hold on. Point No. 2, I'm fine with wax myrtle and planting where he asked for it if Summer's fine with that. And Summer's in charge of that, so on the -- so that's all I ask is -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. MS. ARAQUE: Wax myrtle is fine for this particular habitat, and staff can work with them to make any other suggestions. I just talked to the environmental consultant who also recommended cocoplum, but it will need to meet the code, so it cannot be so dense as to become a hedge, but they can plant it in a natural manner. And Summer Araque, Environmental Planning, for the record. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: But planting it along the property line, that's acceptable? MS. ARAQUE: It would have to be done in a natural manner to mimic the natural habitat. So since they have 50 feet to work with, they could kind of scatter it throughout that 50 feet so that that -- from a distance, then, you would provide something at the midstory area, June 27, 2017 Page 115 but it cannot be a hedge within the preserve. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Great. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Well, that's good. MR. LEWIS: Yeah, and that's our understanding as well, so we're fine with that. And then the final point I think we agreed to is that we're talking now about if you look at Palm Springs Boulevard. So both on the Triad and the MAC RPUD, there is currently, as you see, a Type -- a 10-foot-wide Type D buffer along that Palm Springs Boulevard. And our -- as we talked about, our concern was that because of the elevation of the road, which is about 10 feet, and the homes are up higher, which we understand that both the residents who live there are going to be looking down onto the roadway, and the road's going to be looking up at the residents. And we do appreciate the stipulation on the A/C units. So what we would like to do there is to confirm, because it's a Type D buffer, the plantings are about 24 inches, and then they grow into and are maintained at 36 inches. We want to make sure, because of this unique area, that they're actually, when they're fully mature -- and we understand that they're going to be -- they typically use clusia or buttonwood plantings, and we're okay with those plantings as long as Summer can weigh in and say she's okay. If she's got something better, we're okay with that, too. We want to make sure that they're plantings that can be maintained at about five feet so that we can create, you know, some visual -- some nice -- I think Commissioner Fiala talked about that nice visual scape when they're looking in. I think the applicant mentioned they typically maintain them around five to six feet. So we want to make sure that they're not maintained at 36 inches but five to six feet. So I think we're good. That's all we have. Thank you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good. Boy, I love it when a plan June 27, 2017 Page 116 comes together. MR. LEWIS: I apologize. One of the homeowners had a comment. MS. GORMAN: I'm sorry. The only thing I'd like to add because -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Please identify yourself. MS. GORMAN: I'm sorry. My name's Cathy Gorman. I guess the only thing I'd like to add is I was under the thought that we were doing this as mirrors. So we just talked about the Triad side. We are on the MAC side. And although we do not have the wall, okay, we still have the lake. We still have everything except that 3-foot retaining wall. I would like to ask that on our side, too, there is heavier opaqueness. So what they're putting in on the Triad side they also put in on the MAC side with the exception of the 3-foot retaining wall. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm assuming you're talking about the wax myrtle supplemental plantings in the preserve. MS. GORMAN: Yeah. All the supplemental that's going in on Triad go in on MAC. MR. YOVANOVICH: We understood it was both. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: When you remove the exotics, you will replace it with wax myrtle. MR. YOVANOVICH: To the extent we have to do our replantings, they can be wax myrtle, as long as -- and in the locations approved by Summer. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. MS. GORMAN: Thank you. I just wanted to be sure. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, it sounds like everything worked out fine for everyone. Thank you. Thank you all for indulging. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: The public hearing is now closed. June 27, 2017 Page 117 Okay. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I do have a comment. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So we have a motion on the floor and a second, too, eh? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You want to talk us out of it? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Rarely do I talk us out of it. I would like to ask a clarification, because there was some discussion about the height of the berm or the vegetation along Palm Springs being a Type D maintained at 36 inches after the fact, after it grows up, Mr. Vanasse, and the residents specified, I think, something outside of what the Type D specification, in fact, is to a 5- or 6-foot height. And are we authorizing that deviation from the code with regard to the height of the landscaping? That's what I heard. MR. YOVANOVICH: My understanding -- and let's cover ourselves, if you don't mind. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That's what we're doing. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- is that the 36 has always been applied to be a minimum, not a maximum. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Got it. MR. YOVANOVICH: But if it is a maximum, I am requesting that you approve whatever deviation may be necessary for us to be able to maintain it at five feet or six feet. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Five or six. MR. YOVANOVICH: Or 36. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Thank you for the clarification, sir. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Above the 36. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, that we could go -- instead of 36, we could go up to five feet. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Five feet or six; 36 inches or 60 inches? MR. YOVANOVICH: Whatever. June 27, 2017 Page 118 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Starts at 36. Goes up from there. MR. YOVANOVICH: Whatever. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Whatever it grows to. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We have a motion on the floor and a second. MR. KLATZKOW: Which you need to amend. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I'm sorry? Oh, we need to -- yes, you need to amend the motion. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And I'm not even going to try to do that. I don't know what the ultimate agreements were -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So you're withdrawing your motion. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah. I'll just withdraw the motion. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And the seconder agrees? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes, the seconder agrees. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I guess the motion would be to approve this based on the agreements that have just been worked out. MR. YOVANOVICH: You've got to do them separately. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah. This is just on the first one. This is the Triad. MR. OCHS: Triad. 9B. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Mr. County Attorney, is that sufficient for your drafting? MR. KLATZKOW: Either that plus the recommendations of the Planning Commission that are contained within. MR. YOVANOVICH: Those are already in. They're in the document in front of you. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And I'll second that, then. MR. YOVANOVICH: And elimination of the deviation for the inverted crown. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Inverted crown. June 27, 2017 Page 119 COMMISSIONER FIALA: We have a motion and a second. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And we have a second to that? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. MR. OCHS: 9C is the approval of the MAC RPUD rezone. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Who just said that? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Do I hear a motion? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That was Leo that said that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh. Make a motion to approve the MAC side of this project with all of the deliberations approved and the Planning Commission recommendations. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And I'll second that as well. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Any discussion? (No response.) MR. KLATZKOW: The change in the drainage. MR. YOVANOVICH: That side does not have the grass requirement because we don't have the swale and retaining wall. MR. KLATZKOW: No, no. The street drainage. MR. YOVANOVICH: The inverted crown? Yeah. Those were removed from both. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right. That was done at the Planning Commission. MR. KLATZKOW: I just want to make sure we get what the June 27, 2017 Page 120 Board wants to get. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. So noted. All those -- there's a motion on the floor to approve the MAC PUD as stipulated, and a second. All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. Item #9D ORDINANCE 2017-31: APPROVE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 04-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH ESTABLISHED THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM AN ESTATES (E) ZONING DISTRICT TO A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (RPUD) ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS THE COUNTY BARN ROAD RPUD, TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A MAXIMUM OF 268 MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS OR 156 June 27, 2017 Page 121 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS OR ANY COMBINATION OF DWELLING UNIT TYPES PERMITTED IN THE PUD, NOT TO EXCEED A TRIP CAP OF 157 P.M. PEAK HOUR TWO-WAY TRIPS. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF COUNTY BARN ROAD, APPROXIMATELY ONE QUARTER MILE SOUTH OF DAVIS BOULEVARD IN SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 38.59± ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE – ADOPTED MR. OCHS: Item 9D is a recommendation to approve an ordinance that changes the zoning classification from Estates to Residential Planned Unit Development for a project known as County Barn Road RPUD to allow construction of a maximum of 268 multifamily residential dwelling units or 156 single-family residential dwelling units or any combination of dwelling unit types permitted in the PUD not to exceed a trip cap of 157 p.m. peak-hour two-way trips. Madam Chair, this item does require ex parte disclosure by commissioners, and all participants are required to be sworn in. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, we'll swear in first. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Commissioner McDaniel, any ex parte on this item? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'm sure I do, yes. The meetings and emails. Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: That was it? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, ma'am. I have meetings, June 27, 2017 Page 122 emails, calls, I spoke with Bruce Anderson, I've spoken with one of the Planning Commissioners, I talked to staff about street-lighting, and all my questions have been answered. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I had a meeting with Mr. Anderson, and I believe I have one or two emails. That's it. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And I had a meeting with Mr. Anderson also, reviewed emails and the staff reports. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And I, too, met with Mr. Anderson, and there were emails and calls on this item. All right. If you would go ahead, Mr. Anderson. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, Madam Chairman. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You're welcome. MR. ANDERSON: My name is Bruce Anderson from the Cheffy Passidomo law firm. I'm here on behalf of Neal Communities. With me today is Michael Greenberg, Southwest Florida Regional President for Neal Communities; Planner Wayne Arnold; and Engineer Brent Addison; Transportation Engineer Jim Banks; and Environmental Consultant Craig Smith of Dex Bender & Associates. This proposed PUD lies a quarter mile south of the intersection of County Barn Road and Davis Boulevard. It's on the east side of County Barn. It's 38 acres in size. And it is inside the density band for the activity center at the intersection of Davis and Santa Barbara. The number of homes will not exceed a maximum of 268 multifamily or 156 single-family or a combination that is subject to an overall trip cap that's set forth in the PUD. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval, as has your staff, and we respectfully request your approval as well. Thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. Any questions, Mr. -- Commissioner Saunders? June 27, 2017 Page 123 COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: No. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, just one simple question. By the way, the other Neal Communities that just finished going up, that Avalon, man, that's a beautiful product. That's really very, very nice. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It is. COMMISSIONER FIALA: It almost excites me to see something just as nice going up here. But that is neither here nor there. I want to know, that area borders wetlands. There's a huge area of wetlands between County Barn and Whitaker Road, and on a map, it's just all black in there. They're not going into wetlands, right? MR. ANDERSON: No, no. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Good. That's all I wanted to be assured of. I've got -- let's see. Under the Planning Commission, there were a bunch of things here, and I just wanted to make sure that all of the CCPC recommendations are included. MR. ANDERSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Commissioner McDaniel? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No questions. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No questions. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. All right. Does staff want to make a presentation? Thank you. MR. JOHNSON: Good afternoon. For the record, Eric Johnson, Principal Planner in the Zoning Division. Mr. Anderson basically summed it up very nicely. Staff has determined that the petition may be deemed consistent with the Growth Management Plan. The Collier County Planning Commission recommends approval. They had also served as the Environmental Advisory Council as well. So staff is recommending approval as well as the county Planning June 27, 2017 Page 124 Commission. That's all I have. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. Any questions, Commissioner Saunders? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: (Shakes head.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: (Shakes head.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: (No verbal response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: (No verbal response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I do have a question for Transportation. Thank you. MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Sawyer is coming up to the mike. MR. SAWYER: For the record, Mike Sawyer, Transportation Planning. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: The zoning on that road is Estates, and I understand that -- or at least in this development, but I understand that the County Barn Road cannot be widened; is that correct? MR. SAWYER: We do have, in fact, enough right-of-way in order to make that a four-lane segment, and the reason that we did that was that we did see a need to have a north/south access generally in that area; however, when we got that right-of-way, we hadn't extended Santa Barbara. Now that we've got Santa Barbara going all the way down to Rattlesnake Hammock, the likelihood of us ever needing to have this widened to do four lanes through there is very, very remote. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Is that based on the zoning that exists today? MR. SAWYER: It's based on how we look at all of the trips that are generated through that general area. So if we've got good capacity on our overall road system, that's where we -- that's where we determine whether we need to look at additional corridors, additional June 27, 2017 Page 125 improvements, be it intersections or, in fact, entire segments like that. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: But you're saying that you don't need to widen the road based on the zoning that exists today; is that correct? MR. SAWYER: Correct. What we're seeing, we do not have that need. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. And this development does border Cope Lane; is that correct? MR. SAWYER: It does not border it. There's actually a parcel that is just to the south of it that actually the county owns. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Good. All right. All right. Thank you very much. MR. SAWYER: Sure. MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, we have two registered speakers on this item. Lisa Graenloh, and she's been ceded three additional minutes from Dennis Sanders. MR. SANDERS: Yes, she has. MR. MILLER: Mr. Sanders is here. I want to confirm you did swear in at the beginning. MS. GRAENLOH: I sure did, yes. Yes, thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Commissioners. I'm Lisa Graenloh, president of the Board of Trustees at Unity of Naples Church which, of course, abuts the proposed development that we're talking about. I'm really here just to provide an update from the visit that Brian Jones, another one of our board members, paid to you last month, and I'd like to start by thanking Michael Greenberg and Bruce and the team at Neal Communities. We've had lots of conversations and many rounds of edits on an easement replacement agreement. And we worked on that together. And, you know, from the beginning our goal was never to obstruct this project but rather just protect our interests, and we feel June 27, 2017 Page 126 very good about the final agreement that we came to on the easement. But I did want to mention a more immediate and probably a more practical concern that we have as a church is the clearing and construction process over the next couple of years and the potential impact on our spiritual community. Development work is noisy work, and churches are serene, sacred places, obviously. So we know that the construction is going to be taking place six days a week, Monday through Saturday; thankfully not Sundays, because Sundays are big days for us. But we actually have a lot of things going on on Saturdays and other days of the week. As a church, we regularly perform sacred events such as memorials and weddings. We recently hired a new wedding coordinator to develop and promote our wedding and special-event offerings, so we could certainly have an economic impact with the development. But our primary concern is protecting the integrity of these sacred precious life events that we hold for our congregates and also for the public. So a few weeks ago I invited Michael Greenberg to come visit our campus. And he was so gracious. He did. We showed him around. And our gazebo and the lake that we purchased from the county just a years ago, it's a beautiful area where we have our special events. It was important, I felt, because we want to develop a relationship. We know this is likely going to happen, and it's going to have some impacts for us. And, in fact, there was some documentation along the process that called that easement an easement to nowhere. So we wanted to make sure that Neal Communities knew that it was, in fact, an easement to somewhere very special. We have talked with Michael and his team about the importance of being kept apprised of the nature, timing, and location of the various phases of clearing and construction. That's important to us because we June 27, 2017 Page 127 might have to include disclaimers when booking events or even avoid booking events at certain times altogether. Our hope is that we don't feel or hear much of the construction activity. And the fact is, we really won't know until that development is underway. But we do feel that Michael and his team at Neal Communities have a sincere appreciation for those impacts. And they've made a commitment to us that I just want to have on the record, that they will continue to communicate and collaborate with us during the clearing and construction process so that we can proactively mitigate any of those potential issues on our end as much as we can. So just -- we do want to bless your project and everybody involved, and we see it moving forward smoothly, safely, quickly and, maybe with some divine intervention, quietly on our side, at least. Thank you. MR. MILLER: That was all the speakers we had, ma'am. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Public hearing is closed. Would the petitioner come back up. Any questions at all? COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Second. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I do have a question of staff before we finish. Can you tell me approximately what the zoning is on County Barn Road with the different PUDs, if they're zoned accordingly. Thank you. MR. JOHNSON: That's the map that I had on hand, the density map. Okay. To the north you have the CF PUD; to the north of that you have RPUD; to the northwest you have RMF6, which is a residential multifamily. I believe it's -- the 4 stands for the four dwelling units per acre; you have Estates zoning to the southwest; you June 27, 2017 Page 128 have E to the south; RPUD, which is farther south; Estates zoning farther south than that; to the east you have Estates; and then farther east you have a PUD, Falling Waters. That's really all I could say as I'm looking at this map. I don't have anything handy farther away from that. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And I think there was some -- a question about the easement from -- that's going to the lake of Unity. MR. JOHNSON: Yes. In your packets there's a survey that shows a 12-foot-wide easement that traverses the property, and that will -- there's a petition to vacate that easement that should come before you sooner rather than later. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Did I understand that Unity is it in agreement to this -- MR. SANDERS: Yes. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: -- vacation of the easement? MR. JOHNSON: I heard yes. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. So -- okay. So the density of this particular piece is what now? MR. JOHNSON: They are proposing up to seven dwelling units per acre. And just making a note that Avalon of Naples was approved at seven dwelling units per acre. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And that's the problem, isn't it? One gets it, then the other one gets and the other one gets and the other one gets, and it goes down. It just -- it just keeps on going, and County Barn Road cannot be expanded. We've heard that. Santa Barbara was built to take the traffic. This is really troublesome to me. MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, I believe County Barn Road can be expanded. There's just no need for it right now. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Correct. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's not what I heard. MR. OCHS: What did you hear? June 27, 2017 Page 129 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That there is some constraints about County Barn Road. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Ma'am, it was originally designed for four lanes. We just -- we took it down to two because we did Santa Barbara. You could come back -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So those ditches on the side, you can pave those over and -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: You could close them in. We have no plan to. I don't think we'll ever need to widen to four lanes because we have Santa Barbara. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Even with the changing of the densities on this road from what is existing right now? MR. CASALANGUIDA: That section of Santa Barbara is six lane. We saved probably $20 million on County Barn by going to six lane. It has a ton of capacity on it between these two roads. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So you're saying that normally the north/south route, now that Santa Barbara's there, they're going to take that even though it's probably five to eight minutes away from County Barn; they're just automatically -- because this development -- this is not going to use -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'll let Trinity explain it, but there's plenty of capacity on County Barn and plenty on Santa Barbara. The only thing we would do is improve the intersections. The two-lane road has plenty of capacity on it. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. MS. SCOTT: The other thing I would note is that Santa Barbara Boulevard goes from Rattlesnake Hammock all the way up to, right now, Immokalee Road, but soon to be Bonita Beach Road as well, as it goes to Logan. So certainly the preference for folks would be to get on that and not have to go up County Barn, make a right on Davis, make a left on June 27, 2017 Page 130 Santa Barbara. So they're going to figure out how to get to that six-lane roadway that traverses our entire county almost, so... And we would evaluate County Barn Road every five years in our Long Range Transportation Plan, just like we do every other road. We look at our growth. And if there was a need for a parallel roadway to Santa Barbara, that would certainly be one of the roadways we would look at. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. All right. Do I hear a motion or has there been -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: I already made a motion, yeah. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You've made a motion and a second? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Motion to approve the subject -- this property -- excuse me -- this PUD as presented and a second. All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign. Aye. And I'm doing it because it does not -- it doesn't follow our growth management. This is -- this is increase in zoning in an area that I don't think needs it. So I have to, unfortunately, not approve. Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just want to add here, it's been kind of fun having all the staff members here because every time we have a question, somebody's jumping up from wherever they are. It's great having everybody here today. Item #9E June 27, 2017 Page 131 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2007-46, AS AMENDED, THE WOLF CREEK RPUD, TO APPROVE AN INSUBSTANTIAL CHANGE TO THE PUD, TO ADD A PRESERVE EXHIBIT THAT REVISES THE PRESERVE CONFIGURATION FOR PARCELS 3B AND 9 ONLY, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS 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 – MOTION TO CONTINUE TO THE JULY 11TH BCC MEETING FOR ADDITIONAL BOARD DISCUSSION ONLY – APPROVED MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that moves us to Item 9E. This is a recommendation that the Board approve an ordinance which affirms the decision of the Collier County Planning Commission regarding an insubstantial change to the Wolf Creek RPUD to add a preserve exhibit that revises the preserve configuration for Parcels 3B and Parcel 9. Again, this item requires ex parte disclosure be provided by commission members, and all participants must be sworn in. Would you like to do ex parte, ma'am? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes, I would. I was waiting for the swearing, so I'm back there. Okay. Commissioner McDaniel? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. I had ex parte, meetings, and emails. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I've had meetings, correspondence, emails, calls, and I met with Bruce Anderson, and I've had phone calls June 27, 2017 Page 132 from residents of Black Bear Ridge. It was hard to keep figuring who's -- wolf and creek and black bear. A lot of animals in this area. Excuse me. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Poor attempt at humor. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I've also had some meetings and emails, I met with Mr. Anderson, Terrie Abrams and Beth Smith from Black Bear Ridge, and I received an email from Marc Allen. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And the same: Numerous emails, a petition from Black Ridge (sic) residents, meetings with Terrie Abrams, and others as well as Bruce Anderson. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And I've had meetings and emails and calls, I met with Terrie Abrams and Bev Smith, and then always Mr. Anderson. Thank you very much. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, Madam Chairman. My name is Bruce Anderson from the Cheffy Passidomo -- MR. OCHS: Oh, we've got to swear everybody in. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. ANDERSON: I'm still Bruce Anderson from Cheffy Passidomo. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Even though you swore, right? MR. ANDERSON: This is for an insubstantial change to the Wolf Creek PUD master plan to reconfigure a preserve area on the last two unbuilt parcels in this PUD. We are requesting your concurrence with mitigation off-site for the removal of four acres of exotic infested urban wetlands. The infestation rate ranges from 25 to 99 percent of the wetlands. The South Florida Water Management District has approved this change, and my client is mitigating at the Panther Island Mitigation June 27, 2017 Page 133 Bank with forested wetland mitigation credits. Those are specified by the Water Management District permit. The mitigation occurs on lands that are owned by the Audubon Society which are being restored to functioning wetlands connected to Corkscrew Sanctuary by the Southwest Florida Wetland Joint Venture. Development has been completed on the rest of this 189-acre PUD which is located on the north side of Vanderbilt Beach Road just west of the intersection with Collier Boulevard. The PUD was last amended in 2013 to add other property, and at that time the required amount of preserve area was increased to 34.26 acres. This insubstantial PUD change does not change that 36.24-acre (sic) requirement in the PUD. It will remain. The Wolf Creek PUD states that the proposed area, lot, and land use boundaries on the PUD master plan are conceptual in nature, shall not be construed to be final, and may be amended from time to time. In compliance with that language, this application requests an amendment of the conceptual preserve area on the last two unbuilt parcels in the PUD. This does change the conceptual acreage shown on these last two parcels from seven to three acres, but the overall PUD preserve requirement is not changing. And, again, they are mitigating for it by restoring wetlands that are functioning and do play an important role and are not isolated urban wetlands. The amendment has a new preserve exhibit, which I have on the overhead. Those are the last two unbuilt. They're owned by my client. And that is the only change requested. Everything else in the PUD remains the same, and that's why it's considered an insubstantial change. I'll be happy to try to answer your questions or take my seat and let me let you hear from the rest of the folks. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel? June 27, 2017 Page 134 COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No questions. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: (No verbal response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: (No verbal response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: (Shakes head.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Mr. Anderson, will you just show us -- this is the -- is this the existing? MR. ANDERSON: No. That's the proposed. Here's the existing. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Where's existing? MR. ANDERSON: This area here. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. And can you -- or maybe I need to ask staff this. Can you just give us a history of this area, because it's -- there's a lot of PUDs, and I guess at one point it was under one ownership, is that correct, and then the recession hit, so... MR. ANDERSON: The parcel in front of my client's parcel that fronts on Vanderbilt Beach Road -- my client's property was originally supposed to be Phase 2 of that project, which was constructed, fell upon hard times, and so he's trying to build a project at the back end of a failed project. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. And this -- I have a staff question, I think, to ask. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. All right. Would staff like to present? Mr. Bosi? MR. BOSI: Afternoon, Commission. Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning Director. As Mr. Anderson indicated, this is an insubstantial change to the Wolf Creek PUD. The Land Development Code designates changes to planned unit developments as substantial or insubstantial. There's criteria for which June 27, 2017 Page 135 must be satisfied to be labeled as either -- this one satisfies that insubstantial change criteria. What's unique about this petition -- and you approved a PDI on your summary agenda as well as part of your morning action -- is the LDC provides as the final action on this to the Planning Commission. In your package you'll find the CCPC resolution that authorized this insubstantial change. Because of questions of delegation of authority related to the Board's zoning powers, staff is bringing the PDIs now to the Board of County Commissioners for affirmation of that authorization that the Planning Commission or the HEX -- which the LDC provides for either/or, to be the final decision making for a PDI. We now bring those changes to the Board of County Commissioners for an affirmation. And why I mention that in such great lengths is the comparable/compatible use determination that you guys were speaking with this -- or that we spoke about this morning, that type of discussion of where we said having -- you know, potentially having staff make those decisions at an administrative level would run counter to this overabundance of caution of making sure that the delegation of your zoning powers is authorized and expressed by this board would complicate. So this matter is an insubstantial change, meets the criteria for an insubstantial change. Normally it would rest with the Planning Commission as a final authority. Because of the concerns, we're bringing this to the Board of County Commissioners for affirmation. And your action today is, essentially, do you agree with the Planning Commission and affirm their recommendation or their approval. And, I guess, specifically -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So it should be incorporated within the motion when the motion -- June 27, 2017 Page 136 MR. BOSI: Well, just the action that the Board will be taking is an affirmation of the Planning Commission's decision regarding the PDI. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: If I may ask a question? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Is there something that we can adjust systematically when the thresholds are met for insubstantial zoning changes to be effectuated either by the CCPC or the HEX? Is there something systematically that we can adjust so that we're not adding additional time and expense as we're going through here? MR. OCHS: Sir, I'm going to ask for some help from the County Attorney, because it's primarily a legal question that came. For as many years as I can remember, maybe as long as I've been here, the Board has always delegated certain ministerial land use decisions either to your Plan Commission or your Hearing Examiner. But recently, as Mr. Bosi explained, there's been a concern from the Clerk's agency about that authority that has been granted by this board in other ordinances, the LDC and others. So it seems to me you almost have conflicting ordinances, perhaps, but I don't -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That was the reason I asked about the systematic adjustments that we could make. I understand that there's discrepancy or differentiation and opinion in how it's interpreted as to what can we do to alleviate this. MR. KLATZKOW: This isn't our issue. This is the Clerk's issue. The Clerk raised the issue as far as the delegations go. The last time we got into a dispute with the Clerk over delegation, it was four or five years of litigation. I don't know what else to say. So we're going this route. I agree that it's clunky, to put it mildly. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Clunky, time-consuming, expensive. You know, we regularly talk about housing affordability, June 27, 2017 Page 137 and here's a project that could have been approved in front of the Hearing Examiner, whether or not it could have been, because I understand there are people in the neighborhood that had issues with what we're, in fact, transpiring, but there's several thousand dollars an hour sitting over there that have had to go through additional notices, public advertising, time, and so on, that add to the overall expense. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, I think what we're hearing is, is if this is an issue that we want to take up, we should take it up with the Clerk, not here, because it's a clerk recommendation that we're following. MR. OCHS: Well, I mean, you know, earlier today we talked about ways where we could streamline business regulations and make the process more efficient. This actually adds time to a process that was -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right. MR. OCHS: -- designed to be streamlined. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: More fluid. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I think the only -- I looked into this a little bit myself, and it seems to me that the only alternative would be to change the special act to except out from votes before the Board these insubstantial changes that are found to be insubstantial somehow. I mean -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Well, there's thresholds. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- I don't know how else to fix that. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: You know, the definition is very specific in the code, and there are thresholds that are met that delineate an insubstantial change and that's where, again -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I think the question is are these amendments to -- essentially amendments to PUD ordinances? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And if they are then what's required June 27, 2017 Page 138 to do one of those. I mean, that's the issue. MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioner, we had a certain way of doing things since before I came here and before my predecessor came here, and I'm sure we did the same things when Commissioner Saunders sat in this chair over here. MR. OCHS: You have several ordinances where you delegate levels of authority either to planning commissioners or hearing examiners or staff at certain levels. So it's not unusual. MR. KLATZKOW: We could amend the special act, I suppose, but I think that the Clerk needs to be involved in the discussions to see what he's comfortable with. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Shall we do that? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chair, we have a petition in front of us. We're not going to solve that problem. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's right. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'm not looking to solve it. I just wanted to -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, as I say, this needs to be brought back. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I mean, we need to solve it. We're just not going to be able to do it at this point. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Got it. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: This is a discussion with the Clerk. I just have a question. The owner of the property, are they responsible for maintaining and -- I guess maintaining is the word -- the preserve on that land, i.e., the issue of taking -- maintaining the level of exotics and pruning it, et cetera, et cetera? MR. BOSI: Once it would go through the DO process with that identified preserve it will be -- it would definitely be their responsibility. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: But not just land on the property, okay. June 27, 2017 Page 139 So at this point there's no responsibility of the landowner to have made sure that there weren't 90 percent exotics on the property, is that right? MR. BOSI: Under the current PUD we'll designate the amount of native preserve that's required for their overall PUD. As each phase of the PUD moves forward, they designate by easement where that preserve area will be until it goes through the development, the development stage. The un -- the areas that are designated as preserve are maintained in their natural state until they go through that development process. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. All right. So there's no -- absolutely no responsibility of the landowner to maintain a certain preserve? I'm just asking. I'm not -- there's -- I'm not pointing fingers. I just would like to understand this. MS. ARAQUE: Summer Araque, Environmental Planning Development Review. I think what you're asking is, are they currently required to keep the property exotic free? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: If the -- if any developer has owned a property for 15 years and it becomes invaded with exotics in an area on this property, are they required to farm those exotics out. MS. ARAQUE: They're not required to remove the exotics until they come in to develop it, and that's all part -- that's in Chapter 3 of the Land Development Code, and it lays that out at what points during development they need to be removing those exotics. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. So the issue right now is whether we're willing to have a preserve mitigated off property? MS. ARAQUE: Okay. So for clarification -- and I did have a discussion in advance with Mr. Anderson. Please know that what Mr. Anderson was talking about are the requirements of this development to mitigate wetland impacts for the South Florida Water Management District. June 27, 2017 Page 140 So when he's talking about that, that is a requirement of the wetland permitting agency that if they're going to impact wetlands, that they mitigate that off-site. That does not -- that's not a county requirement. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Thank you. MR. BOSI: And, Chair, to your question, they are not proposing any off-site mitigation for the preserve area. They were committed to the -- I think it's 34.2 acres of preserve as allocated by the PUD currently. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. So how many speakers do we have? MR. MILLER: We have six registered public speakers. Your first speaker is Terrie Abrams, who will be followed by Beverly Smith. MS. ABRAMS: Good afternoon. I had to change it from morning. My name is Terrie Abrams, a full-time resident of Naples, Florida. And, like you, I am here to support development that preserves and enhances the safety, quality, value, character, and heritage of our neighborhood, community, and region. Today there is a petition to reduce the preserves in Wolf Creek to the minimum requirement. The fundamental question is why? There can only be two reasons: One, the developer following the allowed density in either the CSA or county ordinance needs the space for larger lots. If that's the case, pass it; or the developer is trying to put in more units than the CSA or ordinance allows. If that's the case, it can't be passed. Several factors to be considered. The history of this PUD and others in Naples is to keep the higher density development traffic close to the main artery which, in this case, is Vanderbilt Beach Road, and the less dense development in the interior. This is clearly the plan that was executed for Wolf Creek, and this parcel is in the interior. Collier County recognized the cost-share agreement and June 27, 2017 Page 141 development plan for Wolf Creek by noting all the dwelling units were assigned and not in a pool. When two parcels were brought into the Wolf Creek PUD, the county allocated units and assigned them to those specific parcels keeping the CSA density intact. The developer is not entitled to more density, as Black Bear Ridge property owners own the extra density, as it runs with the land, and the land was turned over as lots were sold. In 2013 the HOA was turned over to Black Bear by Stock. Stock does not own any property in Black Bear Ridge. At the June 1 planning meeting, Mr. Anderson was specifically asked by the Commissioner if he was changing unit density for the parcel, and his response was no. See the video. In a previous discussion with the developer, they admitted they do not have the dwelling units, so how could the answer be no? Black Bear Ridge owns the dwelling units, and we have never agreed to sell them, because that is against the development standards of the PUD, which we are trying to preserve and why we are here today. You are asked to do what is fair for the homeowners that already live here and support the county's vision and past-documented ordinances and minutes. Thank you. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Beverly Smith, and she'll followed by Steve Bracci. MS. SMITH: Good afternoon. My name is Beverly Smith, and I'm a full-time resident of the community of Black Bear Ridge located in the Wolf Creek PUD. I'm here this morning to voice my concerns regarding the PDI change request by the owner/developer of Parcels 9 and 3B. The request to reduce the existing preserve in these parcels by approximately four acres will bring the PUD to its absolutely minimum requirement and is unnecessary. It is only being developed -- June 27, 2017 Page 142 unnecessary for the development of the parcels. The reduction is for the sole purpose of increasing intensity of the dwelling units as currently allocated to these parcels. When original Parcel 9, 20 acres, was added to the PUD in 2007, 80 units were allocated, as per County Commission. The calculation was based on 3.99 units per acre. When Parcel 3B was added to Parcel 9 for one unit for development purposes, it increased the dwelling units by 24 based on the allocation that was given per the acreage of 3.99. Present Parcels 9 and 3B now total 104 units. The developer has submitted a companion application with this PDI, PL2016000157, which proposes a 215 townhome project. This would result in a high-density row-house-type development of 6.82 acres -- units per acre, more than twice the approved allocation by the county. It will also reduce the preserve to 3.6 acres; half of what it has now. The developer assumed originally that it was able to include the 103 dwelling units that were allocated to Black Bear Ridge and not developed. Subsequently, they had acknowledged that those units are not available to them based on the cost-share agreement which Black Bear Ridge retains ownership of. The county has acknowledged and enforces the cost-share agreement for the purpose of paying for road improvements, signalization, and right-hand turns on Pristine and Vanderbilt. The county also acknowledged the cost-sharing dwelling allocation regarding the addition and the transfer of property into the Wolf Creek PUD in 2'07 and 213 (sic). The vision in the standard for the density has been made clear on numerous occasions by the county. No one objects to the development of this property; however, a development to coexist and complement the PUD is the goal. We respectfully ask that this reduction of the preserve as requested not be permitted at this time. June 27, 2017 Page 143 Thank you very much. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Steve Bracci. He's been -- I hope I'm pronouncing that right -- had been ceded additional time from Steve Abrams -- Mr. Abrams is here -- and by Richard Smith for nine minutes of time, and he'll be followed by Rich Yovanovich. MR. BRACCI: Good afternoon, Board. For the record, Steve Bracci, and I'm here as counsel today on behalf of Black Bear Ridge and its association. Black Bear Ridge is a 100-unit single-family residential community situated immediately east of the Vanderbilt Reserve subject property. This is not your typical insubstantial change application, and Commissioner Taylor is correct in asking a little bit about the history of this particular Wolf Creek PUD because it does have quite a bit of history. Black Bear Ridge, as expressed by the two prior speakers, is concerned that this insubstantial change request is a prelude to a site development application that interferes with Black Bear Ridge's ownership rights to certain unused residential development densities that are legally owned and allocated, pursuant to a cost-sharing agreement, to Black Bear Ridge and its owners. The Vanderbilt Reserve application has framed the issue before you today simply as -- that they're entitled to an insubstantial change because they maybe, arguably, meet the technical definitions that would require them. But the question is why? Why do they need this, and that's a logical question for this board to ask. I assume that this County Commission does not wish to eliminate preserve areas without a specific reason, notwithstanding any property owner's technical compliance with other code provisions. As my clients earlier stated, there's only two reasons why they would be seeking a reduction in their preserve: One is they want to June 27, 2017 Page 144 make each of their footprints -- unit footprints larger or, number two, they want to add more units. In the instance -- this instance it would appear that the Vanderbilt Reserve property owner is seeking to add more units, and that would be more units than they're entitled to add. We believe, based on our calculations, that they only have either 104 or 128 development units that they're allocated. That's based on two different ways of looking at it. This goes back to the 2007-46 ordinance, which amended Wolf Creek by bringing in more property, as well as the 2013-37 ordinance which, again, amended the Wolf Creek PUD, and in that instance, the county was looking at basically specifically allocating units to specifically -- specific properties. So under those scenarios, again, we believe they have either 104 or 128 units and, yet, they're -- the presently pending application for this project is -- I'm going to put it on the screen now. Well, actually, first I want to show this is the area with the preserve. So this is the -- as it stands today, this is -- as it stands here today, this is the preserve area along this line. If you add the site plan here, you will see the preserve has been dramatically squared off to allow all of these development units. And if you see over here -- you can't see it, but what it shows is that there's 215 development units. So -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Will you go through that again, sir, please. MR. BRACCI: Yes, Commissioner. Okay. So, again, here is the original preserve as it stands today, and it roughly encompasses this line along here. Okay. Now, if we kind of drop on top of that the site plan which is presently pending for an SDP approval, the preserve has been dramatically squared off to basically just a little buffer fringe between them and Village Walk, and then you have 215 development units on this property. Again, we're suggesting that they only have June 27, 2017 Page 145 either 104 or 128. So, again, the question is, why do they need this? It's obvious, if you look at this, that the reason why they're asking for this insubstantial change is for densities to fit on this property and, yet, we're suggesting that they don't own those densities; rather, Black Bear Ridge does. It might be the case that the owner of Pristine Reserve thinks that they're entitled to the leftover units that are contained within the Wolf Creek PUD based on the unused portion of Wolf Creek's total allotment of 754 units, but this is not the case. My clients, Black Bear Ridge, own the 103 unused units. This is pursuant to the 2004 cost-sharing agreement that everyone's aware of. It originally allocated 203 units to Black Bear Ridge. Black Bear Ridge was built with only 100 units; thereby, leaving 103 left over. The cost-sharing agreement is extremely clear. It says at the end, it says that the benefits and the burdens with respect to the cost-share agreement run with the land. They run with the parcels is actually what it says. At this point in time, it's 100 percent built out, the units are owned by the residents, and in 2013, the developer, Stock, turned over control of the HOA, which means that the common areas are then turned over to the residents. So under the strict express terms of the cost-share agreement, my clients own 100 percent of the density, not Stock, because -- the reason this is important is that my client hasn't agreed to convey those units to anyone else. And what I think you might be hearing still here today is some suggestion that there was some kind of grand bargain struck between county staff, Stock Development, the Pristine Reserve development, and potentially their counsel. We don't know. But somehow there was some agreement struck that would allow -- that Stock would take the position that they would be responsible for paying for Black Bear Ridge's portion of improvements that we -- June 27, 2017 Page 146 remember a couple weeks ago when we were here, we talked about the Vanderbilt Beach Road improvements that were required, and Black Bear Ridge had a concern about their proportion. Stock is saying that they'll pick up that amount and somehow, by virtue of picking that up, they slide into the shoes of Black Bear Ridge such that they have density -- they control the density and can then sell it to Pristine Reserve. But the problem is, Black Bear Ridge was never part of these discussions. We found out after the fact, by virtue of an email from staff to us -- and we weren't part of that front-end analysis of this. Nobody, you know, consulted with Black Bear Ridge as to what impact that would have on their rights to control the density and make an election not to use it because, to be clear, my client has no interest in selling that density because they believe, as stated, that good planning dictates that the highest density within Wolf Creek would be along Vanderbilt Beach Road, along the arterial corridor, and that's what happens here today -- or that's what already exists with Falls of Portofino being a higher density multifamily project, and then Mr. Bucco's Vanderbilt Commons project being the retail project along the road. As you go north, you move into Black Bear Ridge, which is a pretty non-dense single-family community and yet, now across the street they're suggesting that they're going to pack in 215 units. My client doesn't want to sell those units. So, again, the question here today is, why is this commission wanting to approve an insubstantial change on a project when there's no showing that they can use this area to increase the density like they think they want to? Now, again, getting back to the argument that you may hear from Stock that they can step in and pay for those costs and, thereby, they should also be entitled to own those units, there's a difference. There's a difference between Black Bear Ridge being allocated these units by June 27, 2017 Page 147 virtue of rights under a cost-share agreement, and it also makes sense that Stock still has an obligation to complete the off-site improvements. The reason being, like everyone else, like Mr. Yovanovich actually said this morning, you know, with respect to the other applications, they said, look, if there's something wrong, we've got to fix it. If there's a permit -- if the project isn't built according to permit, we have to go back and complete it. Well, that's exactly the case here, because back in 2005 there was a construction maintenance and escrow agreement whereby the developer of Black Bear Ridge posted $3 million in bonds and agreed that they would pick up certain costs for the development of Black Bear Ridge, and Collier County is a party to this escrow agreement, in 2005. I'm going to put on the overhead the schedule for that. And you can't -- I guess you can't really see it, but in there there's a line item. There's a $270,000 line item for improvements for Vanderbilt Beach Road. The original developer of Black Bear Ridge had an obligation to pay for the construction improvements of Vanderbilt Beach Road. So the idea here today that suddenly the developer is going to agree to step in and do that which they were originally supposed to do under their improvements for Black Bear Ridge is ridiculous. Stock has developed the property. They've sold all the properties. They've made all the revenues. Now they have to finish their expense line items, one of which is the off sites, including Vanderbilt Beach Road; that then gives them their profit. So the fact that Stock has now agreed with staff in writing that they will pick up Black Bear Ridge's proportionate-share costs at Vanderbilt Beach Road has nothing to do with the fact that my client still, nevertheless, owns the 103 unallocated -- or unused units that are June 27, 2017 Page 148 now apparently trying to be bargained away to -- to Pristine Reserve. One other item that I think that this board should be aware of and be concerned about. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Very quickly, sir. MR. BRACCI: Yes. The construction escrow agreement I mentioned earlier today, we asked is -- we asked in the course of this how much is left on that, because we wanted to know, is there surety -- are we -- are the homeowners protected? And they said, yes, there's 8 -- we learned from staff. We have it in writing that $816,000 was in escrow. It's still in escrow. We were then assured by county staff that that money would not go away until the improvements were put in place. In my discussions with counsel with staff, suddenly they're saying, no, that 816,000 is gone. It's gone even though Collier County is a party to it. It's gone. It's been swept away, that we heard. Swept away to where? We don't know. By who? We don't know. When? We don't know. But it's gone. That's what we're hearing. So last Thursday I made an inquiry to staff asking county staff if they've confirmed with Iberia Bank if those funds are still there. I got an email back saying we'll check into it. But as we stand here today, I have not had an answer. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. Thank you. MR. BRACCI: Thank you. MR. MILLER: Your final registered speaker for this item is Rich Yovanovich. MR. YOVANOVICH: I didn't realize -- Rich Yovanovich on behalf of Stock Development. I didn't realize that Mr. Bracci was going to spend most of his nine minutes attacking my client, so I would ask if I can just have a couple minutes to address some of the things he brought up. I was not intending to address a lot of what he said. What I'm June 27, 2017 Page 149 here to address simply is the history of the PUD that is known as the Wolf Creek PUD. I did the original PUD on behalf of the original owners of the property. It was 500 -- it was approved at 591 units for a certain area of land that did not include Mr. Anderson's property. So when that property was developed, there was a 20-acre hole, and the 591 units went to everybody but Mr. Anderson's property. And there was an agreement between the owners of that property on how to divvy up that density. And those owners said, we can transfer -- for instance, Black Bear Ridge, which is three parcels, was originally approved for, I want to say, 204 or 203 units. They built 100, so there was 103 units left. The owner of those three parcels could, in fact, give to the other members of the PUD the extra density, if they wanted to, or sell that density. That was the original deal. Part of what Mr. Anderson is permitting through the county is part of the cost-sharing agreement. Now, in '07, the PUD gets amended to bring in the 20 acres. I was part of that amendment. That 20 acres came in, and it says that 80 units are allocated to that 20 acres. Why did it say that? It's because I knew the 591 units was allocated to the remainder of the property. And there was a condition in that PUD that says, you can't use those 80 units, or you can't get building permits for those 80 units until certain road improvements were done on Vanderbilt and 951. It came back in in '13, added more land to the property on behalf of WCI. I'm sure you all -- you may remember that, for Raffia, and took some out of Raffia, which was another PUD, assured that the density that was coming in for that land was allocated to that land so nobody can come in and take someone else's density. So where we are -- and I'm not going to fight with Mr. Bracci about who owns the 103 units. I, frankly, disagree with just about everything he said about who owns the 103 units. But what I do know June 27, 2017 Page 150 is that right now, the way the PUD is written, there's a limitation of density on what was known as the Madeiros (phonetic) parcel of 80 units. So as long as they don't build more than 80 units pursuant to this change in area that they're making available to themselves, we don't have a dispute. If they want to put more than 80 units on that, we do think it's inconsistent with the PUD, and we'll fight over who owns the additional units outside of this proceeding, because that's not your -- that's not your fight to deal with whether Mr. Stock owns those 103 units or whether the HOA owns those 103 units. And one last thing: We did have a meeting in the County Attorney's Office with all the affected property owners in Wolf Creek, including Mr. Anderson's client. And the cost-sharing agreement specifically said if the Madeiros parcel ever comes in, their only cost allocations for the construction of Pristine Drive was the donation of the right-of-way in front of their property so we could build the proper width of the road and not have to shift it over onto someone else's property, which is the way it was originally set up. At that meeting, the owner of the Maduros piece said, hey, under the Maduros agreement I don't have to pay any of the money related to the intersection improvements. I have no fair share because, under the cost-share agreement, my only obligation was to provide the right-of-way. So my suggestion is, I know they're going to tell you, hey, that's not your fight, but the PUD history is clear that only 80 units was allocated to the Maduros piece. And if there needs to be a change to go above that, I think you have to come in and talk about changing the PUD to go above 80 units on that parcel. I think that's the way it's written. Your staff will ultimately be the deciders on how the PUD was written, but that's my recollection. And I will deal with Mr. Bracci outside of these proceedings about what he June 27, 2017 Page 151 said. And my only recommendation is, when I called you and asked you to call me back, we could have avoided a whole lot of what was said today. MR. BRACCI: That's disingenuous, Mr. Yovanovich. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Excuse me. Excuse me, sir. Sir, excuse me. Any other speakers, Mr. Miller? MR. MILLER: No, ma'am. That was it. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. The public hearing is closed. County Attorney Klatzkow, we heard a lot of stuff that has -- that muddies this even more than it's ever muddied. This is another fight. And are we able at this point to even opine on this issue based on the allegations going back and forth and back and forth? MR. KLATZKOW: You've had a PUD that, because of time and economic circumstance, such as the great recession, the PUD's been balkanized. Initially what we do, zonings, is one owner for the entire parcel, and it's easy to deal with. This one, over time, has been broken down into a number of different ownership groups, and now we've got a homeowners association, and they've got private agreements, apparently, as to who pays what and who gets what and everything else. My advice is to continue this item without any date until they can come back; everybody in this PUD -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Right. MR. KLATZKOW: -- could come back and say, yes, we agree to this. Because they have to -- they have to sort out so many different issues amongst themselves. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Can I make one comment? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes, of course, of course. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: We have an application about an June 27, 2017 Page 152 insubstantial change. That's what's in front of us. It seems to me that we cannot decide this insubstantial, which change has its own criteria, based on disputes related to things that are not before us. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I mean, it seems to me -- and I understand what you're suggesting, but there's a process here. The dispute as to who owns these units comes out in, I'm assuming, the SDP process, the other permitting process. I think we're starting to mix apples and oranges. We have an obligation to decide the application that's in front of us based upon the criteria that's there for that kind of an application. Am I -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Mr. County Attorney, would you please respond to that. MR. KLATZKOW: My feeling is that the only reason they want to get rid of the preserve is because they want to grab density. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Are they asking for that? MR. KLATZKOW: But that's -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, that's not the decision for today. MR. KLATZKOW: But you don't know -- you may not hear the density issue. They may just simply file a Site Development Plan with these units on a staff level. I don't know. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And there's a process for challenging that. MR. OCHS: Yes. MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Then it comes to us. MR. KLATZKOW: If they challenge that. What I'm saying is, you know you've got a fight here. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah. June 27, 2017 Page 153 MR. KLATZKOW: All right. Before we start making decisions on this fight -- it gets back to the original purpose of a PUD with the unified ownership where you have just one person before you saying this is what I want. Here you've got a half dozen or more different entities involving multiple issues now, and you're being asked just -- well, just do this one piece here and don't worry about the rest of it. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, but again, I mean, we're not -- the question before us is not whether or not they have X amount of density. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: May I say something? That the is they're taking -- it is interdependent. We can't separate it out. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We're not. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And in my opinion you can't separate them out. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: The application in front of us is -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: They're not asking for density. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: The application has nothing to do with the hypothecations and representations that are being made outside of this. One can surmise that they're heading down that path, and that's going to require them to get together and figure out who owns that density. But today we're only asked -- I mean, we're only being asked about the insubstantial change. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I think that the insubstantial change has to be the removal of a preserve; probably not to put another preserve in there, probably. In fact, we've seen an overlay that says that's not what's going to happen at all. So it is connected to density. Apples are apples, and oranges are oranges. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It just -- it troubles me that we're in a meeting where we're talking about -- which we hope we were going to June 27, 2017 Page 154 talk about, and the real -- the real conflict has bubbled up. And no matter -- I think it's a very wise decision in my -- and I think I've -- I don't want to do it right now because I don't want to push this forward, but I do think it's important that we don't opine on this right now, we don't vote on it. We continue it until such time as this, obviously, legal fight needs to be worked out. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well -- and I understand that, and I think -- I would suggest, though, that we can only resolve this dispute as to who owns the density and what can be built -- actually built on the property when that is before us. If the request is to reduce this -- this preserve -- preserve, it seems to me that the owner is then going out on a limb and taking the risk of not being able to use all of the land because he doesn't have the density, but that's not what's before us. There's a process for resolving who owns that density and whether or not they can build, you know, as dense a project as they want. That's another review. And I'm concerned that we're mixing -- it is apples and oranges, because the question of how much density is allowed on that particular piece of property is not what's in front of us. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, that is correct. But the reason they want to remove the preserves -- are we not opining on the removal and mitigation and removal of preserves? Are we not opining on that? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I think Mr. Bracci said that it could be that they want to increase the density or that they want to make their lots bigger. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That's a potential. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: When that issue comes before us, then we have to decide that. We can't resolve issues, I don't think, that aren't before us. It's a quasi-judicial proceeding, and we can't decide -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's right. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- issues that aren't before us. June 27, 2017 Page 155 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's right. So that's why it should be continued. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Couldn't we decide that issue -- this issue when that issue comes before us as opposed to doing it piecemeal and doing it now? I generally, you know, have a little bit of an understanding of what's going on. But in this particular case, I really don't understand a whole lot about what's at stake here. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It's his district. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: But it seems to me that until we know what that parcel owner wants to do with his parcel in terms of units, why should we use the -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Preserve. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- preserve at this point? I mean, I don't know the answer. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Are we hitting the buttons or looking around? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No. I was looking at you, sir. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Maybe -- looks like Nick might want to say something. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Madam Chair, Board Members, I've sat in some of these meetings, and we always convey to the HOA, to Stock, to Mr. Anderson's clients, we don't -- we don't get into the private agreements. I know this is how this is going to end up. This is going to be a suit between them two as to the density. The only thing we resolved as staff -- no private meeting, respectfully, Mr. Bracci. I've attended meetings with him -- is we've said to Stock, when you conveyed this property, you conveyed it without really good information about the cost share. And they said, you know what, we will take care of the cost share. And I said, the second issue is the density. We're not going to get June 27, 2017 Page 156 in that as the county. And I don't -- respectfully, I'll disagree a little bit with the County Attorney. I think you're looking at these one at a time and how they stand on their own. Because if you combine them, I think you become at risk to a certain extent. I'm not an attorney saying that. But we, as staff, have always told these folk we're not going to get involved in the private litigation and opinion of who owns what density where. If they come in with a plat and those units are on there and there's nothing in the zoning code or the ordinance that does not allow them to use it, we'll process the plat, at which point in time they will appeal that plat. MR. KLATZKOW: But here's your problem. Once you make a decision -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's right. MR. KLATZKOW: -- either way you go, all right -- either way you go, if they resolve their issue, it requires the other decision, you're going to have a hard time reversing it. You only get so much time for a reconsideration, and a reconsideration of a land use item is at the applicant's request. So once you make a decision, whatever decision that is, it's going to be hard to un-ring that bell after that. And if they actually come in here with a resolution on it, your decision might negatively have impacted that, which I'm saying, keep the status quo for now, let them figure it out and then come back to you, hopefully with a box and a bow on it and saying that everybody supports this. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And another thing -- and maybe this is just the common man's way of looking at it, if we make a decision now about this preserve, we are going to inadvertently take one side over the other. I don't want to be in that middle. I want them to decide it and then bring it back to us. Commissioner McDaniel? June 27, 2017 Page 157 COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I agree with Commissioner Solis. I would -- since the applicant -- or the lawyer for the applicant is standing there, it's been asked multiple times by multiple people, why are you doing this? MR. ANDERSON: To provide deeper lots with lanais that don't rest on the lip of the drainage swales. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Gotcha. So -- and as Commissioner Solis -- and also, if I'm not mistaken, the developer's not required to maintain the quality of this wetland, and we are replacing it with some very poor quality, densely overgrown with exotics, if I heard, anywhere from 20 to 99 percent, so there is some benefit to the removal of these wetlands. And the reduction of the wetland doesn't come with the bequeath of any additional density or anything along those lines. MR. OCHS: Reduction of the preserve, you mean. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Excuse me. Forgive me. I misspoke. Reduction of the preserve. I'm sorry, Bruce. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, again, I'm sort of leaning towards continuing this. And I understand that that creates some problems, but if you're -- if the owner's plan is to develop 80 lots with bigger lots, then it seems to me that that -- we can deal with that at the same time that we deal with the limitation or reduction of the -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'm just concerned about doing something that's going to come back to haunt us a little bit later on, you know, if the property owner changes his mind. That can happen. It's not a reflection on what Mr. Anderson is telling us, but property owners do change their minds from time to time. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: They certainly have the right to June 27, 2017 Page 158 ask. MR. ANDERSON: Well, may I? We made two settlement offers to Black Bear Ridge and never had the courtesy of a response to either one. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Mr. Anderson, we can't get into this right now. I, respectfully -- and I'm not saying this as a criticism, sir. It's just -- it's beyond what we should be doing right now. MR. ANDERSON: Absolutely, I agree. All you're looking at is the very single, narrow issue of removal and mitigation for four acres of exotic infested wetlands. That's it. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. MR. ANDERSON: Yeah. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders, do you want to make a motion? MR. ANDERSON: I have a few other things I'd like to say. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh, of course, sir. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. The prior developer had a site plan for this property with the conservation areas left where they are with 254 units. So the arguments about this is somehow going to entitle us to build a denser product is not correct. Also, Commissioner Taylor, I believe you would be interested to know that this project will be providing housing options for young professionals, teachers, and law enforcement, fire department personnel who have a household income of at least 80,000. The base price of these homes starts at 309,9-. If we're going to have housing that's affordable, this is a good place to start. Thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you, sir. Okay. Shall we -- do we have a motion or -- Commissioner Saunders, do you want to make a motion? June 27, 2017 Page 159 I'll make a motion to continue until such time as the decisions have been made between the parties, and we can address this at the time of a plan coming forward. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I still agree with Commissioner Solis. I still think that we should be addressing what's on our agenda instead of discussing something else that isn't here. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It's interrelated. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It's not related. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, except that it's -- the thing is, you're hearing all different kinds of criteria that one doesn't even relate to the other, and how do you know who's framing it to say something else? You just don't know. I agree. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, that's -- no, that's the whole point, ma'am. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, yes, exactly right, exactly. So I think we should stick to what we've got in front of us. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: But it's interrelated, unfortunate -- in my opinion, in my opinion. That's why -- and I think our County Attorney has advised us to continue it. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chair, I'm not going to second the motion, so the motion's going to fail for a lack of a second. I would like to ask the County Attorney a question. In terms of this particular item, this is not a supermajority vote; is that correct? Or is it? MR. KLATZKOW: On a conservative basis, yes, it is supermajority. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Then I'm going to suggest to the applicant or -- I guess I'll pose this as a question. I don't like to delay things. I like to get things heard and done with. But I've got some issues here, and I'd like to see if maybe we can continue this until July 13th. I know we have a horrible agenda that June 27, 2017 Page 160 day. But the public hearing is closed; we don't need to re-open it. But continue this until July 11th, rather. That will give me time to do a little bit more research myself, and maybe I can come to a better conclusion. I'm not comfortable voting for this today, so I'm suggesting that we continue this till July 13th, not for any -- July 11th, not for any public hearing. I think we're done with that, but just so I can get a little more comfortable, and I'm sure that other members of the commission have some questions for staff and that sort of thing. I assume that that's not an improper procedure. MR. KLATZKOW: You can do that if you'd like, yes. MR. ANDERSON: We're -- that's fine with us. Thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders, it is your district, sir, so I think that's a -- I will certainly follow your lead on that. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I appreciate that. And, you know, this isn't a question in my case of it being in the district. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No, it's -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: It's what is the right decision here. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And I'm just not sure what it is. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It's all of our districts. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: But I appreciate what you just said. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Sir, if you're not clear about it, and it's your district -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Then I'll make an alternative motion that we continue this until July 11th, not for additional public June 27, 2017 Page 161 hearing, but for -- MR. KLATZKOW: Board discussion. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- for board discussion. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I'll second that; I'll second that. Okay. We have a motion on the floor to continue this for public discussion, not a public hearing, until July the 11th. And there's a second. All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries unanimously. Thank you. MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, I think it's time for your court reporter's break. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It certainly is. MR. OCHS: Ten minutes, ma'am? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Ten minutes. (A brief recess was had.) COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: How you going to start with me out here? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We're going to start. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: All you have to be is in the room. You don't have to be sitting up here. MR. OCHS: That's right. Point of order. Item #11G – Discussed; Tabled to later in the meeting June 27, 2017 Page 162 FINAL PLAT OF SERENO GROVE, (APPLICATION NUMBER PL20160001884) APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, we have nine registered speakers for Item 11G. I would suggest to the Board we might want to take that one now. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I think that's a very good suggestion, sir. MR. OCHS: This item requires ex parte disclosure by commission members, and all participants are required to be sworn in. This is a recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of Sereno Grove; approval of the standard form construction and maintenance agreement; and approval of the amount of the performance security. And Mr. Matt McLean, your Director of Development Review, will present. I'm sorry, petitioner, go ahead. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We need to do the ex parte; shall we not? MR. OCHS: Yeah, we have to do your ex parte and swearing in first. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. So Commissioner McDaniel -- or maybe we'll start with Commissioner Saunders. Ex parte on 11G. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I had some emails and some review of the staff report and some conversations with counsel. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And as a result of a conflict, I won't be participating in this particular item. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Good. I've had -- I've met with Dave Bankston, Sheri Roberts, have had phone calls, emails back June 27, 2017 Page 163 and forth since that time. I've had discussions with Mr. Yovanovich on -- regarding this item also. Commissioner Fiala -- oh, Commissioner McDaniel. No, no. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes, I do have -- I do have disclosures. I've had several emails and meetings regarding this item. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. And I've had emails and mail from residents within Wilshire Lakes community and discussions with Planning Commissioners. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Now, is this not a public hearing, or this is a public hearing? It is a public hearing. So those who want to testify and are going to speak, please stand and be sworn in. I did this much better than the beginning of the day. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. Please go ahead, Mr. Yovanovich. We are waiting for you, sir. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. Good afternoon. Rich Yovanovich on behalf of WCI/Lennar, the company platting and developing Sereno Grove. I have to give you a little history to the Sereno Grove project. Back, oh -- I forget what year it is now -- 2016 we brought this property into the Pelican Marsh PUD. It was a landlocked parcel that had no access, and we had two potential avenues getting access to the property, either Wilshire Lakes or going to Livingston Road. The Wilshire residents made it very clear that they were not interested in having access through Wilshire Lakes for this property, so we went through the PUD amendment process to add this acreage to the Pelican Marsh PUD and, ultimately, it was added to the Pelican Marsh PUD after negotiations with Patrick White on behalf of the Save Our Preserve group. And let me put up on the visualizer what happened, is we initially June 27, 2017 Page 164 added -- initially, we were going to add just 31 acres to the PUD, and we went through a neighborhood information meeting process, and this was the proposed master plan that we showed the neighborhoods as we were going through this process. Residents of Marsala, which was in the PUD, as well as Wilshire Lakes outside of the PUD, attended that neighborhood information meeting and raised concerns and objections regarding the PUD as a result of those objections, and namely they wanted this acreage to be treated as if it was a stand-alone PUD for purposes of native preservation requirements. Because under this concept plan, since we were going into the PUD that had more preserve than was needed for the original PUD for Pelican Marsh, we were going to utilize the excess native preservation in the Pelican Marsh PUD to satisfy the native preservation requirements on this, roughly, 73 acres. The neighborhoods didn't like that. They said it should be a stand-alone PUD, and it should meet the required 25 percent native preservation requirements internally to the PUD even though we're bringing it into the Pelican Marsh PUD. So we said fine. We took a timeout, we got some additional land, added it to the preserve -- added it as preserve to this project and also added it as preserve to the Pelican Marsh PUD. And then we had discussions with Mr. White and his clients regarding the proposed project and how should that project be laid out. So keep in mind, as we're doing the PUD, we were in for our Water Management District permits identifying the number of lots that we were going to have on the property, the layout of the impervious area, which meant the roads, et cetera, and this -- this is one of the exhibits that was the subject of discussions with Mr. White and his clients while we're doing the PUD. That's the master plan -- not the master plan, but that's the layout June 27, 2017 Page 165 of the lots that were discussed as part of -- and this is an exhibit to the settlement agreement with Mr. White and his clients. And as you can see, the road is the same as where the previous road was. And they asked us, basically, to move this cul-de-sac further to the north, agree to certain areas that will be one-story homes and other development standards that found their way into the PUD document where you find your typical setbacks, buffers. Where all of those standards are were a result of negotiations with Mr. White and his clients. We then had another NIM -- same people were notified as before, residents of Wilshire Lakes, residents of Pelican Marsh -- and we showed the comparison of the before and the after with the roads exactly where they are and exactly where they are pursuant to the settlement agreement and the changes to the preserve area. So, ultimately, the Board of County Commissioners and -- well, first we went to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the PUD with the revisions we had already agreed to with Mr. White and his clients regarding how the project was going to lay out and the development standards and, ultimately, the Board of County Commissioners approved the PUD and the inclusion of this land into the Pelican Marsh PUD. So we now go forward with a plat, which is a ministerial act for you all. You very rarely ever hear these on your regular agenda. They're hardly ever pulled off of the consent agenda. And we have some residents of Wilshire Lakes initially, I think, represented by Mr. White and the challenge initially to the South Florida Water Management District permit that was being done currently with the plat. Ultimately, they agreed that they didn't have a good case and asked us to let them dismiss their case and not pursue attorney's fees, which we did. And they decided another plan of attack was to June 27, 2017 Page 166 challenge the plat. Now, the plat was initially set up to get utilities, no cars or anything, through Wilshire Lakes. You ask why. Because the Wilshire Lakes PUD required the developer of Wilshire Lakes to extend both water and sewer to the property boundary to serve this property. Now, that didn't happen. One -- I think one of the utility lines is to the property line, one is a little short, but there's not a utility easement in place to allow us to connect to the Wilshire Lakes water and sewer system as the Wilshire Lakes PUD requires. So we were given some options. We could relocate this road and affect our development plan with no guarantee that we'll ever get utilities through the Wilshire Lakes HOA and, basically, lose three lots by that. Now, I know they may show you a plan that shows how they make up the three lots, but they're not sellable lots; but the number's still there, and -- or go get utilities off Livingston Road and not have to redo all of our plans for the existing PUD and make whatever modifications we may have to to the Water Management District. So we elected to go get our utilities from Livingston Road. We have done the necessary design change. We were supposed to be here a few months ago, but we didn't make it because the Wilshire Lakes interconnection fell through, so we're here now with a redesigned water and sewer system that is 100 percent consistent with the code. We've had staff review, Matt's staff, utility staff, have reviewed and recommended approval of our utilities coming from Livingston Road. The plat that is in front of you is consistent with the Land Development Code, it's consistent with the PUD, and it's consistent with what we've represented to the residents around us from the very beginning of time what the layout of that road system was going to be. So there's no smoke and mirrors here. We didn't show them one June 27, 2017 Page 167 plan and then build something different. What you see up there are the two plans: The one on your left was the initial plan. The one on the right was the one that ultimately got approved by the Board of County Commissioners with the road system layout like it is. Mike Delate can answer any technical questions you have regarding the utility system. But we know that the water quality of the system meets your requirements. We know that the sewer force main meets your requirements. We know that the water pressure meets your requirements, and we are not requesting a deviation to not provide a generator -- a backup generator. We are providing the backup generator. You don't have to trust Mike, who's a professional engineer. You can -- your own staff checks Mike's work, and your staff is recommending approval because we've satisfied the LDC requirements and the PUD requirements and all statutory requirements related to this plat. And we ask that the Board of County Commissioners approve the plat that's before you with the lot configuration and the road system exactly like it is, and we're available to answer any questions you may have regarding this plat requirement or the history of the PUD and how we got here today. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders, any questions? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: No, no questions. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Fiala, any questions? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. The two look so different. One looks like it has larger lots for bigger homes. What made them decide on the one that has smaller lots, or is it just -- is it just the way I'm looking at it because the one has larger acreage? MR. YOVANOVICH: What ended up happening, Commissioner, is we added this area right here, which is right here on June 27, 2017 Page 168 this plan. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: And because they insisted on additional preserve down here, we moved the cul-de-sac up, which resulted in reconfiguration of some of the lots to achieve -- we had also agreed to limit ourselves to 66 lots as part of the settlement. We had a higher number. That's why -- we got scrunched a little bit, if you will. I know that's not a technical term, but -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: I like it. MR. YOVANOVICH: To provide some additional preserve area, that scrunched the area a little bit. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you. I didn't have any other question marked on my worksheet, so thank you. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Nor do I. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No questions? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No questions. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I have no questions. How many speakers? MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, we have nine registered speakers for this item. Your first speaker is Sheri Roberts. She has been ceded additional time from Linda Bankston. If I could have you raise your hand. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I apologize. Because I'm still -- MR. MILLER: I'm sorry, speakers. We have a staff presentation first. My fault. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I beg your pardon. I do apologize. That was my mistake. MR. McLEAN: No problem at all. Matt McLean. I'm the director of the Development Review Division, for the record. I'm here before you today with the recommendation to approve June 27, 2017 Page 169 the final plat of Sereno Grove as well as approve the construction maintenance agreement and the approval of the performance security to make sure that the assurances of the developer, that they will be required to build the required infrastructure pursuant to our Land Development Code. Our staff, within the Development Review Subdivision, has reviewed construction plans and plat as submitted to us, and the respective revisions through an insubstantial change application to take these utilities, as the applicant has referred to, back out to Livingston Road. We have found all the application documents consistent with our Land Development Code and do recommend approval to this board in the consideration of the item today. I'm here on behalf of our division to answer any particular questions that you guys may have with respect to the application or any questions that may come up from the public as they come and speak on this particular item. I have been in discussions at length throughout the entire process with some of the neighbors that you're going to hear from today and continue to keep them updated on the status of the applications as they were coming before my team to keep them in tune with when these particular applications were going to be approved by staff and then ultimately taken to the Board of County Commissioners for your ultimate review. So with that, I'll turn it back over to you guys. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Any questions, Commissioner McDaniel? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No, ma'am. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: (Shakes head.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders? June 27, 2017 Page 170 COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: No. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. Now we can hear from our public. MR. MILLER: Take two. Your first speaker is Sheri Roberts. She's been ceded additional time from Linda Bankston, from Margherita Tambini, and from Larry Doyle for a total of 15 minutes, and she'll be followed by David Bankston. MR. OCHS: How many cede? MR. MILLER: Four ceded to her; four additional besides her. MR. OCHS: Okay. You read three, I think. MR. MILLER: I'm sorry. Did I miss one? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yeah. He wasn't doing the math proper. MR. MILLER: Oh, Linda Bankston, Sheri Roberts, Margherita Tambini, and James Roberts. I left out James Roberts. Thank you, Leo, for keeping me on my toes. MS. ROBERTS: Good afternoon. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Good afternoon. MS. ROBERTS: I am voicing concerns today on behalf of myself, my family, and the families of other homeowners in Wilshire Lakes. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Would you please give us your name. MS. ROBERTS: I'm sorry. I'm Sheri Roberts. We are here to oppose the approval of the plat and plan for Sereno Grove. The plan is on the visualizer right now. My husband and I own and we're year-round residents at 9670 Wilshire Lakes. Okay. We are the home right here. The Bankstons are the home here to the south of us, and the Doyles are the home to the south of them. To be clear, we are not here to object to this land being developed. We are here to object to the land being developed using June 27, 2017 Page 171 this particular design and, in particular, an area of the roadway that surrounds -- that comes up to the back of our properties and surrounds my home on two sides. The proposed design is inconsistent and incompatible with our existing homes, and it will hurt our property values. It will cause us to bear disproportionate negative impacts from this design in excess of those borne by anyone else in either Sereno Grove or the surrounding communities. There is a viable design alternative that would mitigate the impacts to us while retaining for the developer the same number of lots with equivalent lot areas, and this would be relatively cost neutral to the developer to accomplish. WCI/Lennar has chosen, as you can see on the visualizer, to run their access road all the way from Livingston Road approximately one-half mile directly east at my neighbors, the Bankstons, backyard to within 10 feet of our backyards. The road will then curve north and then again east effectively surrounding my home on two sides. This portion of the road is unreasonable on its face. To put this plan in context, I'd like to show you another picture. This shows the available space for this property development. And as you can see, we three are the only abutting homeowners to this development, and they've chosen a design for this roadway that has the maximum hurtful impact to us. This design negatively impacts us because of the proximity to our backyards. The acreage surrounding our home was a significant reason why we purchased this home, and we would not have anticipated, even if a development went in there, that there would be roadways running along two sides of it. Future residents of Sereno Grove can factor the position of the roadway into their decisions, but imposing this positioning on us, we're going to bear the cost and the burden without having that choice. June 27, 2017 Page 172 This design also raises concerns of safety. There will be no significant barrier separating our backyard from vehicles on the road. Water runoff from such a significant amount of roadway is also a consideration, as is noise, light from headlights and streetlights, and privacy concerns. Like many homes in the area, our homes open to the back with a lanai area that we use much like a family room and surrounding open area for other uses. In WCI's own words, quote, a backyard is a sanctuary for renewal. That was on the wall of the Southwest Florida International Airport in March of this year. They're turning our sanctuaries into a traffic circle. Allowing this design will set a dangerous precedent that will encourage developers to run their roadways and to push other less desirable aspects of their developments to the perimeter so that existing homeowners bear the burdens. This design is a serious safety and property-value concern. Throughout this process, despite the comment that I heard that this is completely consistent with the code, there have been numerous times where staff administratively reduced provisions in the code. The buffer between our home -- our property and the roadway is much narrower than is required. A Type D buffer should be in place between a roadway and property value (sic). That's supposed to be 20 feet. This is a Type B buffer that was further reduced from 15 to 10 feet. So we have 10 feet with a hedge and trees that are spaced 25 feet apart, and that is it. I understand that the requirement to have a standby generator for the wastewater pump somehow has come back into the picture, which I do not believe is in the plat that was presented to you today. It wasn't in there the last time I checked the unit, the portal. The dry retention area to the north of my home is larger than it is supposed to be under the Land Development Code, the berms that exist June 27, 2017 Page 173 around all of our homes don't have the flat tops to allow for proper stability and planting, and there were a number of other deviations -- I think I counted up to six -- that were needed to make these developers' plans work, and that is all reflected in the county records relating to this ICP. Through our attorney we hired an engineer, Chris Hagan, who is here today to come up with a design alternative. The alternative plan essentially touches almost nothing of their property except for this one piece of the roadway that, as you can see, was moved one lot westward just to give some separation from that roadway to our property. Given the fact that this access road is coming for a half mile all the way east and then turning, we feel we need that buffering to allow us to have some mitigation of the safety concerns as well as road noise and the lighting and all of that. This includes an 8-foot-high wall on top of a berm, and it limits the two lots to the west of our property to one-story height. It also did make some changes to the roadway to the north, but I'm going to forego that at this point because the roadway to the west of us is so much more important. This plan isn't really the way we want Sereno Grove to be developed, but we tried very hard to identify a design that would address enough of our concerns while minimizing impacts to the developer. We provided this alternative to WCI in January. They have had ample opportunity to address the issues, but they have chosen not to. Under the Land Development Code, developers are required that development within a PUD be compatible with established uses of surrounding neighborhoods and that the development process be equitable in terms of consistency with established procedures and respect for the rights of property owners. Development within a PUD district is required to be compatible June 27, 2017 Page 174 with established or planned uses of surrounding neighborhoods and property. The PUD is required to provide protection of the surrounding area from potentially adverse influences generated by or within that PUD. The design of Sereno Grove is inconsistent because it reflects a blatant disregard for the right to quiet enjoyment of our homes, and the design is incompatible because it does not mitigate the negative impacts of immediately adjacent roadways. Because it violates the LDC, it should not be approved as presented. The developer would like us to believe that questions of compatibility and consistency are limited to the zoning decision. That it not true. The LDC requires that the design of the project be considered. At the zoning hearing, the Planning Commission, at most, has only a master concept plan, not the plat and plan to evaluate design impacts. In fact, according to county records, the concept plan that was shown to the Planning Commission was an inaccurate depiction. This was the picture that was shown when they were before the Planning Commission, which is a bit different than the ones you had seen up here just earlier today. According to the county records, this concept plan showed 55 lots even though they went to the Planning Commission for 64 lots. By showing 14 percent fewer lots, they were able to make this look like there would be a lot more buffering than there actually would be. Our two neighbors and I met with Grady Minor on January 9th and voiced our concerns about the roadway. I just learned of this project at the very end of December. Since then, we have been trying to address this as best we can given the hand we've been dealt and WCI/Lennar's unwillingness to engage on this issue. June 27, 2017 Page 175 In January a representative of WCI advised me that he would contact me to set up a meeting to talk about these things. He told me they were having an internal meeting, and he would contact me afterward. But instead, they filed new plans the day before their supposed internal meeting, and he never called. In April, we were again told we could contact Lennar, that we could arrange a meeting. I called and talked to the Lennar representative on April 19th, gave a lot of availability, never heard from them. Their unwillingness to address our concerns has nothing to do with the cost or the time necessary to rework these plans. On February 1st, Grady Minor contacted our HOA for county utility easements, these CUEs, to tie to the Wilshire Lakes water and sewer stub-outs that you heard about. Our HOA president agreed to meet with them and said, I would just like the homeowners to be there so that we can address everything at the same time. They canceled the meeting. Rather than consider our concerns, WCI/Lennar wasted months developing a new plan to move the water and sewer tie-ins thousands of feet westward to Livingston Road which, according to their own engineer's opinion, the probable costs -- construction costs alone will be $290,000. For less cost, they could have used the alternative plan and could have been able to obtain approval of their PPL on May 9th when it was originally scheduled. In the time they took to file the ICP that they just did, they could have also addressed our concerns but chose not to. Then, in the 11th hour last week, after their ICP application had already been approved by county staff, Lennar finally called me indicating that they wanted to have a meeting by the end of the week. So the Bankstons and I sat down, along with Chris Hagan, to talk to them. Lennar's director of land development, Russ Smith was there, and Wayne Arnold from Grady Minor. We met on Friday afternoon at three o'clock. June 27, 2017 Page 176 Mr. Smith advised that Lennar would not engage with us earlier when, in his words, they thought that we, quote, had a gun to their head over the CUEs. It's ridiculous because we had offered to meet with them to talk about this. We have tried to take a reasonable approach from day one, even trying to anticipate their costs when we tried to develop this alternative plan. But his statement confirmed that their approach was an intentional one in which they chose to stonewall us while they forced through their ICP in order to get on the agenda today. Mr. Smith stated that Lennar understood our need for a better buffer and that they could provide us with a wall and limit the two homes nearest us to one-story homes but that they would not move the road because it was too late in the process. It was too late in the process because they chose to ignore us very early on. The wall and the one-story homes alone won't solve this issue for us. It appears that this last-minute discussion with us on Friday was simply so that they could check the box so that they could tell you today that they met with us to address our concerns. To me, this was their attempt to make us feel as if we had no option knowing that this hearing was today. They should not be allowed to benefit from using these strong-arm tactics on homeowners. Since the beginning, we have only asked for a reasonable solution. The county can't leave individual homeowners to fend for themselves in the face of a developer's vastly superior financial and other resources. We have personally incurred significant costs trying to protect our property rights, and we are seeking the Board's support. To quote Pat White, who was quoted in the Naples News, he said, in his 25-year career in land use, this is the most irrational and stubborn developer decision I've had the misfortune to witness. In closing, we're not saying, don't develop this land. We are saying, don't develop this land in a way that hurts us. We are simply June 27, 2017 Page 177 trying to mitigate the negative impacts to us. We have legitimate concerns about the design provided -- proposed, and we hope that the Board helps us by voting no on the Sereno Grove PPL that is proposed today for approval. I would also point out that Mr. Yovanovich mentioned that the roadway move would make some lots unsellable. If that is the case, he's admitting that he's devaluing my home because he's doing to my home what I'm asking him to fix by pushing into his own development. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is David Bankston. MS. ROBERTS: If I may, we tried to kind of coordinate this. Could Chris Hagan possibly come up next? He was the person who helped us design the alternative plan. I think it might be a little more understandable. MR. MILLER: Sure. Chris Hagan will be next. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: At the discretion -- MR. MILLER: Followed by David Bankston. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And you can use two podiums, if you could. MR. HAGAN: Thank you, Commissioners. Chris Hagan, Hagan Engineering, for the record, again. I was brought on board, as Sherry noted, in roughly January with this conundrum, and they asked me to come up, say is there a way to make an alternative that moves the road out of our backyards, and this is what we generated. This plan that you see in front of you is cost neutral to actually less expensive. You'll note by moving the east/west roadway further to the west, it's roughly about 50, 60 feet of roadway that would not have to be built otherwise. Understanding that they had already been in the process, there would be some cost for redesign and revisions and remodeling. That's why I said it's relatively a cost-neutral change. June 27, 2017 Page 178 The idea being to give -- you know, to not put the turning roadway in the backyard, headlights running through people's backyards, et cetera. And that's what I wanted to show you is -- that was my charge, and here's what I have. I'm generally here to answer any questions you all may have on top of that. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I have no questions. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: (Shakes head.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Just one question. It's been mentioned regularly about a cost-neutral proposition, and your rationale there was by moving the road further west that it was going to reduce the expense associated with that, but in so doing, aren't they going to have to -- isn't there going to be an extension of an additional road somewhere else? MR. HAGAN: No, sir. What happened is, because the road goes and the original design goes all the way to the eastern property line, by bringing it back to 60 feet, we've cut that 60 feet of roadway out. It's still the same curve, still the same intersection going north, but we've basically eliminated 60 feet -- 50, 60 feet of roadway. So it's really a cost savings from a construction standpoint. There's less square footage, less linear footage of pipe, drainage, et cetera. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I see. Thank you. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is David Bankston. He'll be followed by Cassie Conrad-Lichtman. MR. BANKSTON: Hello, everyone. David Bankston. I am -- my family and I live at 9664 Wilshire Lakes Boulevard, essentially directly adjacent -- you've seen the one, two, three houses. We're right June 27, 2017 Page 179 in the middle. The proposed development and its impacts, avoidable by that drawing right there, will have a dramatic effect on our homes disproportionately to everyone else. It was quite interesting to hear the concessions that were made in the name of Pat White and his clients. We were not -- that was not us. That was Marsala. So the Marsala got the nice preserve on the side. That was not about Wilshire Lakes, so I didn't want to muddy the waters with what you heard earlier. I moved to Naples, Florida, with my wife, Linda, and my girls in 1999. I've been in the community for 20 years almost. I built that house. And when I was told -- when I built it, of course, I was told it was preserve. So, you know, that -- things change. That's okay. But it does represent a good portion of our savings, right? Because we've been there for so long. Linda and I are not against the development. We're just against the incompatible plan which slams a road right in my backyard, essentially. And if you look at the Type A buffer, we've heard throughout the day, bushes scattered, X feet, et cetera, and then a chain-link fence. So, anyway, we support the cost-neutral alternative that Sheri has put forth. We believe that this change would make a significant difference for us, you know, and our property values. And, again, we have been trying to meet with the developer since January. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. Last Friday at 3:00, okay, we'll meet with you, but there really wasn't much to accomplish because the clock had been run out. It was kind of a squeeze play. So, you know, it's clear, though, that the developer has extended consideration to other property owners. We seem to be kind of singled out. So you're our last line of defense. We look to you to hopefully help us help them or help them make it more right, more compatible. June 27, 2017 Page 180 That's all we're asking. We're not asking for any kind of -- you know, as you see, any kind of significant hardship, delay, or anything like that. We're really just trying to, you know, make it a little less impactful on ourselves. So we hope you send it back to the staff to look at the modifications we've suggested. That's it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Which one is your property? MR. BANKSTON: Let's see. We need to put the other -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Of the three homes, one, two, three, he's two. MR. BANKSTON: It's hard to show. There's no property line here. Right here. So a quarter mile. You can get up a pretty good amount of speed -- MR. MILLER: You'll need to go back on mike, sir. MR. BANKSTON: I'm sorry. On the mike. I can't -- oh, you got it. Okay. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: You have the one that's in the middle of those three. MR. BANKSTON: I'm right smack dab at the end of that quarter-mile drag strip right there. So you can nail that sucker, and then you won't make the corner. You'll be in my pool. That's what's there. Any other questions? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No. Thank you very much. MR. BANKSTON: Thank you. MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, your final registered speaker on this item is Cassie Conrad-Lichtman. MS. CONRAD-LICHTMAN: Thank you, Commissioners. So I'm Cassie Conrad-Lichtman, president of the Wilshire Lakes Homeowners Association, and the homeowners association agrees with all the points raised by the homeowners that just spoke and on June 27, 2017 Page 181 behalf of the other homeowners that have spoke. We do object to the design that they are proposing, Sereno Grove. You know, providing no diminishing effects of stub-outs to Wilshire Lakes we are open to conversations with them about these stub-outs. We're just asking they have conversations with us. We have asked -- I have never spoken, personally, as part of the HOA with WCI. The engineer has called me once, and we said we wanted a conversation. We want to learn more about what they want, and we want them to learn about what we want. And we're just not going anywhere, as you heard. We've had a lot of new neighbors in the Wilshire Lakes area, new developments that have come in. We have had two very large retirement communities pop in. Marsala has come in. Sereno Reserve has come in. All of those neighbors have been extremely neighborly, having conversation and dialogue with us prior to their development plans, and even working out things such as where roads should go and how people would like to live in close proximity to each other. We're very disappointed that WCI/Lennar isn't open to this dialogue, and we would like to get this going. So we respectfully, you know, disagree with the plans as they've proposed. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. Any questions? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Not of her. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. MS. CONRAD-LICHTMAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. The public hearing is now closed. MR. YOVANOVICH: The -- I don't know what discussions they've had with their lawyer, but I can tell you -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: With who? I'm sorry. June 27, 2017 Page 182 MR. YOVANOVICH: With their attorney. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: But I can tell you I had discussions with their attorney all along, that moving the project and moving the road, for us, was a nonstarter. Providing additional walls or landscaping and things to that effect we would be happy to discuss with their client, with Mr. White and his clients, but I was told that was a nonstarter. Mr. Pumarno (phonetic), who represented WCI in the Water Management District permits, had many discussions with their attorney about where we are and what our concerns were with regard to relocating this. So I don't know what was relayed back to them through their attorney, but I do know what was said. Compatibility was addressed during the PUD approval process and, in fact, the buffer that would have been required adjacent to Wilshire Lakes would have been a Type A buffer because single-family next to single-family would have required a Type A buffer. Instead, we have a Type B buffer, which provides for the hedge and the extra trees, so that was all addressed during the PUD hearing process. Also, I know the Bankstons were on the list of receiving letters for the NIMs, both NIMs, as well as the letter that goes to let you know that there's a Planning Commission meeting going on and, ultimately, the ads in the paper and the -- you know, the hearing in front of the Board of County Commissioners. And Ms. Roberts bought prior to the PUD being approved, so she had opportunity to speak up and discuss this issue. Now, we have been consistent throughout and have shown that side-by-side -- I don't know where it is -- showing the before and the after picture dealing with Mr. White and his now new clients, but his prior clients. This one. June 27, 2017 Page 183 So we have been consistent with that's what we've been showing at the PUD; that's what we've been showing to the Planning Commission. We have been open to discuss solutions, but not to move the road. That's -- we have not been willing to move the road. This plan, this lot right here, by the time I put my 25-foot setback here, my 25-foot setback here, and my rear, I basically don't have a lot. So that lot's gone in this alternative, so I don't know how you say I'm close to neutral. This is -- I'm not even sure I can get away with this flag lot as part of the review and approval process. I think that lot's gone, too. So the reality is we would lose lots. We had offered to provide a wall, an additional buffer, and all we ask is give us the utility connections we should have had already, and we'll address your concerns about safety and being able to see the headlights. We were told, nope, you have to move the road. So they were fairly entrenched as well through out communications through their attorney, and we are where we are. And we are consistent with the PUD, and we are consistent with the Land Development Code. The buffers were discussed as part of this process. And we respectfully request that the Board of County Commissioners approve the plat as presented and as your staff has testified to is consistent with the PUD and Land Development Code. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. Commissioner Saunders? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: A couple questions. And I assume the public hearing is closed and we're -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. Yes, it is. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Can you put your diagram up, the one just before this one. And what is the distance from the roadway to the backyards of those three homes? June 27, 2017 Page 184 MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, the distance from the roadway to our property line is 36 feet. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And then how much further to the -- MR. YOVANOVICH: To their actual house or to their backyard? I mean -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: To the backyard. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, that gets us to our property line. I don't know what their -- what their landscape buffer is on their property. Do you know, Wayne? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Just approximately. MR. YOVANOVICH: Oh, you know, I hate to do approximately because you know I don't do very well with directions, let alone -- I don't know how far -- it's about that far (indicating). But it's -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Perhaps the petitioner -- MR. YOVANOVICH: But it's not right up against their house. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Let me tell you my thoughts, because I would not want to live in one of those three homes with a roadway coming in that westerly direction right into my backyard, regardless of the wall and the landscaping. I mean, that -- and so I have a big problem with this. And I understand that, you know, you had a PUD that was approved, and I suspect maybe the commission didn't quite understand what the implications would be for that particular road. But I'd like to ask you to consider trying to move that road. Now, I understand you've said you can't do that. You're missing one commissioner. I'm going to vote no if it's not moved. I don't know about the other three commissioners, but I can tell you that we have been bending over backwards to put in different types of buffers to -- you know, to block views. We've been concerned about building June 27, 2017 Page 185 heights and that sort of thing to -- and the type of buffering that you can -- so you're blocking views in different projects, and here -- now we have a project where you literally have a road that goes straight towards the backyard of three homes and -- MR. YOVANOVICH: And we have always been willing to increase the plantings and the buffering and provide the wall. That will shield their concerns and also reduce the height to one story. We have gone through this public hearing process on multiple occasions where their same lawyer settled this based upon the very plan that has been going through the ERP process before we even got to the Planning Commission. They were well aware of what we were doing. And we're not -- we're saying we'll address your concern about can you see it; the wall and the landscaping would address those concerns. All we've asked is, let us have the water and sewer that we were supposed to have anyway through the Wilshire Lakes PUD, and they've said to us, if you want the utilities, move the road. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That doesn't matter anything about the utilities. That's something that you guys can work out. MR. YOVANOVICH: No, I can't. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'm concerned about the traffic and the impact on those three homes. And, you know, you're talking about 36 feet from the edge of pavement to the edge of your road. MR. YOVANOVICH: To their property, to the end of our property line. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah. I just have a problem with it. And the only solution I see is to try to move that road a little bit. And that may not be acceptable to you and to your client, but -- and you may have remedies. You know, if we turn this down, you may very well have a remedy. But I'm not prepared to support this the way it is. June 27, 2017 Page 186 Now, I know you and I met yesterday, and I didn't realize the impact on those three homes, so that's my position on this. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: You said it perfectly. I didn't realize the impact either until seeing it, listening to the people. And if I had my money invested in my home and I'd been living there for two years or five years or 10 years, I would sure hate to see somebody do that to my home, and I would never think of doing that to somebody else's home. So I'm with you on that. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Is there a representative of Wilshire here to talk to us about the utility connection? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: The public hearing's closed. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'm talking to my staff. It's a question. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh. MR. McLEAN: Matt McLean, for the record, the Director of Development Review. I can speak related to any questions that you may have related to those utilities. Wilshire, when it came in, was proposed through their construction plans and plat to provide water and sewer stub-outs to this particular piece of property. They were constructed. Ultimately, for whatever reason, the utility stubs for the force main and the water stub-out to the adjacent property of Sereno that we're talking about today were not conveyed to the county, and easements were not provided as well for that. So as we were going through the review process of Sereno Grove's construction plans and plat, we went through and got through all of our review pursuant to the Land Development Code and the PUD and, quite frankly, even Pat White brought to our attention that this utility conveyance has not occurred. So we were not able to bring that June 27, 2017 Page 187 plat at that time to you guys knowing that there was no way for them to ultimately connect. But that obligation to provide those water and force main connections from Wilshire over to this particular property have been permitted, have been constructed, and that obligation is the Wilshire Lakes -- well, actually the developer, if it now has been turned over to the HOA, it would be default of the HOA to ultimately convey that infrastructure to us. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: To us, to ultimately supply this subdivision, but they have chosen to go a half a mile to the east, or quarter mile, whatever the distance is, to -- and at a fairly exorbitant expense to be able to facilitate their access to the utilities. MR. McLEAN: Yes, knowing that the Wilshire Lakes HOA currently has not provided the required conveyance for the availability of that infrastructure. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I have nothing further right now. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, I, too, am very troubled. These folks were sort of first here. And, you know, understanding that, you know, it's incumbent upon someone to determine, when they build a house, what is going to be around them. I haven't heard any of them at all say that they don't welcome the development. What they don't want is a road running by their house. And, frankly, I would agree. So I don't want to take a motion or a vote right now, entertain anything, unless -- I'd like to listen to see if there's a response from -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, here's what I'd like to ask you is if you'll give me a few minutes to call somebody at WCI to find out whether we want to go all in on the next stage -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- or not, and I'll come back with a June 27, 2017 Page 188 proposal, maybe, but that proposal is going to be contingent upon, I think it's only fair, that we get utilities through Wilshire Lakes, because I don't think it's fair for us to move something and not get access to the utilities that were supposed to be there from the very beginning. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I think what we would have to hear -- and I would bow to my colleague to my left who is an attorney, but -- and to the County Attorney -- I think what we would have to hear is that you would come back with a proposal after speaking with the neighbors and that there would be an agreement or, if there's not an agreement, but I do think that would be important. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I'm going to come back, and I'm going to -- maybe I won't even have a proposal. I may be saying, well, let's roll the dice. But I'll come back -- or maybe I'll come back with a proposal. I'll show you if I can move the road as far as I can go. And I'd like to know if that satisfies the commissioners as far as moving the road. I'll worry about the utility issue later. But if you can give me some time to make a quick call before we put the line in the sand. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: County Attorney, may we continue this item and then go on to another one? MR. KLATZKOW: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. So I'd like to continue this item until such time as -- MR. KLATZKOW: You're just tabling it. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah. We're just tabling it until -- MR. KLATZKOW: You're tabling the item -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Tabling it, okay. MR. KLATZKOW: -- and Mr. Yovanovich will come back later, and you can un-table it. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. All right. Thank you very much. June 27, 2017 Page 189 So let's move ahead here. So we are on -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: 11B. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: A very quick 11B. Item #11B THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO ADVERTISE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 92-60, AS AMENDED, TO INCREASE THE TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX (TDT) BY 1%, AND REALLOCATE THE FUNDS GENERATED BY THE TDT TO INCREASE FUNDING FOR BEACH RENOURISHMENT, REPAY THE ANTICIPATED DEBT SERVICE ON THE PROPOSED AMATEUR SPORTS COMPLEX, CONTINUE TO FUND COUNTY MUSEUM OPERATIONS, WHILE LIMITING FUTURE MUSEUM TDT FUNDING GROWTH, AND MINIMALLY IMPACTING THE FUNDS DEDICATED TO PROMOTING THE DESTINATION – MOTION TO CAP MUSEUM FINDING AT 2M; WORK TO RETURN $1M TO THE DESTINATION MARKETING ADVERTISING FUNDS; GOING FORWARD WITH ADVERTISING THE ORDINANCE – APPROVED MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: There's -- we have to at this point start laughing. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: We'll get through this today. MR. OCHS: Commissioners, yes, Item 11B is a recommendation to direct the County Attorney to advertise an ordinance amending County Ordinance No. 92-60 to increase the tourist development tax by 1 percent and reallocate the funds generated by the tourist development tax to increase funding for beach nourishment, repay the June 27, 2017 Page 190 anticipated debt service on the proposed amateur sports complex construction, continue to fund county museum operations, while limiting future museum TDT funding growth, and minimally impacting the funds dedicated to promoting the destination. Mr. Wert and Mr. Isackson will team up on this presentation. Jack, if you'd like to begin. MR. WERT: Thank you, Leo. And good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, I'm Jack Wert, the Tourism Director for Collier County. The item before you is one that was before the Tourist Development Council yesterday at their regularly scheduled meeting. We provided an executive summary and some alternatives as thought starters or discussion points for them to consider. And we had a lengthy discussion with the Tourist Development Council. We had a full complement of folks there; all nine members were present. And we did come away with a recommendation from that -- from your Tourist Development Council to the County Commission. If you'd like, I can review those alternatives that we suggested to them, or I can just show you the recommendation and read that into the record, if you'd like. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Recommendation. MR. OCHS: Commissioner, I'd like to, if we could, have Mr. Isackson kind of take you through the guts of the ordinance as proposed first, and then we could go to any allocation discussions. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes, because that's what's before us. MR. ISACKSON: Thank you, County Manager. Mark Isackson, Director of the Office of Management & Budget. Commissioners, this is the presentation that the Board received back on June 13th, and this represents the layout of the tourist development tax as staff recommended it back on the 13th of June as part of the discussion about the amateur sports complex. June 27, 2017 Page 191 Now, you can see from this layout -- see if this works here. Okay. You can see from this layout that -- MR. OCHS: Mark, speak over here if you want to point to it. MR. ISACKSON: Thanks. You can see from the layout, Commissioners, that that first column here talks about the distribution of the first three cents in the various categories: Beaches, promotion, and museums. And then the distribution of the fourth and the fifth cent are fairly self-explanatory with the fourth cent being allocated, essentially, for destination promotion and administration, and the fifth cent bifurcated between destination marketing and any debt service that would be required, with a cap of $3.75 million when and if, at some point in time in the future there is a debt -- a long-term debt-service issue for the amateur sports complex. So this was a recommendation that was made. And, essentially, what we talked about as part of that executive summary on the 13th was who was going to get cut and who was going to get increased. This is that table, and that table was also provided to you as part of that discussion on June 13th. The proposal that was made was that we would increase funding for beach renourishment and pass maintenance by $2-and-a-half million, and part of that would be for a reallocation of that from the first two cents. Marketing and promotion would take a cut of a million dollars, and then in the last line you can see that the amateur sports complex would -- on the debt-service side would be allocated 3.75 million with a portion of the fifth cent dedicated to tourism marketing and promotion. So that gives you a sense for what staff's recommendation was. I'm sure Jack will talk about the recommendations of the Tourist Development Council shortly. Now, when staff proposed this, we knew that certainly losing a June 27, 2017 Page 192 million dollars from part of the marketing and promotion budget would probably cause -- be cause for some discussion. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Really? MR. ISACKSON: So let me just point out a few things for you guys to consider. The Fund 196 is an emergency marketing and advertising fund, essentially. It's got a million and a half dollars sitting in it. And that money can be used at the Board's flexibility at any point in time. The point being, it would act as a soft landing in the event that additional monies might be necessary for marketing and promotion if, in fact, this particular plan was adopted. Second is there's $274,000 sitting in the marketing and promotion fund, which is Fund 184, which is where Jack has his funding available for his marketing and promotion budgets, his efforts to market the destination. And, thirdly, we also were cognizant -- we, being staff, was also cognizant that the C2 non-county museums portion of the allocation has had $2 million sitting in it for the last seven or eight years with no activity. You can argue for whatever reason why there's been no activity, but there's been no activity there. Now, given the Board has flexibility in establishing its parameters -- it's funding parameters, albeit, four votes, staff felt that there was sufficient flexibility within the pots of dollars that exist in order to float this original plan. Now, that was talked about on the 13th and at the Tourist Development Council on Monday also discussed. So that gives you a little perspective. Now, the ordinance that's presented -- that's before you this afternoon is a very, very slimmed-down version of the original ordinance, which was cumbersome, filled with percentages, et cetera, et cetera. The new ordinance doesn't do that. It just simply mirrors state June 27, 2017 Page 193 statute. What it does do is provide you with a table. Eventually, whatever form or fashion the Board ultimately decides, you will have a table, similar to the table that County Manager Ochs just put up on the visualizer. And that table will then provide the various distributions through the various pots and funds that the Board will allocate. We've been in contact with clerk finance over the course of the past few weeks. We've laid this out because the clerk's finance is actually the one, when the monies come in, they have to make the distribution. So those conversations have been ongoing over the past few weeks. County Attorney's Office has been engaged, and certainly they're on board, obviously, with the ordinance provision which I think gives this board ultimate flexibility to establish, on a real-time basis, when dollars come in. And let me talk about that a little bit, because I think that's important. It's conceivable that every year at budget policy you could have a table similar to this with some real-time information as to how dollars are coming in to these various pots, and then you can make some decisions on an annual basis as to how dollars are allocated. Again, based on that flexibility component that I just mentioned. So that's a little background as to our particular approach on this. Jack can talk to you about some of the TDC recommendations, but I wanted to give you that brief before he did. Thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Are there any questions before we lose Mr. Isackson? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Well, we're not going to lose him. He's just going to go over -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No questions. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. I would like to ask staff a question just for understanding here. When you -- I think I heard you June 27, 2017 Page 194 say, Mr. Ochs, at the 13th, that you actually had spent quite a bit of time with your department heads, i.e., Mr. McAlpin and Mr. Wert, talking about this. And there was a consensus before the 13th that they could work within these parameters; is that correct? MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am, that's correct, and that's still staff's position. The proposal that we made to you for an allocation scheme for the five pennies that we've discussed at the last meeting that involved the adds and deletes that Mark has put up here is still the proposal that we stand behind and we're prepared to execute. Coming out of that meeting, or during that discussion, though, the Board asked the staff to go back and, quote-unquote, sharpen our pencils to see what we could do to try to mitigate the proposed million-dollar reduction in the allocation to destination marketing. So that, essentially, is what Mark just talked to you about in terms of some alternatives, and that's also what Mr. Wert was directed by me to take to the TDC yesterday for discussion because you asked us to speak to them and see what we could do to sharpen our pencil and come back to you and report out on that. So we're prepared to do two things today: To ask you to adopt the first reading of the ordinance based on the allocation of the five pennies that we proposed to you at the last meeting and/or have you adopt one or more of these mitigating options that either the TDC or Mr. Isackson have just identified that could be applied towards that million-dollar reduction in destination marketing and promotion. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And I think that's what I need is a point of clarification on these mitigating (sic) suggested by Mr. Isackson; that would be on an annual basis, or that's something we can do to -- the paradise marketing comes with his extraordinary idea, and it costs more money, and they can come to us and we can -- MR. OCHS: Right. The way the County Attorney has recast the TDC ordinance, I think, gives you quite a bit of flexibility in that June 27, 2017 Page 195 there's nothing inside the provisions of the ordinance itself that relegates you to specific percentages. It, instead, makes, by reference, this table the effective allocation scheme, and then I would imagine -- and Jeff will correct me if I'm wrong -- at any point if you want to modify that, you could do that through a resolution process to adopt, you know, a different exhibit. And I'm not suggesting you do that willie-nillie. But there are -- as Mark said, there are allocations of funds that have been unused that are available to you right now that, if you want to use some or all of that to close this gap in the destination marketing reduction, you can easily do that. And you don't have to do it right now. You could do it over time. You could do it in the course of the year. If -- you know, let's say Jack came in midyear and said, look it, I've been working with this reduction, but something came up that I didn't anticipate, and I need some more money; we can come to you at that time and suggest ways for you to address that particular concern. So we tried to give you as much flexibility both in terms of where to go to find these potential dollars and the timing to give you the flexibility you need. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And I think it's significant to note that the carryforward has increased year to year because our TDT taxes have increased. MR. OCHS: Well -- and that's a good point because we planned -- or our recommendations for the allocation of the five cents was based on this year's projected revenue stream. So if we have another better year next year, a rising tide will lift all boats in all of those categories. So there may be some or all of that million dollars just by virtue of more TDT revenue coming in in subsequent years that allows that gap to get closed as well. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. June 27, 2017 Page 196 MR. KLATZKOW: Essentially, what we've done was, it used to be your ordinance was your tourist development plan, so you had Category A, you had Category B, you had Category C. Now what the ordinance says is you guys get full statutory authority to use the pennies, and your tourist development plan now is this one chart. And so, anytime you want to change that during the course of a year, you're just going in and you're changing your chart. Now, the chart's part of the ordinance. It still takes four votes. But we thought it would be a lot easier and less confusing to the general public with Category A, Category B, C, C1, and the like. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I like it. I also like to see the beaches where they are. Thank you very much. Thank you, thank you. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I've been down here. I forgot what I wanted to ask. MR. OCHS: And, Madam Chair, we have not, in deference to Jack, given him a chance to tell you what the TDC had recommended yet. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Have you remembered, sir? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. I didn't forget. I made a note over here because you just never know. Do we have to vote -- I mean, do we have to vote on the actual allocation today? MR. KLATZKOW: No. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Because there seems to be a lot of discussion and, obviously, I'm -- Commissioner Saunders, did you have something? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, no. You were saying do we need to vote on the allocation, and the County Attorney is indicating that we don't, but there was one issue that really is kind of the -- I think probably the only issue, and that is do we continue to fund museums. June 27, 2017 Page 197 COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: The Chairman, in the Penny Plan, doesn't fund museums, or museums are ultimately phased out. Right. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: But I think the majority of the Council wanted to continue funding. And so the only thing I would recommend in this chart change is that there be a set amount for museums, not a percentage. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Well -- and I was going to go there, Commissioner. I'm glad you brought that up. Because there -- and I want to make it very clear. There's no argument about beach renourishment, no beach renourishment. That's not even a topic of discussion as to how we're expending this. But I would -- and if this chart allows us greater flexibility in adjusting these funds along the way, I would like -- with regard to the museums, I would like to make a proposition that we not float museums on a percentage basis of the tax collected but we go back to the 2013/'14 range where it was about 1.6 million, that's in excess of 500,000 per existing museum, and cap the museum revenue dedication at that amount as opposed to floating with the tax reflected. That would then provide for greater flexibility for us with regard to the management of these funds. But on the point of beach renourishment/not beach renourishment, beach renourishment's the beginning and the end. It's not even up for discussion -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Hear, hear. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- I don't think, as far as our -- as far as our county goes. So that's where I was wanting to go. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And I think that -- I'm assuming that's kind of where the majority of the Board wants to go. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And so, you know, this may be June 27, 2017 Page 198 a fairly simple -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Make the motion. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- subject in terms of making a motion to move forward -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Make a motion. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- with the ordinance as -- move it over to second reading. Approve it on first reading. Move it to second reading. Adopt this chart with Commissioner McDaniel's suggestion that the museum item have a dollar amount which was the, you said, 2013/2014 amount, and then every budget cycle we can change that -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We can change it. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Change that accordingly based upon the needs of the museum, with the support of the Friends of the Museum and the like. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And also the response to the TDC asking for grants and what they need -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Sure. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: -- and the development of the cultural aspect of our community. I think we need to respond to that, and I think this gives us the greatest flexibility to do it. It's wonderful. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: If that's consistent with what you're thinking, if that's your motion -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Second. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So it's -- yes, sir. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We're going to discussion. Don't panic. MR. OCHS: Okay. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We do have a motion on the floor to accept it, correct, as presented. MR. OCHS: I want to make sure I understand, because when we June 27, 2017 Page 199 talked about this at the last meeting, I think it was Commissioner Saunders -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, there was one other thing, and that was the marketing issue. And I like the concept of using some of those reserves and funds to shore up -- to eliminate that $1 million cut from the advertising. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: When we move over to the advertising side, I've got some questions. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Let's do it in two sections then. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And we don't have to go there right now. I mean, there's -- the proposition here is the support of that. I think we need -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It's four o'clock. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Do what? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It's four o'clock. I saw you looking at the clock over here. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And that has -- I know what time it is. I'm all good. I just -- MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt the discussion. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, please go ahead. MR. OCHS: Back to the museums for a minute. When we talked at the last meeting, I thought that what Commissioner Saunders was suggesting was cap the museums where they are, don't give them incremental revenue growth on a percentage basis going forward. But what I just heard Commissioner -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That's what he said. That's not what I was saying. MR. OCHS: -- McDaniel say was move them back to FY13/'14 level funding. What is the delta there, Mark? Just for county-owned museums. June 27, 2017 Page 200 MR. ISACKSON: Well, I'm assuming that the commissioners are talking about not the total budget that's sitting in the museum fund but just the tourist tax revenue that has been coming in. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. MR. ISACKSON: And at FY14, that number was 1,489,000, and in '18 projected it's 2 million, 119, 5. That's a $700,000 delta between those two numbers. MR. OCHS: So you're suggesting a $700,000 cut to the museum operating budget? I want to understand. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. MR. OCHS: Wow. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Why? MR. OCHS: That's significant. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Why? MR. OCHS: You just passed an item today to spend a half a million dollars to put the Marco Cat -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'm not throwing any -- I'm not throwing any rocks at the museums, please. It has to do with the discussion with regard to the advertising as well that has gone up threefold to pushing $10 million and a people count that travels along with that. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Would you agree to cap the museum at 2 million, and then the balance we'd have to make up in General Fund, most likely, but would you agree to move it up to two million? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, there's also those other funds that -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It would certainly be a lot less of a shock, huh? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It would be, considering right now one of the cultural events of the whole United States is happening in Marco June 27, 2017 Page 201 Island when the cat comes back. I mean, it truly is. It's extraordinary. It's something that's in the Smithsonian, and we're getting it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Next year. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So it's -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'd be okay with that. Again, it's not -- it wasn't a pick. I listened. I read the minutes. I heard what was discussed, and I've -- I'm -- you know, I've heard what's been discussed by the TDC as well. You were there. The chairman of the TDC hasn't spoken yet. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I like what everybody's saying, so there's no reason for me to repeat. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Then let's amend the motion to cap the TDC portion of the funding for the museums at $2 million. MR. KLATZKOW: And you are required to hear the TDC's recommendation before taking a vote. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. We'll hear that. MR. OCHS: And you have some public speakers as well. And, now, you'll let us know before you make the final motion what you want to do with whether or not you want us to close the gap and to what extent on the tourism budget. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And the gap would be with two million? What would the gap be? MR. OCHS: No. There's a million-dollar reduction in the revenues for the destination marketing budget based on the five-cent allocation recommendation -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I see. MR. OCHS: -- that the staff made to you last meeting. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: See, I'm having trouble with that. If you brought your directors in and everybody agreed to it, then, to me, that's the agreement that you brought to us, and I don't think you twisted arms or threatened to fire them in order to come to that June 27, 2017 Page 202 agreement. So it seems to me, if there's a plan out there and directors have agreed to it, then it doesn't mean we don't have the flexibility to change it at some point, but not maybe initially. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I would like to see us change it. I would like to see us send a message that we're going to put that million dollars back and tell staff to go do it. Now, they've got plenty of funds to make that happen, but I think that that sends a better message. And whether we twisted their arms, I think we did twist their arms, but now we know that we have additional funds available. We know that we're not -- we're going to have additional funds available from the museum portion that would have gone there. And so I think we can restore that million dollars into the advertising fund and just direct staff to do it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, we've got the $2 million in the -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- fund that's just sitting there for years and years. So there you've got two sitting right there. And as I learned yesterday at the TDC meeting, all of these figures are based on bottom line. That doesn't mean -- you know, like, this is what has been, but that doesn't mean that tourism won't go up next year. Now, if we have the museum fund based, you know, at one fee, period, that means everything else will go up. Not that, but everything else will go up -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Exactly. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- and so will that advertising funds. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So would there be any objection to amending the motion that we have to include the $1 million back into the advertising? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And the only -- the only June 27, 2017 Page 203 question that I have is how do we truly know whether the advertising dollars are fruitful unless we make an adjustment? There's an argument on both sides of that equation. Five years ago we had 1.7 visitors at $3 million. Three-and-a-half expended in advertising; now we're pushing 10-. We have 1.7 million in a population of counted visitors. And so now the argument is, did it require the 10- to keep the 1.7 or did -- or are we spending more -- MR. OCHS: Commissioner, what -- I'm sorry. What you failed to mention there was the revenue growth that went along with that. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And you haven't shown -- and I haven't seen that revenue growth. MR. OCHS: Okay. It went from about 14 million -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I mean, you're the one that -- MR. OCHS: -- projected it. That was a discussion that you and I had some time ago, and all we got to look at as a board, that I know of, was the Penny Plan -- which was good, by the way. I liked the Penny Plan, I did, but it just showed a population. It didn't show a correlation with the revenue spent. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And the revenue growth is directly related to the rates that the hotels charge. MR. OCHS: And let's just answer that for you, if we could, Jack, real quick. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Revenue -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right. And that revenue -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: The issue that you raise is a good one, because we're spending a lot of money on advertising, and there should be some analysis done as to whether or not we're getting our money's worth in that program. This isn't the time to answer that question, because that's going to take a serious analysis and a lot of our June 27, 2017 Page 204 time evaluating that. So I think for purposes of the -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It is discussion. We'll amend the motion to include the additional makeup of the million dollars from the additional funds suggested by staff. Second. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Right. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And I like that concept. You know, frankly, we're getting into a new area of marketing, which is tourism. We should review the market. We really should. MR. OCHS: Okay. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And we have to hear the TDC recommendation. MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. MR. WERT: For the record, Jack Wert. Yesterday at the Tourist Development Council meeting this recommendation was approved 8-1 that the Board consider capping TDT funding to the county-owned and operated museums at 1.85 million, which was the actual revenue in FY14 -- it was right at 1.85 million -- and reducing that cap by 25 percent in each of the next four years. That reduced annual TDT funding will be reallocated to tourism promotion and a like amount assumed by the General Fund until the TDT contribution becomes zero. Make a finding that this action promotes tourism, and in the future all museums will be encouraged to apply annually for TDT museum grants to support marketing those special projects and travel exhibits. That was the motion that was approved, after a good deal of discussion, and looking at alternatives that certainly included this. This was really a hybrid of a couple of different options that they looked at also looking at that C2 category, which is the grant program that just has not been subscribed to in anything like we thought the demand might be. So it has built up a nice reserve. June 27, 2017 Page 205 MR. OCHS: Thank you. MR. WERT: So I think we've got good reserves to work with. MR. OCHS: Thank you, Jack. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: How many speakers do we have, Mr. Miller? MR. MILLER: We have five registered speakers for this item. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Is there any more discussion or questions right now? (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So let's hear from our speakers, please. MR. MILLER: Your first speaker is Jacob Winge. He will be followed by William Dwight. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Jacob Winge left. MR. MILLER: All right. William Dwight. He will be followed by Lodge or -- excuse me -- ahead of myself -- Johan (sic) Foerster. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And please use both podiums. Thank you. MR. DWIGHT: Good afternoon. My name is William Dwight. I'm the Vice President of the Friends of the Collier County Museum. I was -- I had a presentation, but everything just changed, so -- as this does. This is my first county commission meeting, and I must commend you all for your attention to detail and your interest in making this county a great place to live. And that's why I am so passionate about the museums and the funding for the museums. And I appreciate, Commissioner Saunders, you going to the rescue of the first strike of budget cut for the museum, but you all need to be aware that the current museum expenses still exceed that $2 million amount that you're proposing and that in your motion there must be an additional addendum to include the balance of the funding out of the county's General Fund. The museum is at a crossroad right now. There's been a June 27, 2017 Page 206 wonderful change in leadership. We have a new director. We have new managers at the sites, a number of the sites. We have new programs. We have a new volunteer coordinator. We have a new curator of education. The museum is finally doing things that all of us want to happen, and that does not happen for free, as you all know. I have a two-page document, which I will, because of the late time, spare you, from the American Alliance of Museums fact page that demonstrates there is a 5-1 return on investment of dollars spent to tourism and to return to the community financially. There's all kinds of statistics here. But the bottom line is that all of us go to museums when we travel. It is part of an educated cultural community. It is essentially that this museum that finally has its legs be allowed to grow. And there must be funding. I am absolutely confident that you are going to see a growth in popularity and a growth in respect for the museum that it deserves and that it will earn. And the tourism tax right now, quite honestly, as everybody said, has a surplus. This is not the time to cut the funding. And I will thank you very much for your time. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I have a question for him before he goes, if I may. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes, of course. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Do you have any idea what the contributions from the Friends of the Museum, in fact, are, amount-wise? MR. DWIGHT: Commissioner, it's very low; 20-, 30-, $40,000 a year. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'm just asking, sir. MR. DWIGHT: Yeah. And I'll tell you why. Because under previous museum leadership, there was actually an effort to do away with the Friends of the Museum, and we are in a rebuilding phase. June 27, 2017 Page 207 COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Gotcha. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And I think -- I think the county-owned museums, sir, Mr. Dwight, I think they really represent the history of Collier County -- MR. DWIGHT: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: -- so well. And the idea that you can go up to Immokalee and be in a museum up there and down to Marco and -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Everglades City. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: -- Everglades City. MR. DWIGHT: This is an expansive county. It's unusual. It's urban, it's rural, there's transportation, and they're all represented through the five museums. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And when you think about it now, the Chamber of Commerce is also going to be located by our depot museum, and that's going to pour more people in there, because they're going to be drawn to the chamber and then want to really see what's going on inside, so... MR. DWIGHT: Thank you very much. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Jonathan Foerster, and he will be followed by Lodge McKee. MR. FOERSTER: Good afternoon. Jonathan Foerster. I'm representing Artis Naples. I want to talk about two different things. First off, just about cultural tourism in general. There have been a lot of studies recently completed by Americans for the Arts, and one of the things I think that they pointed out in our Collier County study is, one, that it's $100 million-plus industry here in our community, so it provides for a lot of employment and high-paying employment at the same time. Sixty thousand dollars is the average salary for an arts employee in our June 27, 2017 Page 208 county. So I think that to not support arts in any way, shape, or form would be a mistake on the part of this commission. I do think that also providing for cultural tourism is important because cultural tourists spend more money in the destination than regular tourists, and they stay longer. So there's more nights in those hotel rooms to generate more TDT money. The second point I'd like to make is that the arts in Collier County are a relatively young industry. Artis Naples has been here about 30 years. The oldest organization, Naples Art Association, is maybe 60. So we still have a lot of room to grow. Just like you guys are trying to build this budding sports tourism market, I think arts tourism still has a long way to run. If you look at where we compare to, say, Sarasota, which has a much longer history of arts and culture and arts tourism, they are outpacing us by a considerable amount, and it's because they've had the time to build that brand. Arts tourism is important. If you look to our neighbors in Palm Beach County, they specifically market themselves as an arts and cultural tourism destination. You can hear it on WGCU. Last year, they plastered those ads all over trying to draw people to Palm Beach which, in my humble opinion, has lower quality infrastructure in the arts than we do here in Collier County. So I hope that you guys will continue to support cultural tourism in general. One point that's been made is about the C2 funds. One of the reasons why there's a lot of money in that pot right now is that they were -- it was a particularly onerous process of getting the grants previously. And that's been streamlined in the last couple of years, and I think you've seen a lot of organizations taking advantage of that, specifically our organization, which we use to bring in incredibly high-quality world-class exhibitions. June 27, 2017 Page 209 In the coming season, we're going to be bringing in an amazing exhibition from the Brooklyn Museum of French modern art with Monet and all of these wonderful artists that are going to really, you know, inspire the people that come through our museum and inspire people to come to our museum. And so I hope that you will not consider cutting those funds in any way, shape, or form. In fact, I think that if the TDC's -- or the Tourist Development Council's recommendation was taken and you eliminated funding for the museums over time, you should increase that C2 grant money so that the county museums would also be able to benefit from that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Lodge McKee. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: He's not here. MR. MILLER: And your final speaker is H. Michael Mogil. Oh, he was here earlier. MR. MOGIL: Madam Chair, I would ask a favor, if possible. I'm scheduled to talk about 11C also. I have a tutoring appointment to go to at 5:15. I would like to be able to get there. If I could have just a few extra minutes past three, I can take care of both at once and -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Four minutes. MR. MOGIL: Four is awesome. Thank you so much. First of all, I would like to make a quick comment about the visualizers. They need to have their names changed to the non-visualizers. I can't read them. They're way too small. They need to be bigger. I run a tutoring center in town -- my name is H. Michael Mogil -- called Mathworks Tutoring. But I also am a meteorologist, and I run summer weather camps. And this summer I'm pleased to report that we're going to have two weather camps in Naples. And part of my agenda with the people coming from out of town -- I didn't know we June 27, 2017 Page 210 were going to talk tourism today -- is that I have picked up the brochures for the museums, and that will be part of my package to them. When the families come into town to bring their kids to the camp, they will be staying here having a vacation. So I will be supporting your museums and other tourist venues in town through my weather camp program, and I didn't realize I would be doing that. But I want to talk not about the museums, per se. I actually came here today to talk about the sports complex. And that wasn't a discussion just now in this item, but we're talking about spending money to the tune of millions of dollars that may fund bond issues on a sports complex. And my wife and I are both very critical because we run a small business, and everything that we do hinges on our deciding what's most important with the funding we have. And I would ask the Commission, do you have a long-term plan that lists the top 100 things that you would like to see done in Collier County, whether it be fixing Immokalee Road, which we know is going to be a parking lot pretty soon, or dealing with the beaches. And I concur that we must save the beaches. And my approach would be not to just do beach replenishment but, as a meteorologist, why don't we build sandbars offshore like we're building reefs offshore to help protect our beaches? And there's any number of other things in Collier County that we would like to deal with; stormwater management, et cetera. Where does the sports complex fit into this list of 100 items that I just mentioned? Is it No. 3, is it No. 100 in terms of funding something to the tune of millions and millions of dollars? I would just like to ask that question. I don't have an answer to it. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We do. MR. MOGIL: Okay. But -- and I'll be happy to listen to that. June 27, 2017 Page 211 But I don't have that issue, and I see this on the agenda item to do bonding, and that's an item that suddenly pops up basically out of nowhere, so that's why I'm sort of asking that. I also want to comment about advertising. I go in and out of Fort Myers airport a lot, Regional Southwest, and I see lots and lots of advertising in that airport directing people to events and beaches and tourist destinations and things to do in Lee County. I don't see anything much for Collier. I know there's a friction at the airport between the two counties, but why can't we have a table at that airport? Why can't we have some literature that says great beaches in Naples? It just strikes me as being weird. It's like it's not Regional Southwest. It's Lee County Airport. Should change its name. So I just throw those issues out. I'm sorry that I have to kiss and run, but I do have a student that wants my help. So I will certainly use the AIMS. I've been talking to several people about it today. Look out. But thank you very much. I appreciate it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I've had a number of people asking about that same thing at the Southwest -- Regional Southwest airport. They say, why isn't there anything to tell us what we can do in Naples? And I don't know. But that's a good -- we've got an advertising executive who hires them right there. Maybe he'll take that back to the drawing table. MR. MOGIL: Well, as Jean Luc Pickard would say, make it so. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Give it it all, Scotty. And if he could -- before you go away, sir. If you -- MR. MOGIL: Yes. Sorry. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Because I have had a lot of people say similar statements to what H -- what's your first name? MR. MOGIL: It's Mike. I use H. Michael. June 27, 2017 Page 212 COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: How you doing, Michael? I've had a lot of people say similarly to what he's said. And, again, it's really important for folks to understand the dollars that come for our top 100, as you so say, come from different buckets. The conversation that we're having here with regard to the amateur sports facility comes from a bucket that is only allowed for the utilization of the construction of that facility. It doesn't -- and it cannot be commingled with the discussion about the necessity of improvement for our roadways, for the parking lot, as you described Immokalee Road, which I drive every day, know it well. So it's really important to understand that when we -- you can't commingle different capital projects along those lines. There are very, very specific buckets -- we call them buckets here -- buckets of money for these capital items to be utilized from. MR. MOGIL: Okay. And I appreciate that. That's helpful. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. MR. MOGIL: But my question still about, if you didn't mingle all those budgets within those, is there a way to have a list of the top 100 posted on line -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: You're going to send me an email -- MR. MOGIL: I will send you an email. We're not going to -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I think this is conversation -- MR. MOGIL: Yes. And I will let other people speak. And thank you, all. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I just wanted to make the point of clarification about -- there is a misnomer regularly. It said to me -- I got an email from a lady this morning, one of my friends, who's knowledgeable about the inter-workings and hidden mechanisms of government, and she made a similar comment with regard to that. And June 27, 2017 Page 213 it's important. And we've read in the Naples Daily News regularly beach renourishment, no beach renourishment. It's not even a topic of discussion. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: There is -- any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: There's a motion on the floor and a second, and I think just for clarity to staff, Commissioner Saunders, I'm going to put you on the spot again. Would you please repeat your motion. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: The motion is to approve the proposed ordinance and move it to the second reading and to include the chart that was prepared by the staff, with a couple changes. One is that the funding for the museums will be capped at $2 million dollars from the TDC portion -- it may be supplemented by general funds later. That's an issue for later -- and that the $1 million that was deducted from the advertising budget be restored. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And there is a second to that motion? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, there is a second. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries unanimously. MR. OCHS: Thank you, Commissioners. I think our court June 27, 2017 Page 214 reporter's ready for a brief break. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: She said she was okay, but if you need a break. Do you need a break? THE COURT REPORTER: Do one more? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah. Let's do part two of this. Can we do the second? MR. OCHS: Very good. Thank you, Terri. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And then we're going to take a break. Item #11C RESOLUTION 2017-122: A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY’S PARTICIPATION IN THE FLORIDA LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE COMMISSION’S COMMERCIAL PAPER LOAN PROGRAM, THE EXECUTION OF A LOAN AGREEMENT WITH RESPECT THERETO AND THE BORROWING OF AN AMOUNT UP TO $60,000,000 FOR DEVELOPMENT, ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPPING OF AN AMATEUR SPORTS COMPLEX – ADOPTED MR. OCHS: 11C, Commissioners, is a recommendation to approve a resolution authorizing the county's participation in the Florida Local Government Finance Commission's commercial paper loan program, the execution of a loan agreement with respect thereto, and the borrowing of an amount up to $60 million for development acquisition, construction, and equipping of an amateur sports complex. And Mr. Isackson will present. MR. ISACKSON: Commissioners, Mark Isackson with the Office of Management & Budget. I think we've covered most of the information on this in your governmental, so I'll be happy to answer June 27, 2017 Page 215 any questions you might have. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: If you would just -- if you would just briefly, for the record, put on exactly what we're doing, I think it would be very helpful. Just, if you can do to briefly. MR. ISACKSON: Commissioners, as we talked about with the going-forward plan on June 13th, one of those components is establishing our participation in the Florida Local Government Finance Commission Commercial Paper Program. This resolution and loan agreement does that. We put a high cap of 60 million on that, but there's no intention to ever approach that cap, certainly. And the initial borrowing of this would be sometime November, December in advance of any closing on land acquisition that would be connected with this sports complex. We're estimating $12 million. The General Fund would be the mechanism for repayment under a covenant to budget and appropriate all legally available non-ad valorem revenue. This is separate and distinct from any structural adjustment that we would have as part of the amateur sports complex going forward. That's going to be a couple years hence out of this plan. But this is the first phase of that with regard to the acquisition of property, and we would use the commercial paper program to do that. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I'll make a motion -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Second. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- to approve. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Motion on the floor to approve and a second. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yeah. I better find out what his motion was for. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Huh? June 27, 2017 Page 216 COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I said we better find out what your motion was for. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: To approve. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, for -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'm joking. I'm joking. I'm good. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: All right. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. So there's a motion on the floor to approve the resolution as presented and a second. Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries unanimously. MR. OCHS: She says she's good for five minutes, yes? Oh, you need a five-minute break. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Five-minute break? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We all do. Focus is leaving. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do you need more than that? I know that you ache all over. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, now, one thing I would like to do -- because I need to leave for about 15 minutes at five. So my suggestion is that I leave for 15 minutes now, take a little bit longer break, and we'll come back and work. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: At 5 oh -- June 27, 2017 Page 217 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Make it 5 o'clock. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Straight up 5 o'clock? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yep. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can you get that done? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah, I can. We'll be back at 5. MR. OCHS: Thank you. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. Thank you for your patience. I think we are going to go back to -- and I'm not sure what the -- point of order -- what it's called, but we're going to un-table the tabled motion; is that correct? Is that how we -- MR. KLATZKOW: Sure. Item #11G – Tabled from earlier in the meeting FINAL PLAT OF SERENO GROVE, (APPLICATION NUMBER PL20160001884) APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY - MOTION TO CONTINUE TO THE FIRST MEETING IN SEPTEMBER, 2017 – APPROVED MR. OCHS: That's Item 11G, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: 11G, Sereno Grove. COMMISSIONER FIALA: 11D? MR. OCHS: 11G. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Good evening. For the record -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Not yet -- oh, yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- Rich Yovanovich. June 27, 2017 Page 218 What we would -- what he would like to see happen, and we think is a fair compromise to address the concerns about the closeness of the road to the property line is -- obviously not to scale, but the concept -- is we would give up, I think that's Lot No. 13, and move it as close to Lot 12 as we can without changing the configuration of Lot 12. It's about a 50-foot move to the west. We would reconfigure Lot 45 to make sure it's legal and has the right frontage with the road being moved to the west. We would provide additional landscape buffer between the road and what's not part of Lot 45. We'd bring that back to your September board meeting. And all we're asking is that we get the utility easement we were supposed to get as part of the Wilshire Lakes PUD. We think that's fair. We lose a lot, but we recover what it would have cost us to bring the utilities in from Livingston Road. And we'll come back. We'll make sure the geometry works and move it as far west as we can without changing the configuration of Lot 12. So we will definitely lose Lot 13. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Will you will point out, just for this person, 12? What are we talking about? Where's 12? MR. YOVANOVICH: This is Lot 12 right here. So we'll move it as far -- or as close to 12 without cutting -- Mr. Hagan's plan actually kind of cut across a little bit of Lot 12. And we would need to go a little further east than his plan but, obviously, further west than what we have here, and we will reconfigure this lot a little, and then we'll be -- we will be -- the pavement would be at least 50 more feet than what it was before, which was 36 feet from the -- am I right, Mike? MR. DELATE: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Would you -- if you were looking at this room from the back right here out toward the audience, where would 50 feet be? June 27, 2017 Page 219 MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't know. This is why I ended up being a lawyer instead of a professional golfer. I wouldn't get that quite -- I couldn't figure that out. So these are what, two feet? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Can I answer that question? MR. YOVANOVICH: Please do. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It's just about -- see where that fire light is, the red one. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, yes. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That's about 50 feet. These tiles are two feet. And that's about 25 out there, plus or minus. That's about 50 feet. Right here in front of you, almost in line with you from this wall. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right here? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So that's 50 feet from your property line? MR. YOVANOVICH: No, no. It's 50 more feet from the 36 feet I'm already from my property line. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Why don't we do this. And you've said you'd like to have this continued until September. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I -- yes. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Continue this until our first meeting in September. Let's get the details on how the road would look and have the folks make the commitment in terms of the utility hookup, and then come on back, and let's -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I just need to know, if I meet that extra 50-feet threshold -- the concern from the Commission was you're too close at 36 feet. So if I'm now at 86 feet, I need to know that I've addressed the concerns from the Commission on the subdivision plat, because I just need to know that I'm there. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: The height issue as well, I June 27, 2017 Page 220 think, was one of the issues. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You still have the wall. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, no, no, no, no. Why would we have to go through those additional expenses when we've moved it further along. They didn't ask for a wall as part of their move it further east -- I'm sorry -- west condition. It was just move the road. So we're saying we're going to get pretty close to what you wanted. We're not going to get 100 percent there, but we're going to get pretty close. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And you're going to get the hookups to the utilities out of Wilshire. MR. YOVANOVICH: Which I shouldn't even be here on that issue in the first place. I mean, it's a clear PUD condition that it's supposed to be there. But we are where we are, and we're proposing -- you know, if I get to the 86 feet with the landscaping that will go in there, I need to know that I'm getting there. Because, you know, these are supposed to be ministerial, and I've got a PUD approved with the setback standards. But I get it. I don't -- I can go so far without -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'm going to make a motion to continue this to our first meeting in September with no commitments. You meet with the homeowners there, and let's see if we can work it out. That's all -- I'm going to make that motion. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And I'll second that. MR. YOVANOVICH: Where's my client? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: You're close. MR. YOVANOVICH: Are we willing to do that? MR. KLATZKOW: Doesn't matter if he's willing to do that. Board can always continue an item, Richard. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't want to get into an argument over that. June 27, 2017 Page 221 COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: In the alternative, I'll make a motion to deny the petition. MR. YOVANOVICH: No. Mr. Saunders, I'm just asking for my client to make sure that was okay. We didn't talk about a continuance. I'm just asking for two seconds to confirm. Is that okay? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: What are you talking about? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah. I thought that wasn't acceptable. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, what I had asked about was -- remember, I just wanted to know I was -- from the Commission's standpoint, am I on track? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: You are definitely on track. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Definitely on track. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: There's a question as to if it's completely there or not. That's why I want to continue it. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I was just asking for an indicator. Am I in the ballpark at moving it 50 feet? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And one point of clarification. I miscounted. When I said that it was right there, it's actually half again -- or another -- it's out past the break in the wall. That was my error. MR. YOVANOVICH: That break right there? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yeah, where the dividers are. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's why you're probably not very good at golf either. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Higher math. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So the petitioner asked whether he has a consensus to know whether he -- whether we feel -- individually, we need to answer him whether he's on track in the right direction. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I said he was. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. And I said he was. June 27, 2017 Page 222 COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And I concur with Commissioner Saunders' motion to continue it without commitment but yet to allow us to have -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand. I wanted to make sure I was moving in the right -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- specificity. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: If you're moving the road, you're moving in the right direction. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And you're getting the utility hookups, which you shouldn't be here for. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was looking at the faces of the people that live there, but it doesn't seem like they object, so okay. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: They do object. They do object. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I understand. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: They do object. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That's why we need to continue this and have the developer and the homeowners sit down again, and it's -- you're moving in the right direction, there's no question about that. You're moving the road and you're losing a lot -- one of the lots, and that's very positive. But let's have you all get together. We want to protect that neighborhood. And, you know, I'd ask you the question, would you want the road hitting directly towards your house, and I know you'd say no. You just wouldn't -- none of us would want that, and that's why I want to continue this. MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand. And, again, we think we've made a reasonable proposal to make that happen. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. So -- June 27, 2017 Page 223 MR. YOVANOVICH: So you need to vote on your continuance, I think. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. We're going to vote on our continuance. And I made a -- there's a motion on the floor and a second. All those in favor of the continuance, say -- to the first meeting in September -- say aye. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You have your continuance, sir. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you for working this -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. Item #11D RESOLUTION 2017-123: (1) ACCEPT THE TECHNICAL ENGINEERING FEASIBILITY REPORT PREPARED BY STANTEC AND THE FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY REPORT PREPARED BY THE PUBLIC RESOURCES MANAGEMENT GROUP (PRMG), AS THEY RELATE TO THE ACQUISITION OF THE GOLDEN GATE SYSTEM FROM THE FLORIDA GOVERNMENTAL UTILITY AUTHORITY (FGUA); (2) AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO INITIATE FINAL DUE DILIGENCE PROCESS AND NEGOTIATION OF THE TERMS OF ACQUISITION OF THE June 27, 2017 Page 224 FGUA GOLDEN GATE UTILITY PURSUANT TO THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT, AND (3) AUTHORIZE THE CHAIR TO EXECUTE A RESOLUTION NOTIFYING THE FGUA OF THE DISTRICT’S INTENT TO PURSUE THE PROCESS TOWARD ACQUISITION OF THE GOLDEN GATE UTILITY – ADOPTED MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, that takes us to Item 11D on your agenda. This is a recommendation to, number one, accept the Technical Engineering Feasibility Report and the Financial Feasibility Report as they relate to the acquisition of the Golden Gate system from the Florida Governmental Utility Authority and, number two, to authorize the County Manager to initiate final due diligence process and negotiation of the terms of acquisition of the FGUA Golden Gate Utility pursuant to the existing interlocal agreement and, number three, authorize the Chair to execute a resolution notifying the FGUA of the district's intent to pursue the process toward acquisition of the Golden Gate Utility. Dr. Yilmaz is available to present or respond to questions from the Board. I know this is a result of a previous board direction led by Commissioner Saunders to have the staff do this financial and operational feasibility review. We've come back and, obviously, we're recommending that the Board move forward toward acquisition. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Commissioner Saunders, you want to make the motion? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah. And I want to thank staff for their diligence in getting this technical memorandum prepared. I've reviewed it, and I will tell you I think that this could very well be the most important thing this commission can do for that area of the county. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Agreed. June 27, 2017 Page 225 COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: There are significant problems there that are countywide. And I appreciate the support of the Commission in moving forward with this. So I'll make the motion to move forward with it. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And I would echo your comments and just expand it. It could be, singularly, the most important thing we do as a board for the whole county. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second the motion. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Seconded, yes. You can second it. I'll second it. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Dr. Yilmaz, would you just briefly tell us why this is an important -- briefly why this is important to the county. MR. YILMAZ: Absolutely, Commissioner. For the record, George Yilmaz, Public Utilities. Among many others, there are three concurrently important missions that is part of our water/sewer district and County Manager's agency focus. One is public health. Approximately 10,000-plus customers will need to be addressed in city of Golden Gate service area for safe drinking water, not wells, surrounded by septic tanks in near proximity, including their drainfields. Second is public safety. For approximately 24,000-plus customers, 2010 census, we need to provide full-blown fire hydrant at right pressure service there as the most recent fire incident we did go through. That was one of the barriers we were able to stop the fire on this highly dense area, and that's the next five, 10-year aggressive program we're planning to go after. Public health and public safety next. Right after that, environmental health, and we'll go incrementally converting septic tanks near Golden Gate Canal systems or tertiary June 27, 2017 Page 226 canal systems feeding the Golden Gate Canal system so that environmental health issue is addressed. One more thing I want to mention Commissioners, is that as you know, you have approved integrated sustainable water strategy which included the stormwater utility piece. And today you have approved Phase 2 part of the stormwater utility study, which includes countywide and city of Golden Gate. And the current plans that needs to be updated for next 10, 20 years is about north of $23 million investment. And that's a great synchronization and opportunity for us to team up with our Growth Management and move our program current with their program next 10 to 20 years, very similar to what we're doing in Dorrill Circle, Isles of Capri, North -- Naples Park, and Vanderbilt Drive, among others. So I hope I answered your question, ma'am, without getting too much in details. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, just the last thing before you vote. I do want to thank Steve Spratt; he's the executive director of FGUA. He was here earlier. He's been very cooperative, the whole board at FGUA. I've already seen, frankly, a draft press release that they're going to issue if the Board approves this thanking the Board for their work and looking forward to working with this County Commission to make a smooth transition for their customer base. So this is one of those rare, potentially anyhow, win-wins for everybody. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I'd like to thank Commissioner Saunders because you, sir, took the initiative and brought it to the attention of the county. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And I think you're to be complimented for it. June 27, 2017 Page 227 MR. OCHS: One more thing for the record. I want you to know you're getting a good utility in terms of the physical assets. They've done a good job of taking care of their plants and their distribution systems. So this is one that I think we can hit the ground running on. And it's just a matter, as Dr. Yilmaz said, of building on the backbone that's been established there. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: One of the additional reasons that I took a look at this is there was some news articles going back a couple years ago that indicated that the rate payers in that service area were paying substantially higher rates than anyone else in the county, and some of the higher rates, quite frankly, in the state. And so the businesses there are going to see an immediate reduction in the cost. Homeowners that are already hooked up are going to see an immediate reduction in their monthly bills. And then I think when other homeowners start hooking up, it's going to be, in my view, a lot cheaper to hook up to a county water system than it is to replace your own in-house water systems. So I think that there's going to be a savings for everyone on this. MR. OCHS: Thank you, George. COMMISSIONER FIALA: If I might add. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Of course. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You're absolutely right. The water department, our water department, the county water department, came to the rescue of the Goodland people. This is a number of years back. And the Goodland people were paying over $400 a month for water. So I know what you mean by high rates. And they couldn't pull them down. And our people came by. I'd love to tell you I had a part of it. I just happen to represent the Goodlanders. They knew how to do it. They pulled that thing down and now they pay less than half that amount. June 27, 2017 Page 228 So it's wonderful that you're doing this for your people. That's great. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Well, there's a motion on the floor and a second. All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Good job. Thank you. MR. OCHS: Thank you, Commissioners. Item #11E AWARD INVITATION TO BID NO. 17-7125 TO MARINE CONTRACTING GROUP, INC., FOR THE COCOHATCHEE RIVER PARK MARINA RENOVATIONS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,394,000, PLUS $5,000 FOR COUNTY PERMITTING FEES FOR A TOTAL OF $1,399,000 – APPROVED MR. OCHS: That takes us to Item 11E. This is a recommendation to award a competitive bid to Marine Contracting Group for the Cocohatchee River Park marina renovations in the amount of $1,394,000. And we have Felicia Kirby, your Project Manager from Facilities Management, available to present or answer questions from the Board. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Do we -- would we like a presentation, or can I entertain a motion here? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I think Commissioner Solis -- June 27, 2017 Page 229 COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I'd make a motion to approve. MR. OCHS: These are docks that are in desperate need of repair. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Boy, that was some reading, too, by the way. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes, it sure was. COMMISSIONER FIALA: That was very interesting. And I noticed they couldn't do the one thing because we ran out of money there -- MR. OCHS: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- but you're getting the worst part of it taken care of. MR. OCHS: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah. This is absolutely needed. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So we have a motion on the floor and a second. All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Very nice presentation. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign. (No response.) MR. OCHS: Felicia, you were great. Congratulations. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you so much for your patience of staying with us today. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: That's called an opportunity to excel. COMMISSIONER FIALA: We want entertainment. Item #11H June 27, 2017 Page 230 CATEGORY “A” TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX FUNDS UP TO $57,600 FOR EXCAVATION OF THE CLAM PASS INLET AND RE-GRADING OF THE ADJACENT BEACHES, AUTHORIZE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $30,000, AND MAKE A FINDING THAT THIS EXPENDITURE PROMOTES TOURISM – APPROVED MR. OCHS: Commissioners, if you don't mind, I'm going to hop around just a little bit. I know that we've had the staff from Pelican Bay Services here, and Mr. Hoppensteadt, have been here for a while. So if you don't mind if we could go to our last add-on item, and it would be a recommendation to approve and authorize expenditure of Category A tourist development tax funds up to an amount of $57,600 for excavation of the Clam Pass inlet and re-grading of the adjacent beaches. Mr. Dorrill? MR. DORRILL: Good afternoon, everyone, and thank you for your perseverance this afternoon. Following Tropical Storm Cindy last week, there was some conditions that created some unstable effects, and we've got a brief presentation. We have some drone shots and some aerial shots. As two of the board members and the new members, on very quick background, the Clam Bay Management Plan has some conditions precedent and triggers that would require dictate dredging. This event is outside of that. I can tell you that the interior stability of the pass and the system remains sound. But as a result of a series of passing tropical storms and winter cold fronts -- I have some weather data that I'll show you in just a second -- the ebb shoal or sandbar that is immediately offshore of the pass has been pushed onto the face of the beach that has June 27, 2017 Page 231 redirected the inlet to the north and created some significant escarpment of the beach along the north side of the pass. And I can tell you a very similar or almost identical condition is also evident north of here at Lely Barefoot Beach, and just sustained winds over the course of 54 to 72 hours have had -- sort of pushed this sandspit to the north. And as a result of that -- if we can go to the next slide. And the one after that. We would -- this shows the number of weather events. And it's hard to see, but you can see the spikes. This goes back to the time 15 months ago when the pass was last dredged. But the spikes there are -- and these are from the Naples Pier, NOAA Weather Station. You can see that we've had about seven to eight significant weather events with waves offshore of over three feet for extended periods of time. And Clam Pass will struggle in any situation to where you have large waves that are sustained over a period of 24 hours. Let's go to the next slide. As a result of that, what we would like to do -- can we skip ahead to the one that actually -- there. What we would like to do is to bring a track hoe in and excavate about 4,000 cubic yards of material and then place and grade the adjacent areas that are in light blue, and then the areas that are within the encapsulated conditions to the south at the park and also to the north to fill in that meandering channel that is there. This is very similar to the condition that occurred in 2013. So we have about 4,300 cubic yards of material that we would like to excavate, and then an additional 56,000 cubic yards of material that need to be graded back onto the active face of the beach. And it has been our practice and agreement with the Foundation, any portions that would go on the dry upland private beach would be paid for separately by the Foundation, and that is the same as has been in the 2016 and 2013 events. June 27, 2017 Page 232 We're eligible for TDC funds here, and the TDC accommodated us yesterday and voted unanimously to recommend this for your approval in an amount of $30,000. It does not meet the threshold requirement for competitive bids, but we are soliciting three quotes and we, today, filed a notice of commencement with FDEP. We already have the permits. We have a 10-year maintenance permit, but we have to give them notice of any construction event. There will be a preconstruction conference on the beach. We contacted Mara Crouse last week as a professional courtesy to her to tell her we're headed your way. We've already started the shorebird and sea turtle monitoring, because you have to start at least 10 days in advance. And if we can go to the final slide just to show you the type, scope of work. That's it. And this was the project that was done in 2013. And I'll spend the preponderance of the remaining time answering your questions. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is that mountain in the background there, is that what you've dug out of there? MR. DORRILL: That's what was dug the last time and will be dug this time and then pushed onto the park site to the south, to the appreciation of the hotel, and we'll reuse a portion of that to fill that meandering inlet. And any of that portion that benefits the private beach at Pelican Bay will be paid separately by the Foundation. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Can I ask one question? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes, of course. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: How do you discern the private beach portion and the public? MR. DORRILL: It's preestablished by the State. That's an excellent question. The State has preestablished what I call as a layperson the mean-high water mark, and anything that is upland of June 27, 2017 Page 233 that is considered private beach under the laws of Florida. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So, Mr. Dorrill, we are in, what, Year 8 of the 10-year agreement or Year 7? MR. DORRILL: We're in -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: The 10-year -- you have a 10-year plan for this. MR. DORRILL: I have a 10-year permit, and I'm in the second year of the 10-year permit. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. So Year 8, okay. Thank you. All right. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'll move -- well, you go ahead. It's your deal. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No. I was just going to move to approve it. The pictures of the escarpment on the one side, I mean, I couldn't even believe it. One of the pictures was -- it's over six feet. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I mean, it's just -- it's amazing. So I would move to approve quickly. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Second. Second, quickly. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: There's a motion on the floor -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Both of them quickly. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: -- and a second to approve quickly their request as outlined in the expenditure of TDT. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: There it is. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: There it is. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I mean, that's amazing. MR. DORRILL: Yesterday afternoon. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: A month? In six weeks or so? How long has this -- MR. DORRILL: This is all as a result of the beginning of June 27, 2017 Page 234 Tropical Storm Cindy that really sort of affected us last Monday and Tuesday and into early Wednesday morning. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: That's unbelievable. MR. DORRILL: And this shows the strength of the inlet, because it's the outflowing water at low tide that is now contributing to the escarpment on the north side. That's the Foundation's retail facility at South Beach there that you can see. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Battling Mother Nature. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. There's a motion on the floor and a second. All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign. (No response.) MR. DORRILL: Thank you again. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you for your patience being with us today. Item #11F COUNTY-OWNED PROPERTIES THAT ARE SUITABLE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF HOUSING THAT IS AFFORDABLE AND DIRECT STAFF TO EXPLORE PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS ON THE DESIGNATED PARCELS FOR FUTURE APPROVAL - MOTION TO ACCEPT REPORT AND MOVE FORWARD TO PHASE II PER DIRECTION IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – APPROVED June 27, 2017 Page 235 MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to Item 11F. This is a recommendation to consider designating county-owned properties that are suitable for development of housing that is affordable and direct staff to explore public/private partnerships on the designated parcels for future approval. And Ms. Grant will begin the presentation. MS. GRANT: Good evening, Commissioners. Kim Grant, Director of Community and Human Services. And we are here to bring back an item that you asked us to take a look at a couple of months ago, which is to look at parcels that the county owns to determine whether they may be applicable or appropriate for housing that is affordable. And so you asked us to take a look at all parcels and identify those that were suitable. You, of course, recall that you have established a stakeholder committee to work with us on the housing plan, and I have with me here this evening Steve Hruby, who is your chair of your Affordable Housing Advisory Committee, and he also led the subcommittee review of the parcels, so he's here for questions if you have any of him. I'm going to just briefly review the summary that we put into your executive summary, the prioritization that the committee came up with, and then I can do more or take questions. So after a lot of discussion with staff and so forth, we -- the group came up to nine parcels that they wanted to present for your consideration. These are in ranked order of those that are considered most suitable. We want to acknowledge that every parcel that's been purchased already has a purpose, and that would have to be considered if these parcels are selected to be directed in whole or in part for housing that's affordable. The top four parcels we are recommending that you do designate for housing. That's the Bembridge PUD; the Bayshore CRA parcel June 27, 2017 Page 236 that is already out under an RFP; the Randall Curve site, which is up off Immokalee Road; and a site off Livingston as part of the Grey Oaks PUD. The next two parcels are recommended -- they're future parks -- they're recommended that when those parks are developed and moved forward, that we look at including housing somehow in those park areas. Recognizing that there may be considerations associated with level of service and so forth, but that could be worked out. And the last three parcels that we looked at seriously we determined were really not particularly feasible, at least at this time. With that, Commissioners, I can review each parcel or we can take questions. What would you like to do? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I'd like to hear from Mr. Hruby, if we could, because I think -- it's my understanding that your committee went through these. I'd like to -- there was a huge list, sir, so what happened to the list. MR. HRUBY: Good evening, Commissioners. Steven Hruby. I chair your Affordable Housing Advisory Committee, and I'm also an ex-officio member of your stakeholder group. I attend their meetings, and I facilitated -- facilitating the Land Trust Subcommittee. We've broken that stakeholder group into subcommittees, and I'm chairing the Land Trust Committee. And Kim decided that that -- we were probably the most appropriate group to vet these properties. I attended a couple of meetings that Commissioner Taylor had with staff where we kind of put our arms around some 350 properties that are on the list. A great portion of those just were not suitable for housing or probably any other development. They were slips of lands. They were in terrible locations. They were part of water management districts. They just -- they were junk from a housing standpoint. But we did get about -- probably about 20 properties that had some traction to it. June 27, 2017 Page 237 And we spent a whole afternoon with the committee, and we invited to the -- along with the committee, we invited people from your Real Estate Division, your Human Services Division, your Parks and Rec, Public Utilities, and Growth Management to get their input. Now, as Kim has mentioned, all of these properties had been acquired or brought into -- in your portfolio for a specific use. Whether that use is still relevant or whether it is way in the future or it has -- every one of these properties has some strings attached to it and some issues with it. But our charge is really to look at these properties kind of independent of that, blind of that, and say, is this a good development site or a portion of this site, for housing that's affordable? And some of these parcels are large where you don't necessarily need to contribute the entire parcel. They can be mixed use. They can be mixed tenure type of housing. That's the discussion if we move forward with any of those parcels. But the prioritization, we had the committee prioritize, and they felt that those nine parcels were the highest priority, and we did them down that pecking order from one to nine. So that's how we vetted. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Any questions? MR. HRUBY: Commissioner McDaniel? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Not of Steven. I have several of staff. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I would love to have a couple things. MR. HRUBY: Sure. COMMISSIONER FIALA: When you say housing that is affordable, could you tell me, affordable for whom? Do you mean, like, for seniors? Do you mean for low income? Do you mean for young professionals? You know, housing that affordable, you live in Port Royal, and it's affordable to you, right? MR. HRUBY: Sometimes I wonder about that. June 27, 2017 Page 238 COMMISSIONER FIALA: But, I mean, you know, people live where they, you know, can afford. I was just wondering, what does housing that is affordable mean? MR. HRUBY: Well, again, I think that's your next step. It's the housing that we're talking about as we develop the plan based on the ULI study, and it's kind of a broad range. And all of the ones that you mentioned are included in that -- under that umbrella. You know, it's seniors, it's your service staff, it's your middle-income, you know, young professionals who are just getting started. It is service workers. It is people who are of modest means. It's handicapped individuals. But some of these properties are, you know, more appropriate for a senior or a handicapped, and some of them are more appropriate for a fireman, a teacher, and that you're going to evolve as you plan those properties out and you put the RFPs out in order to attract developers to build them out. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do you know what kind of -- now, affordable, that would refer to, like, for-sale product, but possibly it could also refer to rental product. MR. HRUBY: Oh, absolutely. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And so you -- some of these properties could also be used for apartment -- MR. HRUBY: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- living, right? Whether it be for seniors -- and you probably have to have senior living separate from -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- you know, young professionals or even, you know, young people just getting out of school or whatever. So I thought, you know, we could include rental in some of these properties as well? MR. HRUBY: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. June 27, 2017 Page 239 MR. HRUBY: And we -- in our discussions in developing the housing plan, we talked about mixed tenure. You know, it's rental, it's home ownership. The type of housing that could be here could be walk-up apartments, it could be townhouses, a number of different scenarios. And, again, depending on the most efficient use and the best use of the ground and its location. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So my last question to you then is -- MR. HRUBY: Yep. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think it's a brilliant idea, but of course I would because, you know, I came up with it, so -- not that you will think it's brilliant, by the way. This morning we gave away $1.5 million of money that we, the county, needed to expend before we lost it. Could that kind of money be used on one of these properties? Say, for instance, you built moderate-income housing for young professionals, okay. Could that money be used as an incentive to get you to build your condo complex on one of these properties? Yes, the property would be owned by the county, so there you have your public/private partnership, but then we could pay, like -- and I'm throwing this out. I don't even know if it would work yet -- like the impact fees so that then that would be an inducement to you to try and build on there because now we've incentivized it. MR. HRUBY: Those are precisely the type of incentives that you need to put in place to make housing affordable at that range. That's the best practice that you're going to find around the country where you're using your cash resources and targeting them to attract a public/private partnership to do that. And land is one thing, and dollars is even more important. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, I just thought that that would be -- it would make use of that money so that it would get to other levels of housing that we need. That would be wonderful. June 27, 2017 Page 240 Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That money this morning was specifically, Commissioner Fiala -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I'm just talking about if we have extra money. And I realize each thing is for different things. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Well, because you -- a lot of people don't realize that, and they perceive that because you believe that that was a re-appropriation of those funds that was specified for rehabilitative purposes through the SHIP program, that we could use it for new construction, and we can't. And I just wanted to be clear. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, there's some that can be, you know. I'm just saying if we have extra funds that come in. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Correct. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And we give away a lot of money every year. Could some of that be used to incentivize? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER FIALA: If we only incentivize very low, then we're not helping anybody in all of the classes above that. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Gotcha. MR. HRUBY: You've just got to take it from Commissioner McDaniel's proper buckets. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right, correct. Or piles, as Commissioner Solis likes to say. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You were here for that conversation. MR. HRUBY: I was here for the conversation on buckets. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. You've been here a long time. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So it's my understanding from three meetings we've had with staff regarding this from the development June 27, 2017 Page 241 community is that part of the challenge, especially with workforce housing, is the time element. And if lands can be pre-zoned and approved in advance, it becomes almost shovel ready, almost. So I'm looking at this, and we have zoning on two of -- the top two. We don't have zoning on the rest of the -- help me -- with seven. MR. HRUBY: Correct. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So staff and Mr. Hruby, is it your suggestion that we start the zoning process to create a zoning that would incentivize, you know, in terms of intensity, workforce housing? And be very specific about this, what we want because my -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: It is workforce housing. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. The pay scale, et cetera, but also with senior housing, I'm understanding, again, from developers, that's a whole project in itself. They have very special zoning. But we need to be concerned about our seniors. MR. HRUBY: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: We don't ever build for them, do we? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No. But here we have nine -- nine possibilities. So how do we start this? And I'm not suggesting we start this at 5:40 at night -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: -- but I do think we need to go to the next step, and what is that next step, I guess, is what I'm saying. MR. HRUBY: Well, I think you have some low-hanging fruit there. Your first two parcels are -- they're properly zoned, they're in an excellent location. They're -- one's fairly small. The other is fairly sizeable. You probably don't need the whole 17 acres. So you have an RFP out for one already that has housing as part of the element of that RFP. So those first two are your low-hanging fruit. Incentivize those June 27, 2017 Page 242 and see what you can do to keep them moving, and then start going down that list. Your next two, let's see if we can get them properly zoned. As you go down, you know, the Grey Oaks/Livingston one probably has some negotiating and work to be done to restructure that PUD. There's -- you know, that's one of the things, as we vetted it, we said, that's probably -- you're probably going to end up with a little bit of time required if that's going to ever be a reality. Randall Curve has some infrastructure issues. You're going to do a flyover over that intersection. Access to the site -- to the site is -- might be difficult. So as we go down that list, there's more encumbrances on those properties. But I'd take the low-hanging fruit right now and let's move. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Mr. Bosi? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yeah. Well, I have questions of staff that we need to go before we start talking about the individual pieces of property. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's what I want to talk to Mr. Bosi about. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. Well, it was housing staff that I -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh, okay. Mr. Bosi, if you just don't mind, is there any way -- as we move to the zoning and rezoning process, can we be very specific within that zoning that a particular income of workforce housing, of cost-burdened housing is served by the development that -- the zoning that we create? Can we be very specific about this? MR. BOSI: With all of your current affordable housing density bonus programs, they all have specific income ranges associated with all those. We always have the layers of your 60 or your 60 to 80, your 80 to 120, to 150. All those are always specified within each one of June 27, 2017 Page 243 your density bonus agreements. So we always have that language specified, presented to the Board of County Commissioners, so when you do make an evaluation as to whether you want to adopt the density bonus program, you know specifically the income targets for each one of those proposals. Those are always, always provided to you from your housing staff and always are provided within the specifics of any density bonus program that you're providing for. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So it's not done within the actual zoning of the land. It's done when the project comes before us and requests for density bonus points are asked for. MR. BOSI: That's how you establish your density bonuses related to the income targets that you're specifying and the number to quantify. That dictates whether you go from three additional units to eight potential additional units for your bonus. So that's what dictates that. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Good. MR. BOSI: So that specificity, most certainly, is written with -- into the agreement. Now, whether it will be within the actual zoning document or whether that will just be within the agreement that you would strike with the third party, depends how you would do this. And I guess I'll wait for housing. To me, I think the identification of these are most certainly the prudent step, but how this fits within your overall decision-making process, we always talk about we don't want to do things piecemeal. And we're not doing this piecemeal, but this should -- these are decisions that sound like are going to be wrapped up, encapsulated within the plan of the overall housing plan and the options that the Board wants to provide for. Maybe there are some ideas as to how we can get an advanced start upon that that Kim would like to expound upon. But we just went through and we did our evaluation upon the locational decisions, the zoning, the Growth Management Plan and compliance, infrastructure June 27, 2017 Page 244 availability, access to jobs, access to public transit. All those things that are required that have to be part of that consideration to say whether one location or not fits the bill for an effective affordable project. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I do have questions of staff, but we didn't -- do you -- do -- Commissioner Solis or Saunders, I don't want to -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: No, no questions. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And that's a perfect lead-in to where I was going with this. And, Ms. Grant, you know, I read the opinion from the ULI report. Did you folks get this? And it talked specifically about the fact that we do have a housing affordability problem, but it is not a crisis yet and -- but it needs to be given due consideration. And so one of my questions that I have for you is, have -- early on, many months ago, I talked -- I spoke with you about the delineation of the different types of housing, the affordable housing, the workforce housing, the low-income housing, low-low-income housing, and the ULI folks have come to us with this cost-burdened housing. Have you gone any further with the specificity of the definitions of those housing types out -- in our LDCs? MS. GRANT: Commissioner, as part of our development of the housing plan that's coming back to you in about, what is it, 90 days now, we are looking at that. We're looking at a comprehensive yet simple definition, and also we're expanding our need model to take into consideration the guidance of ULI to look at those that are cost burdened. So those are being worked on, but we're not ready to -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Express that yet? MS. GRANT: -- talk about those yet. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Do you have an idea as to need from a market standpoint? June 27, 2017 Page 245 MS. GRANT: Well, County Manager, is it okay if I give the example I gave to you, or would you rather we finish the model -- MR. OCHS: No. Sure, sure. Go ahead. MS. GRANT: So the construct we're looking at in terms of defining the need is looking at cost burdened, which I'll come back to in just a second exactly what that is, like we look at other requirements in our community and defining a level of service. Now, let me backtrack for just a second. As a reminder, cost burdened is a percentage expression of the number of households in our community that are paying too much for housing. And right now about 40 percent of our households spend too much for housing. MR. OCHS: "Too much" is defined as what? MS. GRANT: Pardon me? MR. OCHS: Defined as more than 30 percent? MS. GRANT: Thank you. Defined as more than 30 percent of your income. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That's a typical standard utilized by lending institutions for your first mortgage payment and the like. MR. OCHS: Correct. MS. GRANT: That's right. Half of that, just for further discussion, are people who spend more than 50 percent of their income on housing. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: On a monthly basis? MS. GRANT: On a monthly or annual basis, that's correct. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: They annualize it out when they're doing these figures. MS. GRANT: So what we're playing with, the construct we're working through is -- and what I don't have yet is sort of the answer, but just bear with me here. If we decide that 40 percent of our population being cost June 27, 2017 Page 246 burdened is side too high -- if, remember I said if -- and we decide, for example, that in our community we believe 39 percent is an acceptable level, a level of service -- and one of the things we're researching is what should that be -- then you can figure out how many households are in need. And our initial calculations indicate that if we were to go from 40 percent of our households cost burdened to 39 percent, we would need approximately 1,500 units right now. And I don't have in my head -- you can break it down by the income levels, but I don't have that in my head what the amounts are each time. That is for people who are already here. You may recall that we've also presented to you a model for projection; those people coming into the county. And if I recall correctly, our last run of that model we were approximately okay on single-family residences. There were approximately enough available for new entrance, but we were needing 3- to 500 apartments or rental units. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Based upon what criterion? That's where I'm trying to go. MS. GRANT: Based on -- well, we used the population projection that's the same as our Growth Management Division uses, and then we have determined statistically what percentage of the population earns what amount, and then we've gone from there down the mathematical calculation to come to a number of units. And I could represent that to you. But, conceptually, that's -- so if you take the 500 or so apartments that are needed and approximately 1,500 -- again, if, if, if we were to look at reducing our cost-burdened level from 40 to 39 percent -- but lots of ifs -- we're looking at what is an appropriate target. You know, we're running the models and making sure that we aren't double counting and all that kind of stuff. So we will be bringing that forth, but that's the current thinking, June 27, 2017 Page 247 and we're going down that path right now. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And if I might add -- and this is just a topic of conversation. And this is -- because I'm not comfortable in making any specific decisions with regard to these suggested piece of properties as of yet. We -- there's still -- we're still too far out as far as I'm concerned with an -- of ascertaining what the actual true need is, what the marketplace, in fact, is. I mean, I've got some statistical information that was provided to me by a local realtor from the Naples Area Board of Realtors. And currently, right now, there are approximately 990 homes at or below $250,000 in our community. There are 550 homes at or below $200,000 in our community. There are 150 at 150- or less within our community. Then I move over here to the sold side, and in the last 120 days, approximately 1,100 homes have closed at or below 250,000; 625 under 200-, and 250 under 150-. And so where I'm going with this until you actually -- until we actually have milestones and measureables to be able to ascertain what the true need is and what, then, our responsibility from a governmental perspective, in fact, is, throwing a dart at a piece of property here and saying this is a good idea to incentivize is premature. I'm not saying -- I applauded you when you brought forward the initiative to put our properties into a trust and have them reviewed by AHAC and such, but for us to -- without a clearer definition of the marketplace both from a needs and availability standpoint, I don't think -- I don't think it's prudent for us to make that decision yet. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, no one's making it yet. Ninety days, and I think it's September you're coming back, so I think we're fine. But we're not talking about for sale. Because a lot of these folks -- a kid getting out of college may not have the credit to buy a house for $150,000. We're talking about rentals to allow folks -- June 27, 2017 Page 248 COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That's a portion of it, though, Commissioner. It's not -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, but -- to me the overwhelming need right now is the rentals. Now -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: But do you know what the need is? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We will evaluate it on an annual basis. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We don't really know what the need is yet. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, sir, I'll let you get some numbers, and you can go talk to some folks. Talk to folks who are living together, two families or three families. And they're -- I'm not talking that because that's their culture. I'm talking because it's their necessity. There's a huge need for rentals. Rentals -- minimal rentals for folks in this town can be 16-, 17-, $1,800 a month. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Or more. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Or more. You know, a college kid -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Commissioner Solis has been wanting to say something for quite some time. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, a college child. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And I'm not debating this with you. I just -- before I can make a decision, I would like to have measurables and milestones from with -- which to make the decision, not just a perception that there's a deficiency in the rental marketplace -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We're going to get that in three months. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Well, yeah. But today we were -- I thought we were coming here to be giving advice on which piece of properties we could incentivize staff to be making available to developers. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, I mean, if that's the case, I mean, June 27, 2017 Page 249 all you do is -- that's the market, because there are developers that would come into this community if they knew there were incentives and if there was support for workforce housing. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I think -- can I just make a suggestion? I mean, the -- the recommendation is to designate county-owned properties that are suitable for development of housing that is affordable and to direct staff to explore public/private partnerships on the designated parcels for future approval. And, Ms. Grant, am I correct in assuming that what we're directing staff to do is essentially what Commissioner McDaniel is saying, is we need to figure out what we need so that we can figure out what we can do with these parcels and how we're going to do it? Is that -- because I agree; we're not -- I don't think we're here to say, on this piece of property, we want to do this kind of housing. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Well, that's what Steve was getting down onto the feasibility of these things, and I don't -- we're not there yet; yet. MS. GRANT: What we were envisioning our charge was, or what I would restate back was if the commissioners were to determine that one or more of these parcels did appear to be appropriate for housing that is affordable, then what staff would do next is, depending on the parcel, we would take additional steps. For example, with the Bembridge PUD, we might create a set of criteria of what we'd like to see on that property, get your approval, and then put an RFP out; for example. And we would look at each parcel and probably make some recommendations as to how we might move forward. But that's not -- that's essentially assuming there's a need; that's essentially saying we want to go forward and do something. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I don't know how many meetings we have to have over the years and how many stakeholders. I mean, you June 27, 2017 Page 250 may say that the ULI said that it's not a crisis, but when Al Reynolds stands up in the back of the room and tells me it's a crisis, I believe him. I've talked to too many major companies. I mean, even Arthrex -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: There's no -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: -- has pleaded for workforce housing. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: There is no one that is more acutely aware of the circumstance. But I -- if you feel like you've been chasing your tail it's because we haven't had a definition of the marketplace both from an necessity standpoint and an availability of the marketplace standpoint to be able to give specific direction to our staff as to how to effectuate the satisfaction of the need. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I disagree with your analysis. The reason this hasn't been forward is there hasn't been support to do it and -- up here. And I think now -- that the time has come. I think this commission agrees there is support to move forward. Now, what -- when we move forward; I don't think it's going to be today. But in three months I would hope that we would move forward. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: If anything has come from this discussion, when we come back in three months, please have measurables and milestones from with which for us to be able to ascertain the decisions that we're making and the impacts on those specific markets and the segments of those markets that are truly in need, not just because someone stands up in the back of the room and says there's a need, or the Naples Daily News prints it, or anybody else. There is just statistical data that's available that will allow us to ascertain that, and that will then help us get to satisfying that need. MS. GRANT: Very well. And just one thing I neglected to mention when I was kind of going through the model, I kind of talked about one side of the model, and you've reminded me. Our complete June 27, 2017 Page 251 model is attempting to take a look at what do we have now, what is our need, and what's the gap. And I think, ultimately, that's what you're saying by the various markets and so forth that we need to look at. And so we are definitely planning to bring that back for your consideration. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's good. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I think we're all talking about the same thing. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We are. And, again, I don't disagree with Commissioner Taylor with regard to the rental being a portion of that marketplace. It's just that's a more difficult marketplace to actually ascertain the supply side to be able to fit into. And surely until we know what the demand side is, it's -- we're just talking. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So are we done with this subject? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So I'll make a motion to designate -- I guess we have to decide the parcels, the first three parcels, at least, we should -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I don't think we should designate anything. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Direct staff to start moving forward with ideas and possibilities? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Let's include Grey Oaks. It's in my district. It's a conversation I will have with Grey Oaks. COMMISSIONER FIALA: The Bayshore property has bids on it right now, doesn't it? MS. GRANT: It's out for bid. I don't know if any have come in, but that's correct. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: With the housing component. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And I make that motion understanding your concern, Commissioner McDaniel, that before we make, ultimately, any decision, that the concept needs to match the June 27, 2017 Page 252 need. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And giving -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It all takes time. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And giving staff direction on moving forward, necessarily, take -- I mean, they're not going to be able to do anything until we actually have a better conceptualization of the need. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: But they're working on this model now, right? MS. GRANT: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I mean, so these things can hopefully run maybe as concurrently as -- Mr. Hruby's shaking his head yes that they're running -- MS. GRANT: My view is that at least certain elements can happen in parallel. You know, we can take a closer look at, you know, who purchased the property, what we'd have to do to buy the property or transfer the property. On a couple of these that are not zoned, we can get more clear on what needs zoning. So there are definitely steps we can take short of final decisions related to the eventual model. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And what would we -- just for my own -- what would -- in giving you this direction, what are the next steps that you will be taking other than what you've already done to ascertain that these are in close proximity and easier to be facilitated for some type of housing affordability development? MS. GRANT: Well, I'm going to answer somewhat vaguely and somewhat specifically. And the somewhat vaguely is, we've got to look at each parcel, and each parcel's going to have a different, I think, set of circumstances. I'll take Bembridge. Previously, that parcel had come forward, 10 years or so ago, with various housing options. I think we would dust June 27, 2017 Page 253 that off; what worked, what didn't work. We would look at the zoning, make sure that we could do multifamily and single-family. I think we could do that kind of thing. The Randall Curve site, that, I believe, is owned by a trust. So we've got to dig into the trust agreement, we've got to look at what restrictions there may be there. We know in general what they are, but we need to get more specific. There have been some talks about potential use of the Randall Curve site. So it would be that next level of due diligence that would be appropriate for the particular parcels and the particular circumstances of each parcel. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I -- MR. OCHS: I don't suspect we're going to be complete with our analysis before you see your community housing plan, which includes the definitions and the demand and supply data that most of you are looking for. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I think we're all looking for it. MR. OCHS: Yes. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I know I'm impatient, but I know I'm looking for it also. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: You're impatient? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I'm wondering if, in concert with Commissioner Fiala's initial concerns about monies that come to us that are being brought to us through different agencies for whatever reason -- and we understand it's not for rehabbing -- but can we -- can we make an agreement with the federal government? Can we make an agreement with the agencies that are giving us this money that we put it in a trust for housing to support our program of housing, which could be defined as workforce housing with specific -- specific salary -- income levels? MR. OCHS: Yeah. Let's go through this one more time. Let's June 27, 2017 Page 254 talk about the requirements of your CDBG entitlement dollars. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, no. I understand. MR. OCHS: No, and our SHIP. This is important. If you would just indulge me for a minute, because I get this same question all the time, why can't we take our $3 million and put it towards housing at 120 to 150 percent of area median income, and the answer is... MS. GRANT: Commissioners, the federal and state money come with parameters. You take the money; you live with their parameters. I know that's not a surprise to any of you. The CDBG and HOME money, which you just approved our action plan today, approximately $2 million a year, you cannot spend that on people in general whose incomes are over 80 percent AMI. Now, there are a few exceptions here and there, but basically it's 80 percent. Now, your SHIP program where we were expecting over two, we just got final. It will be about a million-and-a-half, so still a big chunk of money. You do have a little more latitude. You can spend up to 30 percent of that one-and-a-half million for people who are above 80 percent AMI. And we -- you've told us a year or two ago, do that, so we have been. We have no choice -- MR. OCHS: That comes in the form of what, primarily, down payment assistance or some other program? MS. GRANT: Currently, our key strategies are purchase assistance, down payment assistance, owner-occupied rehabilitation, which you approved additional agreements this morning. Those are our two primary. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Talk about buckets of money. MR. OCHS: Yeah. All the programs that you -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And when you get it for one bucket, you, by law, can't take it out. MS. GRANT: That's right. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: You know, we ran into that June 27, 2017 Page 255 issue at the Housing Authority with the prior executive director's improprieties there. MS. GRANT: No. Commissioners, the stakeholder committee and staff is acutely aware of your desire to look for funds that can be locally available, made locally available however it comes, for the income levels and persons that you've talked about. One of our groups on the stakeholder committee is looking at what potential funding sources we can bring to you, and we are definitely recommending re-establishment of the Affordable Housing Trust Fund, and we're going to bring to you several different options in a ranked order, not unlike this, where you can generate revenue that you can then determine locally how you want to spend. And there may be state or federal regulations in general on that money, but it's not coming with those income limits like the grant funds come. MR. OCHS: Knowing full well that this board has already directed that none of those funds can come from taxes or fees. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right. MR. OCHS: So -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You have to get creative. MR. OCHS: Good luck, yeah. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Taxes and fees are the same. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Thanks. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: We have to plant some money trees. MR. OCHS: Yes, we surely do. MR. CASALANGUIDA: We're working on that. MR. OCHS: And I don't mean to be argumentative, Commissioners -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, no. MR. OCHS: -- but there's a lot of strings attached to these dollars, and I can't undo those. And these are entitlement grants that June 27, 2017 Page 256 come to you every year. I mean, I'm almost at the point where if you're unhappy with the strings, then let's just not accept the money because I can't -- I can't do with it what you all would like me to do, even though I would like to do that. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We actually did that at the Housing Authority when the CBDG (sic) funding was coming through because of the strings that were attached. We got to a point where the criterion that was requisite to accept those funds was so onerous, the continuing reporting, the compliance and so on, we found it better just to go off on our own, and we went and actually secured our own home improvement loan that we did privately and are in the process now of, you know, the Sections A and B -- I'm obviously very intimate out there. But the Sections A and B, we chose to do that ourselves and just did it internally so that we didn't have to mess with the strings. MR. OCHS: Thank you. But I think the program areas that you've approved and the clients that we're serving are deserving. I don't mean to suggest that, but their income qualifications are very restrictive, and we have to abide by the program rules. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And I think we're going to come around to that. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: We're still negotiating that. It is what it is. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We can negotiate it -- you can negotiate it more stringently. That was one of the discussions we had a couple of weeks ago about the SHIP program and the down payment processes and what our staff actually looks at -- MR. OCHS: Right. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- to afford that. So -- and we're working on that. So, yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do I look like I'm ready to go? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yeah. She's got the case of the June 27, 2017 Page 257 -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Don't leave yet. Don't leave yet. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah, there is a motion on that, isn't there? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. We have a motion on the floor and a second, and I guess it's to accept the report and to ask for Phase 2 in this, which means exactly what was presented to us, that things can work at parallel, okay -- MR. OCHS: We're good. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: -- as described in the agenda item. All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries 4-1. All right. I think we're -- MR. OCHS: Thank you, Commissioners. Item #15 STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS MR. OCHS: We're onto Item 15, staff and commission general communications. I have no new communications this evening, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Anything to add, County Attorney? MR. KLATZKOW: No. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Ms. Kinzel? June 27, 2017 Page 258 MS. KINZEL: No. Thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes, one item, and this has to do with the travesty -- I'm addressing my colleagues here -- the 30th Avenue fire. To our knowledge, there were five people that lost their homes, and I would like to see if I could have a head nod to give direction to staff to prepare a waiver of impact fees for those folks that are in the process of rebuilding, just to lighten some of the burden that they suffered from that fire. If you -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think they can rebuild right there. MR. CASALANGUIDA: No impact fees if it's just a replacement. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Well, one -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: In that case, I'll second your motion. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Some of them have impact fees. I don't want to name out loud, one of the -- one of the folks that lost their home in the fire. I got an email and a request, and it was close to 20-some -- and they may be rebuilding in a different location. I'm not sure. It's just they're -- they've suffered enough, so... MR. KLATZKOW: If you rebuild the house the way it was, there are no impact fees. If you expand the house -- say you had, like, a small house, and let's say you're now building a very large house, that's where the impact fees kick in. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Add a bathroom or -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: What if you didn't have the permit to build the house to begin with? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It's irrelevant. Again, you know, those are -- I mean, to me, that's a subject matter that we've been wanting to talk about for quite some time in the amnesty process to allow people to come back into the fold with unpermitted structures. June 27, 2017 Page 259 That is rampant within our community, a whole 'nother subject matter, Commissioner Taylor. But this request -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I was asking the County Attorney, not you. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Oh. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, no, if they're going to rebuild a house, they're going to have to rebuild to current code, and they'll get permitted. So that problem will take care of itself. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: But if they had an unpermitted structure, then they would be liable for impact fee -- MR. KLATZKOW: Well, if they never paid the impact fees because they bypassed the county process, yes. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: So the answer is no? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Why don't we discuss it in two weeks and get a report. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know what, talk with Nick, because Nick knows. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I have, and they said to see if you can get a head nod -- actually, I talked to Leo about it, so... MR. OCHS: Yeah. I can't do that without some direction from the Board, obviously. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't know. See, I had a friend whose house burned down also out in Golden Gate Estates. While he was sitting in the bathtub on the second floor, the whole house was on fire, and his dogs were barking. And when he got -- he finally yelled at the dogs, and he goes jumping out, and here the place is on fire. Can't get to a phone. Can't get to anything. Has no clothes. Couldn't get the dogs out of the fire. The dogs were both burned to death. And he got outside to get a neighbor. By the time the Fire Department got June 27, 2017 Page 260 there, his house was totally burned. And so he was able to rebuild. There was no -- nothing left to rebuild on. He just put new footers in. And as long as he kept the same configuration to the house, he rebuilt, and there were no impact fees. I can tell you the guy's name. MR. OCHS: Commissioners -- I'm sorry. I'm sorry, Commissioner Fiala, I didn't mean to interrupt. If I could get authorization to work with Commissioner McDaniel, identify the five homes, let me go through each one of those case by case -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That would be good. MR. OCHS: -- see what the situation is, and then we could come back and get some authorization from the full board. Will that work, Commissioner McDaniel? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It was just a head nod to give them direction to work in that regard. That's exactly where I was looking to go. Why didn't you say that in the first place? MR. OCHS: Oh, I've got to build the drama a little. It is evening time, you know. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. That's all I had. MR. OCHS: We're nighttime TV right now. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Ciao. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Don't leave yet. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Don't leave yet. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We've got to hear the rest of our colleagues. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Nothing other than I have to -- these June 27, 2017 Page 261 artists, these paintings back here that stare at us are quite amazing. That's all I had to say. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's nice. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Especially that one over there. It doesn't matter where you are in the room, it stares at you. MR. OCHS: Are you getting sleepy? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I'm getting a little punchy. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That one's starting to get tired, I think. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I do have one substantive item. I apologize. This is going to take about a half hour. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'm in. Come on. Commissioner Fiala's got to go. As long as you don't need a majority or super. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Don't need a majority. Don't need a supermajority. But we've talked about the tourist tax collections on the short-term rentals, the Airbnb stuff. And from what I understand -- and I've had some conversations with the Tax Collector that we could be losing somewhere around $200,000 per year in tourist tax collections, and that's just an estimate. That's obviously going to be more than that on an ongoing basis as more of these rentals come online. And there's a lawsuit in Palm Beach County. I've given the information to the County Attorney. And there are 39 counties that are now collecting this tax through Airbnb. And so I'd like to find a way for us to begin to do the same thing. And I'm not sure whether this Palm Beach County case will help us in that regard, but I would like the County Attorney to take a look at the Palm Beach County case, perhaps discuss this with the staff at the Tax June 27, 2017 Page 262 Collector's Office, and see if there's some way where we can ultimately get to this, because it's a big number. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I like it. Commissioner Saunders, you brought this up some time ago, and it was my understanding that we really just needed to work with our Tax Collector to work out a methodology for them to be able -- because I -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And I did have a meeting with the Tax Collector, and he's got some concerns about auditing and that sort of thing. And maybe the County Attorney can work that out with the Tax Collector and we can move this along. But I think it's a lot of money that we're -- and you know, you talk about the museums and all of these different projects, and 200,000, 300,000 a year, you know, adds up. So I'd like to give the County Attorney and the County Manager that direction to take a look at that case and explore how we can move this forward. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I like it. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I'm okay with that. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I would be interested. I've also talked to the Tax Collector, and I understand his concerns. I did this to talk about this also. If you see -- you can see how the individuals that are recorded are gaining on the motels and the hotels that are recording. And it is incumbent upon the individual to report it or the realtors, and apparently -- sorry, Commissioner McDaniel -- but according to what I'm understanding is some realtors are the ones that are the most egregious with it. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Well, it's certainly not the realtors. It's their clientele. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- that they're collecting for. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So, anyway, they're finding them, but June 27, 2017 Page 263 there's -- I know it's going to be a challenge. But I would agree. I would agree to that. All right. I like the concept of this -- of looking at the marketing plan for the TDC going forward, and so I'd like to see if we can maybe get an early peek at it. I know there's sort of a drop-dead date where they need to incorporate it and go forward with it. But I think if we could do a preliminary look -- because it's a different world out there now with what we're doing in the next couple of meetings. So I'm thinking September, October. MR. OCHS: Well, we bring you the marketing plan every year on your agenda for approval. Do you want it -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I think we need to see it a little bit -- maybe a little bit in advance to have input in it. I know that Mr. Wert has his marketing partners involved in it every year, but if you go through that list of marketing partners, there's not one -- Artis of Naples is not there, Naples Art Association is not there, the Botanical Garden is not there. There are a lot of things that could be added to it. So I'd like to see if we could just have an early look at it, if there's an agreement here. Okay? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And, Madam Chair, I think that our staff probably should be given the rest of the day off. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. And I'm going to say thank you. MR. OCHS: Did I get three there? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah, you got three. MR. OCHS: I mean, what do you want me to do? Bring you a draft before the final one or -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh, yeah. Where are we headed? Is it the girl on the beach, or is it a girl with pickleball? Just, yeah, get it to us. MR. OCHS: Aye-aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. June 27, 2017 Page 264 Congratulations to the staff, the Collier County staff. You have found four fields for December for the men's softball league, and they wanted to make sure that I thanked you publicly. And with that, thank you very much. Oh, and one more thing. Thank you for the workshop of the RFMUD. I know, I'm sorry, Commissioner Saunders. But thank you so much. It was hard work, and you stayed with it. And with that, we are adjourned. ***** **** Commissioner McDaniel moved, seconded by Commissioner Fiala and carried unanimously that the following items under the Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted **** Item #16A1 AN EASEMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF A ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, DRAINAGE, AND UTILITY EASEMENT (PARCEL 416RDUE) REQUIRED FOR THE EXPANSION OF GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD FROM EAST OF EVERGLADES BOULEVARD TO EAST OF FAKA UNION CANAL (PROJECT 60145). ESTIMATED FISCAL IMPACT: $10,027 – A PERPETUAL, NON-EXCLUSIVE ROAD RIGHT-OF- WAY, DRAINAGE, AND UTILITY EASEMENT MEASURING 43FT X 105FT AND CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 4,515 SQUARE FEE Item #16A2 RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF MAPLE RIDGE AMENITY June 27, 2017 Page 265 CENTER AT AVE MARIA, (APPLICATION PL20170000724) APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY – W/STIPULATIONS Item #16A3 RECORDING THE MINOR FINAL PLAT OF OYSTER HARBOR AT FIDDLER’S CREEK PHASE 1 - REPLAT 3, APPLICATION NUMBER PL20170000332 – LOCATED OFF OF US41 AND SANDPIPER DRIVE Item #16A4 RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF ESPLANADE GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB OF NAPLES PHASE 4, PARCEL “L”, (APPLICATION NUMBER PL20170001594) APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY – W/STIPULATIONS Item #16A5 FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF POTABLE WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES FOR THE EAGLE CREEK GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB, CRYSTAL LAKE CENTER, PL20160000397, ACCEPTING UNCONDITIONAL CONVEYANCE OF A PORTION OF THE POTABLE WATER FACILITIES, AND AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE THE UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY June 27, 2017 Page 266 (UPS) AND FINAL OBLIGATION BOND IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $7,029.18 TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR THE DEVELOPER’S DESIGNATED AGENT PERFORMANCE SECURITY – W/STIPULATIONS Item #16A6 WAIVING FORMAL COMPETITION AND AUTHORIZING THE CONTINUED USE OF CARTEGRAPH PRODUCTS AS THE SOLE SOURCE FOR THE WORK MANAGEMENT SYSTEM SOFTWARE LICENSES AND ANNUAL MAINTENANCE; UPGRADE AND ENHANCE THE CURRENT CARTEGRAPH CAPABILITIES IN A HOSTED ENVIRONMENT AND APPROVE THE NECESSARY PROFESSIONAL SUPPORT SERVICES WITH CARTEGRAPH SYSTEMS, INC. (#17-7160); AND TO CONTINUE THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT’S ENTERPRISE ASSET MANAGEMENT STRATEGIC VISION IN ALIGNMENT WITH AGENCY GOALS – AN OPERATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM TO MANAGE WORK REQUESTS, WORK ORDERS, LABOR, EQUIPMENT, MATERIAL AND INVENTORY AND ALLOWS SUPERVISORS TO CREATE, ASSIGN, AND TRACK TASKS TO FIELD WORKERS Item #16A7 A DONATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND PINE RIDGE CIVIC ASSOCIATION, INC. FOR COLLIER COUNTY TO ASSUME OWNERSHIP AND MAINTENANCE OF THE LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN TRAIL BOULEVARD PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY – WITH ANNUAL COSTS OF APPROXIMATELY $15, 000 June 27, 2017 Page 267 Item #16A8 SUBMITTING A COUNTY INCENTIVE GRANT PROGRAM (CIGP) APPLICATION WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO FUND DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF VETERANS MEMORIAL BOULEVARD FROM WEST OF LIVINGSTON ROAD TO OLD US41 – IF AWARDED THE COUNTY WOULD PROVIDE A LOCAL MATCH (ESTIMATED) OF $9,716,788 FOR A PROPOSED TWO-LANE UNDIVIDED ROADWAY WITH BIKE LANE AND SIDEWALK ON THE OTHER SIDE OF VETERANS MEMORIAL BOULEVARD Item #16A9 THE COLLIER COUNTY FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT PLAN 2016 PROGRESS REPORT AND PROPOSED ACTION PLAN FOR 2017 – A REQUIREMENT FOR THE COUNTY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM’S COMMUNITY RATING SYSTEM Item #16A10 RECOGNIZING FUNDING FROM A MULTI-YEAR JOINT PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE COLLIER METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION THAT INCLUDES FEDERAL PASS-THROUGH 49 USC § 5305(D) FUNDS TO PROVIDE THE MPO’S PARTICIPATION IN FIXED ROUTE TRANSIT PLANNING ACTIVITIES AS DESCRIBED IN THE MPO’S UNIFIED PLANNING WORK PROGRAM AND TO June 27, 2017 Page 268 AUTHORIZE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS FOR GRANT REVENUE IN THE AMOUNT OF $125,399 AND A LOCAL MATCH IN THE AMOUNT OF $13,933 – AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16A11 RECOGNIZING FY 2017/18 TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED PLANNING GRANT FUNDING IN THE AMOUNT OF $26,915 FOR THE COLLIER METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION FROM THE COMMISSION FOR THE TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED AND TO AUTHORIZE THE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENT – THE COMMISSION NOTIFIED MPO STAFF THERE WAS A 3.5% INCREASE TO THE GRANT ALLOCATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $910, EXPECTED TO BE APPROVED AT THE MPO’S JUNE 9, 2017 MEETING Item #16A12 A PROPOSAL UNDER CONTRACT #13-6164CZ WITH HUMISTON & MOORE ENGINEERS, NOT TO EXCEED $104,626, FOR CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND INSPECTION SERVICES REQUIRED TO CONSTRUCT THE DOCTORS PASS JETTY & EROSION CONTROL PROJECT; AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE THE WORK ORDER FINDING THE EXPENDITURE PROMOTES TOURISM Item #16A13 June 27, 2017 Page 269 RESOLUTION 2017-109: SUPERSEDING RESOLUTION 2012-225, TO REVISE THE SCHEDULE OF FEES, INCLUDING AN APPLICATION FEE FOR WIRELESS FACILITIES IN THE COUNTY RIGHT-OF-WAY, AS WELL AS AN ANNUAL FEE FOR COLLOCATION OF SMALL WIRELESS FACILITIES ON COUNTY UTILITY POLES (A COMPANION TO AGENDA ITEMS #16A14 & #17F) Item #16A14 RESOLUTION 2017-110: ESTABLISHING STANDARD TEMPLATES FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY USE PERFORMANCE BOND AGREEMENTS AND ACCOMPANYING PERFORMANCE BONDS, AND 2) DELEGATING THE COUNTY MANAGER OR DESIGNEE THE AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE RIGHT-OF-WAY USE PERFORMANCE BOND AGREEMENTS FOR COLLOCATING SMALL WIRELESS FACILITIES ON COUNTY UTILITY POLES, ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (A COMPANION TO AGENDA ITEMS #16A13 & #17F) Item #16A15 CONTRACT #17-7072 IN THE AMOUNT OF $343,313 WITH STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES, INC. FOR “STORMWATER UTILITY PROGRAM PHASE II”, AND AUTHORIZING THE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS (PROJECT #51144) – WILL BE USED TO EVALUATE AN ALTERNATIVE DEDICATED FUNDING SOURCE FOR ONGOING AND FUTURE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT RELATED INITIATIVES AND OPERATIONS June 27, 2017 Page 270 Item #16C1 AUTHORIZING A $180,000 BUDGET AMENDMENT TO FUND THE IMPROVEMENT OF WASTEWATER PUMP STATION 312.35 LOCATED ON WHITE LAKES BOULEVARD AND OBTAIN THE REQUIRED COUNTY PERMITS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF PROJECT NO. 70184 – INCLUDED IN THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM IN THE 2014 WATER, WASTEWATER, IRRIGATION QUALITY WATER, AND BULK POTABLE WATER MASTER PLAN/CIP PLAN Item #16C2 CERTIFICATION OF FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY REQUIRED BY THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION FOR RENEWAL OF AN OPERATING PERMIT FOR THE DEEP INJECTION WELL SYSTEM AT COLLIER COUNTY NORTH REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT – CERTIFIES THE COUNTY WILL BE UNCONDITIONALLY OBLIGATED TO HAVE THE FINANCIAL RESOURCES NECESSARY TO CLOSE, PLUG, AND ABANDON THE CLASS I INJECTION WELL AND RELATED MONITORING WELLS; CURRENT PLUGGING AND ABANDONMENT COSTS ARE ESTIMATED AT $292,790 Item #16C3 AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A RELEASE OF A UTILITY EASEMENT RECORDED IN THE OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 2150, PAGES 1006-1008 – AS DETAILED IN June 27, 2017 Page 271 THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16C4 RECOGNIZING AND APPROPRIATING REVENUE TO THE FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DIVISION COST CENTER IN THE AMOUNT OF $81,005.83 FOR THE PERIOD OF APRIL 2017 THROUGH MAY 2017 OF FISCAL YEAR 2016-2017 AND APPROVE ALL NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS – THE DIVISION OF FACILITIES MANAGEMENT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE, REPAIR, CAPITAL REPLACEMENT, AND CONSTRUCTION OF COUNTY OWNED BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES – WHEN SERVICES FALL OUTSIDE TYPICAL MAINTENANCE, FACILITIES MANAGEMENT IS REIMBURSED BY THE OTHER DIVISIONS FOR SPECIAL SERVICES Item #16D1 ELECTRONIC SUBMITTAL OF A FUNDING ASSISTANCE PROPOSAL TO THE FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION’S INVASIVE PLANT MANAGEMENT SECTION FOR CONTRACTOR SERVICES DURING FY18 TO TREAT INVASIVE EXOTIC VEGETATION WITHIN A PORTION OF FREEDOM PARK MANAGED BY THE CONSERVATION COLLIER PROGRAM – IF FUNDING IS RECEIVED, IMPS WILL PAY STATE CONTRACTORS TO TREAT INVASIVE, EXOTIC PLANTS IN FREEDOM PARK IN FY18 FOR WORK WORTH APPROXIMATELY $8,000 Item #16D2 June 27, 2017 Page 272 THE ELECTRONIC SUBMITTAL OF A FUNDING ASSISTANCE PROPOSAL TO THE FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION’S INVASIVE PLANT MANAGEMENT SECTION FOR CONTRACTOR SERVICES DURING FY 2018 TO TREAT INVASIVE EXOTIC VEGETATION WITHIN CONSERVATION COLLIER’S RAILHEAD SCRUB PRESERVE – IF FUNDING IS RECEIVED, IMPS WILL PAY STATE CONTRACTORS TO TREAT INVASIVE, EXOTIC PLANTS IN FREEDOM PARK IN FY18 FOR WORK WORTH APPROXIMATELY $20,000 Item #16D3 ELECTRONIC SUBMITTAL OF A FUNDING ASSISTANCE PROPOSAL TO THE FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION’S INVASIVE PLANT MANAGEMENT SECTION FOR CONTRACTOR SERVICES DURING FY 2018 TO TREAT INVASIVE EXOTIC VEGETATION WITHIN CONSERVATION COLLIER’S RED MAPLE SWAMP PRESERVE – IF FUNDING IS RECEIVED, IMPS WILL PAY STATE CONTRACTORS TO TREAT INVASIVE, EXOTIC PLANTS IN FREEDOM PARK IN FY18 FOR WORK WORTH APPROXIMATELY $50,000 Item #16D4 A STANDARD DONATION AGREEMENT THAT ALLOWS NEAL COMMUNITIES ON THE BRADEN RIVER, LLC TO DONATE A 1.59-ACRE PARCEL ALONG WITH A MANAGEMENT ENDOWMENT OF $6,193.05, TO THE June 27, 2017 Page 273 CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM UNDER THE OFFSITE VEGETATION RETENTION PROVISION OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SEC 3.05.07H.1.F.III. (B) AT NO COST TO THE COUNTY, AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE DONATION AGREEMENT AND STAFF TO TAKE ALL NECESSARY ACTIONS TO CLOSE – A PARCEL LOCATED IN THE WINCHESTER HEAD PRESERVE IN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES WITH A MANAGEMENT ENDOWMENT OF $6,193.05 Item #16D5 RESOLUTION 2017-111: A FY 2017/18 TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED TRUST FUND TRIP/EQUIPMENT GRANT AGREEMENT WITH THE FLORIDA COMMISSION FOR THE TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED (CTD) IN THE AMOUNT OF $684,472 WITH A LOCAL MATCH OF $76,052, AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT AND SUPPORTING RESOLUTION, AND AUTHORIZE THE REQUIRED BUDGET AMENDMENTS – FOR FUNDING TO CONTINUE THE COLLIER AREA PARATRANSIT (CAP) DOOR-TO-DOOR TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM Item #16D6 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE DEVELOPER AGREEMENT WITH NR CONTRACTORS INC. TO CLARIFY TENANT INCOME LIMITS, AFFORDABLE RENTAL RATE REQUIREMENTS, AND THE PERIOD OF AFFORDABILITY – AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY June 27, 2017 Page 274 Item #16D7 CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE STUDENT SCHOOL YEAR AGREEMENT WITH THE DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY FOR TRANSPORTATION SERVICES FOR COUNTY RECREATION PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS – EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2017 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2018 AND INCLUDES SUMMER CAMP PROGRAMS FOR THE 2017/2018 SCHOOL YEAR Item #16D8 RELEASE OF LIEN TO COMBINE RELEASE OF SIXTEEN (16) SEPARATE LIENS WITH ONE (1) DEVELOPER FOR A COMBINED AMOUNT OF $62,872.32 FOR PROPERTIES DEVELOPED BY IMMOKALEE HABITAT FOR HUMANITY, INC. THAT HAVE REMAINED AFFORDABLE FOR THE REQUIRED 15-YEAR PERIOD SET FORTH IN STATE HOUSING INITIATIVES PARTNERSHIP (SHIP) IMPACT FEE PROGRAM DEFERRAL AGREEMENTS – FOR LOTS WITHIN THE HIGHLANDS HABITAT DEVELOPMENT Item #16D9 A STATE HOUSING INITIATIVES PARTNERSHIP (SHIP) PROGRAM IMPACT FEE RELEASE OF LIEN IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,929.52 FOR THE ASSOCIATED OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING DWELLING UNIT WHERE THE OBLIGATION HAS BEEN REPAID IN FULL – FOR PROPERTY AT 4269 LITTLE LEAGUE COURT, IMMOKALEE June 27, 2017 Page 275 Item #16D10 FOUR MORTGAGE SATISFACTIONS FOR THE STATE HOUSING INITIATIVES PARTNERSHIP (SHIP) LOAN PROGRAM IN THE COMBINED AMOUNT OF $45,050 – FOR MORTGAGE SATISFACTIONS IN WHICH REPAYMENT IN FULL HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO COLLIER COUNTY Item #16D11 TWO STATE HOUSING INITIATIVE PARTNERSHIP (SHIP) SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENTS, ONE WITH RURAL NEIGHBORHOODS, INC IN THE AMOUNT OF $600,000 AND ONE WITH HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF COLLIER COUNTY, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $900,000, EACH FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF AN OWNER-OCCUPIED REHABILITATION PROGRAM; AND ACCEPTING A NINE MONTH FUNDER-GRANTED SPENDING EXTENSION FOR THE FY 14-15 ALLOCATION – STAFF ADVERTISED A REQUEST FOR APPLICATION MARCH 16, 2017 THROUGH APRIL 6, 2017 TO IMPLEMENT THE PROGRAM; NO APPLICATIONS WERE RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO THE SOLICITATION Item #16D12 RESOLUTION 2017-112: REAFFIRMING AN INVENTORY LIST OF COUNTY-OWNED REAL PROPERTY AS SURPLUS LAND IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 125.379, FLORIDA STATUTES, FOR THE BENEFIT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING June 27, 2017 Page 276 Item #16D13 THE 2017 ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT OF THE COLLIER COUNTY TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN (TDP) AND AUTHORIZE ITS SUBMISSION TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (FDOT) – TO CONTINUE RECEIVING STATE BLOCK GRANT FUNDS TO OFFSET THE COST OF THE TRANSIT SYSTEM OPERATION Item #16D14 RESOLUTION 2017-113: THE COLLIER COUNTY FY2017-2018 ONE-YEAR U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD) ANNUAL ACTION PLAN FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG), HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS (HOME), AND EMERGENCY SOLUTIONS GRANT PROGRAMS (ESG), INCLUDING THE RE-PROGRAMMING OF FUNDS FROM PREVIOUS YEARS AND ESTIMATED PROGRAM INCOME; APPROVE THE RESOLUTION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CERTIFICATIONS AND SF 424 APPLICATION FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE; AND AUTHORIZE TRANSMITTAL TO HUD Item #16D15 EXECUTION OF THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS’ (ACOE) TOLLING AGREEMENT FOR PERMIT COMPLIANCE AT GORDON RIVER GREENWAY PARK – PERMIT (ERP) SAJ-2011-00485-MMB June 27, 2017 Page 277 Item #16D16 LOAN AGREEMENTS FROM THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION'S NATIONAL MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY AND THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA MUSEUM OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANTHROPOLOGY ALLOWING THE COLLIER COUNTY MUSEUMS AND THE MARCO ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY TO BORROW SIGNIFICANT ARTIFACTS FOUND ON MARCO ISLAND DURING THE 1896 PEPPER-HEARST ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXPEDITION FOR A TEMPORARY EXHIBIT AT THE MARCO ISLAND HISTORICAL MUSEUM, AND TO APPROVE A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING OUTLINING EACH ORGANIZATION’S ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES IN HOSTING THE EXHIBITION – THERE ARE NO BETTER ARTIFACTS IN THE WORLD TO ENGAGE, INSPIRE, AND EDUCATE PEOPLE ABOUT FLORIDA’S EARLY NATIVE AMERICAN CULTURES Item #16E1 ACCEPT AN AWARD OF $103,281 IN GRANT FUNDS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, BUREAU OF EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES, WHICH REQUIRES A LOCAL MATCH OF $34,427, FOR THE PURCHASE OF TEN HYDRAULIC ASSIST STRETCHERS AND TO APPROVE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS – TO IMPROVE OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY AND INCREASE THE SAFETY OF PATIENTS AND FIELD PERSONNEL June 27, 2017 Page 278 Item #16E2 FUNDING A ONE-TIME MATCHING PAYMENT TO THE COMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF COLLIER COUNTY, INC., TO ASSIST THE AGENCY WITH WRITING A PLAN TO ESTABLISH A COMMUNITY CRISIS AND DISASTER FUND IN COOPERATION WITH LOCAL AGENCIES AND THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR VICTIMS OF CRIME IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,500 – TO IMPROVE POST-EVENT EMERGENCY RELIEF FUNDING FOLLOWING A DISASTER OR AN ACT OF MASS VIOLENCE Item #16E3 THE ADDITION OF THREE (3) CLASSIFICATIONS, THE RECLASSIFICATION OF FIVE (5) CLASSIFICATIONS, AND THE REMOVAL OF ONE (1) CLASSIFICATION IN THE 2017 FISCAL YEAR PAY & CLASSIFICATION PLAN MADE FROM APRIL 1, 2017 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2017 – AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16E4 ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS PREPARED BY PROCUREMENT SERVICES FOR CHANGE ORDERS AND OTHER ITEMS AS IDENTIFIED – A NET TOTAL OF $27,253 FOR (5) CONTRACT CHANGES AND 111 DAYS ADDED TO CONTRACTS Item #16F1 RESOLUTION 2017-114: APPROVING AMENDMENTS June 27, 2017 Page 279 (APPROPRIATING GRANTS, DONATIONS, CONTRIBUTIONS OR INSURANCE PROCEEDS) TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2016-17 ADOPTED BUDGET Item #16F2 PAYMENT UNDER AMENDMENT #1 TO CONTRACT #15-6433 WITH MILES MEDIA GROUP, LLLP FOR “PRODUCTION OF THE TOURISM GUIDE” AND MAKE A FINDING THIS EXPENDITURE PROMOTES TOURISM – COUNTY PURCHASE ORDER #4500166022 IN THE AMOUNT OF $46,500 Item #16F3 CONTRACT #17-7167, PROCUREMENT AND INSTALLATION OF COMMERCIAL KITCHEN EQUIPMENT AT THE FLORIDA CULINARY ACCELERATOR IN IMMOKALEE, TO W.H. REYNOLDS DISTRIBUTOR LLC, A SUBSIDIARY OF TRIMARK STRATEGIC EQUIPMENT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $223,960 – THE PROJECT IF EXPECTED TO BE COMPLETED BY JULY, 2017 Item #16F4 – Withdrawn (Per Agenda Change Sheet) RECOMMENDATION TO REVIEW THE DELIVERY SCHEDULE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE IMMOKALEE IMPACT FEE INSTALLMENT PAYMENT PILOT PROGRAM, WHICH WAS APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND ADVERTISED FOR ADOPTION AT A FUTURE PUBLIC HEARING AND DIRECT THE COUNTY MANAGER TO MOVE FORWARD TO EXECUTE THE PLAN June 27, 2017 Page 280 Item #16G1 THE COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY LEASING POLICY UPDATE – REVISIONS REFLECT ORGANIZATION, ECONOMIC, MARKETPLACE CHANGES, AND UPDATES TO FAA AND FDOT LEASING STANDARDS Item #16G2 RESOLUTION 2017-115: A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO RECOGNIZE REVENUE FOR FUND CENTER NO. 192370, MARCO ISLAND EXECUTIVE AIRPORT, WITHIN COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT FUND 495 IN THE AMOUNT OF $239,750 AND APPROPRIATE FUNDING TO ACCOMMODATE INCREASED JET-A FUEL PURCHASES OVER BUDGETED LEVELS Item #16H1 – Added (Per Agenda Change Sheet) RECOMMENDATION THAT (1) THE BOARD ADVERTISE A PUBLIC HEARING, TO BE HEARD AT THE JULY 11, 2017, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING, TO CONSIDER ADOPTING A RESOLUTION AS TO CDD#1 AND AMENDING THE CDD2 ORDINANCE TO INCLUDE THE SPECIAL POWER FOR THE CDDS FOR “THE CONTROL AND ELIMINATION OF MOSQUITOS AND OTHER ARTHROPODS OF PUBLIC HEALTH IMPORTANCE” BY CONTRACTING WITH AN OUTSIDE VENDOR TO ADDRESS ADDITIONAL MOSQUITO CONTROL NEEDS; AND (2) IN THE INTERIM, TO AUTHORIZE THE FIDDLER’S CREEK CDD 1 & 2 SHORT June 27, 2017 Page 281 TERM CONSENT FOR “THE CONTROL AND ELIMINATION OF MOSQUITOS AND OTHER ARTHROPODS OF PUBLIC HEALTH IMPORTANCE” TO PROCURE THE SERVICES OF POWERX TO ENGAGE IN GROUND FOGGING OF MOSQUITO LARVICIDE, FROM JUNE 26, 2017 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2017, IN ORDER TO ALLEVIATE THE IMPACT OF NUISANCE MOSQUITOES Item #16I1 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED – June 27, 2017 Page 282 Item #16J1 THE USE OF $500 FROM THE CONFISCATED TRUST FUNDS TO SUPPORT THE FLORIDA MISSING CHILDREN’S DAY FOUNDATION – FOR FUNDS USING PROCEEDS FROM CONFISCATED PROPERTY Item #16J2 THE USE OF $10,000 FROM THE CONFISCATED TRUST FUNDS TO SUPPORT THE JUNIOR DEPUTIES LEAGUE, INC. – FOR SECURITY TO DETER VANDALISM AT THE LEAGUES 33-ACRE CAMP DISCOVERY THAT INCLUDES CAMP SITES, BATH HOUSES, A FISHING PIER, AN OPEN AIR PAVILION AND INCLUDES A NEWLY EXPANDED BUILING PROGRAM Item #16J3 AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR ELECTION SERVICES FOR THE NOVEMBER 28, 2017, CITY OF EVERGLADES CITY MUNICIPAL ELECTION Item #16J4 A BUDGET AMENDMENT FROM 911 EMERGENCY PHONE SYSTEM FUND RESERVES IN THE AMOUNT OF $343,011 FOR AIRBUS SERVICES (INTERNET PROTOCOL SELECTIVE ROUTING SERVICES, LOCATION, DATABASE SERVICES, AND NETWORK SERVICES FOR THE NEXT GENERATION 911) – THE FUNDING SOURCE IS A SURCHARGE TO CELL AND LAND-LINE TELEPHONE USERS, BILLED AND June 27, 2017 Page 283 COLLECTED BY PHONE COMPANY PROVIDERS THAT ARE REMITTED TO THE STATE, AND THEN SENT TO THE COUNTY TO DEPOSIT INTO THE EMERGENCY PHONE FUND Item #16J5 COUNTY ATTORNEY TO ADVERTISE AN ORDINANCE FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATION AMENDING THE COLLIER COUNTY FALSE ALARM ORDINANCE Item #16J6 REQUEST THAT THE BOARD APPROVE AND DETERMINE VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE FOR INVOICES PAYABLE AND PURCHASING CARD TRANSACTIONS AS OF JUNE 21, 2017 Item #16J7 TO RECORD IN THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, THE CHECK NUMBER (OR OTHER PAYMENT METHOD), AMOUNT, PAYEE, AND PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE REFERENCED DISBURSEMENTS WERE DRAWN FOR THE PERIODS BETWEEN JUNE 1 AND JUNE 14, 2017 PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTE 136.06 Item #16K1 RESOLUTION 2017-116: REAPPOINTING STEPHEN F. KOZIAR (CITY OF MARCO ISLAND CATEGORY) TO THE COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO A TERM EXPIRING MAY 22, 2021 June 27, 2017 Page 284 Item #16K2 RESOLUTION 2017-117: APPOINTING CAROL PRATT (ENVIRONMENTAL/CONSERVATION CATEGORY) TO THE CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR A TERM EXPIRING FEBRUARY 11, 2020 Item #16K3 A MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $77,500 FOR THE TAKING OF PARCEL 190RDUE IN THE PENDING CASE STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. JOSE ACOSTA, ET AL, CASE NO. 15-CA-77, REQUIRED FOR GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD PROJECT NO. 60040 (FROM 8TH STREET EAST TO 12TH STREET EAST). (FISCAL IMPACT: $74,070) – FOR THE TAKING OF A 9,720 SQUARE FEET ROADWAY, DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT Item #17A RESOLUTION 2017-118: PETITION VAC-PL20170000730 TO DISCLAIM, RENOUNCE AND VACATE THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT DESCRIBED IN O.R. BOOK 4293, PAGE 4106 OF THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF AIRPORT PULLING ROAD, APPROXIMATELY ONE HALF MILE NORTH OF GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY, IN SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA June 27, 2017 Page 285 Item #17B RESOLUTION 2017-119: PETITION CU-PL20150001611 PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CONDITIONAL USE TO ALLOW AN AUTO SUPPLY STORE WITH OVER 5,000 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS FLOOR AREA IN THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE (SIC CODE 5531) WITHIN A COMMERCIAL INTERMEDIATE (C-3) ZONING DISTRICT PURSUANT TO SECTION 2.03.03.C.1.C.20 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY CONTAINING 1.24 ACRES ON LOTS 12-18, SOUTH TAMIAMI HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF US 41 AND SEMINOLE AVENUE, IN SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Item #17C ORDINANCE 2017-26: AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 97-70, AS AMENDED, PELICAN LAKE, A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, TO CLARIFY THE MEASUREMENT OF ACTUAL HEIGHT OF THE ACCESSORY ENCLOSED UTILITY/STORAGE STRUCTURE FROM THE LOWER OF FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION OF THE ENCLOSED UTILITY/STORAGE STRUCTURE OR TWELVE INCHES ABOVE THE FEMA FLOOD ELEVATION. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF COLLIER BOULEVARD (SR-951) APPROXIMATELY 1/5 MILE SOUTH OF TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST (US 41), IN SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, June 27, 2017 Page 286 FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 101.3+/- ACRES. [PDI- PL20160003463] Item #17D RESOLUTION 2017-120: PETITION VAC-PL20170001974 TO DISCLAIM, RENOUNCE AND VACATE THE COUNTY AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN A PORTION OF THE 15-FOOT UTILITY EASEMENT RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 1401, PAGE 2152 AND A PORTION OF THE 15-FOOT UTILITY EASEMENT RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 1432, PAGE 1093 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; AND APPROVE AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE A QUIT CLAIM DEED AND BILL OF SALE TO TRANSFER WASTEWATER FACILITIES FROM THE COUNTY TO THE PROPERTY OWNER. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF BAYSHORE DRIVE, APPROXIMATELY ONE QUARTER MILE SOUTH OF TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, IN SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Item #17E RESOLUTION 2017-121: APPROVING AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING CARRY FORWARD, TRANSFERS AND SUPPLEMENTAL REVENUE) TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2016-17 ADOPTED BUDGET Item #17F June 27, 2017 Page 287 ORDINANCE 2017-27: PERMITTING AND REGULATING THE PLACEMENT OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES IN THE COUNTY RIGHT-OF-WAY (COMPANION TO AGENDA ITEM #16A13 & #16A14) There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:16 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL ___________________________________ PENNY TAYLOR, CHAIRMAN ATTEST DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK ___________________________ These minutes approved by the Board on ______________________, as presented ___________ or as corrected _____________. TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC.