Loading...
CCPC Agenda 11/16/2017 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 9:00 A.M., NOVEMBER 16, 2017, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, THIRD FLOOR, 3299 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES-October 5,2017 and October 19,2017 6. BCC REPORT-RECAPS 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS: Note: This item has been continued from the October 19,2017 CCPC meeting: A. PL20160002748: A Resolution of the Collier County Planning Commission for an insubstantial change to Ordinance No. 03-23, as amended,the Livingston Village PUD, to modify provisions relating to street tree standards.The subject PUD property consists of 148.98± acres, located on the east side of Livingston Road, approximately one mile south of Pine Ridge Road in Section 19, Township 49 South, Range 29 East, Collier County,Florida. [Coordinator:Fred Reischl,AICP,Principal Planner] B. PL20160002360: A Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners proposing amendment to the Collier County Growth Management Plan, Ordinance 89-05, as amended, specifically amending the Future Land Use Element and Map Series to remove the Goodlette/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict from the Urban Commercial District and to add the Goodlette/Pine Ridge Mixed-Use Subdistrict to the Urban Mixed- Use District,to allow up to 375 multi-family residential dwelling units and 275,000 square feet of gross leasable commercial development, and furthermore recommending transmittal of the amendment to the Florida Department Of Economic Opportunity. The subject property is 31 acres and located at the northeast quadrant of Pine Ridge Road and Goodlette-Frank Road in Section 10, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Sue Faulkner,AICP,Principal Planner] C. PL20160001100: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance No. 89-05, as amended, the Collier County Growth Management Plan for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, specifically amending the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and map series by changing the designation of property from Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict, to Urban Commercial District, Logan Boulevard/Immokalee Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict to allow a maximum of 100,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area for specific commercial uses; and furthermore, recommending transmittal of the adopted amendment to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity; providing for severability and providing for an effective date. The subject property is located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Immokalee Road and Logan Boulevard in Section 28, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, consisting of 18.6± acres. [Coordinator: Corby Schmidt,AICP,Principal Planner] D. PL20160001089: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance Number 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code,which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from a Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district to a Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) zoning district for the project to be known as the Logan/Immokalee CPUD, to allow a maximum of 100,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area for specific commercial uses, for property located on the southeast corner of Immokalee Road and Logan Boulevard, in Section 28, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida,consisting of 18.6±acres;and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator:Nancy Gundlach,AICP,Principal Planner] 10. NEW BUSINESS 11. OLD BUSINESS 12. PUBLIC COMMENT 13. ADJORN CCPC Agenda/Ray Bellows/jmp October 5, 2017 Page 1 of 98 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, October 5, 2017 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Stan Chrzanowski Patrick Dearborn Diane Ebert Edwin Fryer Karen Homiak Joe Schmitt ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney Tom Eastman, School District Representative October 5, 2017 Page 2 of 98 P R O C E E D I N G S CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. May I have your attention, please. Welcome to the October 5th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If everybody will please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Will the secretary please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. Good morning. Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Chrzanowski? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Fryer? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mrs. Ebert is here. Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ms. Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Schmitt? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And, Mr. Dearborn? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Addenda to the agenda. We have a long agenda today, and I've already asked staff to consider the items towards the end, if we run out of time or we're getting close to our cutoff point today, to continue those to another date, and we're looking at the 19th of October. Most likely the AUIR will end up being continued to that date, but the assurance of that won't be until after we see where we are at lunchtime. We need a preservation standard as an ordinance for the LDC. I don't know if we'll get that today or not. I know a couple people have to leave before we -- before late this afternoon, so we're going to have to monitor things as we go along. The goal would be to get the four public hearings, the one for Cirrus Pointe, the one for the Cleary RPUD, then the one for Vanderbilt and Collier Boulevard commercial subdistrict with its PUD done today. And I know there are a lot of public speakers. We'll certainly accommodate everybody. We've just got to work our way to that point. In that regard, I'd like to ask the Planning Commission, I'd like to suggest that if we don't get to a more convenient time, for example, if we're about to start the AUIR at 3:30 or 4:00, I would suggest we cancel it and move it to the -- or not cancel it, but continue it to the 19th and we do it all in one day. And I'd suggest about a 4:00 cutoff. Does that work for everybody? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know we'll lose some people before that time. So if we lose a quorum ahead of time, that will have to take care of it. Ray, is there any other changes to the -- is there any changes to the agenda that I don't know about? MR. BELLOWS: No changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that brings us to Planning Commission absences. Our next meeting is October 19th. Does anybody know if they can't make it on the 19th? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Looks like we'll have a quorum then. Which brings us to the approval of the minutes. Now, we've got the July 20th minutes. We'll start with those first. Is there any changes? If not, is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Karen. October 5, 2017 Page 3 of 98 COMMISSIONER EBERT: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Diane. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: August 17th minutes, same. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Move their approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Mr. Fryer. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Karen. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. That takes us to BCC report and recaps. Ray? MR. BELLOWS: There were no land use items heard during the month of September. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was a good move. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that takes us to chairman's report. And I normally pass on chairman's report, and today basically I'm going to, too. We're all tired. We have canceled our meetings in September to be here today. I know that many of us are still reacting to the mess that Irma left us. There's a lot of stress going on with a lot of people. I ask for your patience. We'll get through this today. I may be a little slower, and our court reporter's going to appreciate my discussion being slower today. It's been a long 30 days, and September was fun for nobody. So I do look forward to finishing up at least the issues we've continued to today, and we'll get through this agenda. And with that, we'll move directly into our first item. It's a consent item. It's from our last meeting. Basically, consent is something just to acknowledge that the direction of this Planning Commission was adhered to in the documents that we've now reviewed. ***It's PL20170000007. It's the Briarwood PUD. This isn't an item for public discussion. We had October 5, 2017 Page 4 of 98 that last time. This is strictly to acknowledge that the directions provided last time were adhered to. Mr. Mulhere, I see you're standing there. Did you have something you wanted to add? MR. MULHERE: I was going to go through the changes, but if that's not necessary -- I know you have a busy agenda. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, it's not -- we don't normally do that. We've read the changes. I'm hoping everybody here has. So I simply want to ask the Planning Commission, is there anything in those changes that the Planning Commission feels is inconsistent with our direction? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Not me, Mr. Chairman, but I do have a question that I want to ask. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And I'll ask the indulgence of the commission, because it's a question I would asked had I been here at the last meeting, but I think the answer to my question is important to the completeness of the record that we're making. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We just can't take a vote on something new, so -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: This has to do with 5.1 of the GMP, the Transportation Element. And I noticed that, of course, there was a transportation study that was accomplished, and it was informative. I also noticed, though, that in the staff report there was a statement to the effect that in staff's judgment the plan complies with the GMP, is consistent with the GMP. Now, just for the sake of comparison, when you look at the staff report in the Cirrus presentation, it goes into greater detail. It talks about being consistent not only with the GMP but more specifically the most recent AUIR in the current year and then the five years of the planning period. And I'm just looking for staff, if they wouldn't mind, if they're able to do so, please complete the record by indicating that that was the case in Briarwood as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm going to turn to the County Attorney's Office. This is a consent hearing. You're opening up a new issue for discussion and testimony. We normally don't do this on consent. I would rather keep this as clean as possible. To answer your question, you could work with staff and talk to them separately. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chairman, I understand. And with all due respect, I checked this with Heidi to be sure it was in order. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Heidi's not the chairman. Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLATZKOW: The purpose of the consent, as was crafted by you and me a couple years ago -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. KLATZKOW: -- was to ensure that the changes that were requested by the Planning Commission were, indeed, put in by the applicant. It was limited -- and it was a very limited process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I agree, and I'd rather not open the door to any new information that would have caused problems going forward, and this record always goes to the Board of County Commissioners. Ed, you've got access to commissioners. You can explain your concern to them. I don't want to open something up for a discussion that's outside the consent purview. Heidi, did you want to say something? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah. I apologize. Mr. Fryer asked me if he could ask a question. I didn't understand what the question was, so I should have asked him. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I appreciate that. So with that, let's move back to the language that's in front of us for consent. Is there -- anybody have any changes that this language needs that was inconsistent with our prior discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only thing I would suggest is on Page 21, Item D2, it says, buildings will be constructed with a concrete masonry unit construction or concrete construction, and then the words "and stucco." I'm not sure the "and stucco" was something that was necessarily meant to be included. There are many other types of finishes that are actually better than stucco, and I wouldn't want to see your project having to be restricted because of those two words. October 5, 2017 Page 5 of 98 So my suggestion is that wasn't part of the intent is to restrict an improvement of construction, so I don't think those two words were necessarily part of what we needed to see here. And anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Other than that change, if there are no others, is there a motion to approve on consent? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Subject to that change. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Karen, seconded by Diane. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. Thank you. MR. MULHERE: Thank you. I hope you enjoyed my presentation. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It was very good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It was nice and short, Bob. ***Next item up is the first regular agenda item. It's the advertised public -- UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Excuse me. Could I say something? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, sir. Please refrain until you're called to speak. Next item up is the advertised public hearing. It's PUDA-PL201700001626. It's the Cirrus Pointe RPUD. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Disclosures on the Planning Commission. We'll start with Mr. Eastman. MR. EASTMAN: None other than the letters that are part of the public record and emails, part of the public record as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah, a bunch of emails from neighboring interests and a long conversation with Karen Bishop. Karen and I used to work together at Coastal Engineering when we were the engineers for Lloyd Sheehan for the Windstar project, and I remember working with Mike Fernandez on this site after that, and I also had a long conversation with Donna Fiala and some staff members. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Emails only. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Emails only? Okay. Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I talked with residents of Bayshore, I had conversations with Commissioner Fiala, I have spoke with staff, and I have a lot of emails. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I have spoke with some people at the CRA, various residents of October 5, 2017 Page 6 of 98 Bayshore, Commissioner Fiala, Commissioner Taylor, and the applicant at some point over the last month or two, the applicant's representative, at least, and, of course, staff, and I've read all the emails and received all the emails everybody else probably has. And all my emails that I'd received, I recopied and sent to the planner anyway. So you've all probably got them. Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I've had emails, I've had some communication with Commissioner Fiala, and I did ask a quick question to Mike Bosi and Rich Yovanovich about -- because we had this, like, three or four years ago. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yep. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Communications with staff, specifically spoke to Mike Bosi, spoke to Commissioner Fiala about this. As the former administrator for Community Development, I'm very familiar with this going back all the way back to when Jim Fields first submitted the application, so I'm very familiar with the initial action and the subsequent rezonings up until when I departed the county staff in 2009, and also have numerous emails to include an email specifically from -- well, from the various letters of objection that we received, and Nancy forwarded those. And the other -- staff and others have forwarded those, so -- and I had one email from Karen Bishop, which I responded and said I had no questions. Other than that, that's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Patrick? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Just the emails you all referenced. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And before we start, I'd like to let the public know how the Planning Commission's responsibilities are here. We have two issues to deal with. One is the Planned Unit Development, which is the PUD. There is a change to the Planned Unit Development. The Planning Commission is primarily involved with the Land Development Code and the Growth Management Plan. The change to the Planned Unit Development certainly is something that we are involved with. We will certainly weigh that item. I'm going to suggest to the Planning Commission that we vote on the Planned Unit Development and a separate vote separate from the agreement, the affordable housing agreement. The affordable housing agreement is provided as part of the Planned Unit Development, but it's not necessarily tied to the LDC the way the PUD is. So the recommendations or considerations that we have on the housing agreement, I would suggest that this board vote on that separately so we have two separate votes separating out the two issues, unless someone has an objection. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I have a question on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I don't ever recall having the Planning Commission having a vote on an affordable housing agreement. Maybe I'm wrong. Is it -- is that something that we typically vote on separately, or isn't that inherently part and -- of the PUD because the PUD is dependent -- the density is dependent on the agreement? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's correct, it is, but the terms and criteria, which that agreement consists, are not spelled out necessarily in the LDC. The agreement itself has many multiple pages. They're not -- the criteria for that is not an LDC issue as much as the fact that it's provided to show that the density has been approved based on that document. It doesn't matter to me, necessarily, but I think we've got two separate conditions here, and I was suggesting we look at them separately if -- I don't know of a downside to that. Joe, do you? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No. I'm just trying to figure out what we as the Planning Commission do, because that's something the Board -- it's a Board decision. We -- of course, we -- as you know, we just forward our recommendation. I'm just puzzled because wouldn't we have to vote on the -- come to an agreement on the -- the density bonus agreement because that's the underpinnings of the entire density approved. It's already approved in existing zoning right now for 104 units. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 108. October 5, 2017 Page 7 of 98 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: 108, sorry. So that zoning's already there. It already exists. And we're not here today to amend that -- we're basically amending the size of the units and whether they're going to be owner occupied or rental. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, actually, I don't think -- the way they're rented or occupied isn't an LDC issue relevant to the PUD, so the only issue that is relevant to the PUD is the square-footage reduction. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Square-footage requirement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then the agreement itself changes all kinds of parameters. But if you look at criteria for the Planning Commission to review something, we don't have a criteria in the LDC on how to review a density bonus agreement. That's done by the Housing Department. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, did you want to say something? I can tell you're anxious. MR. BOSI: Thank you, Chair. Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning Director. Just for a little bit of a clarification, the proposed changes within the density bonus agreement does not affect the density being requested. The density being requested is identical to what's currently within the PUD; and, therefore, I think what the Chair is trying to point out, it's the specific allocation of income-targeted demographics and ownership characteristic that's part of the affordable housing density bonus agreement that's outside of the LDC purview, and I think that's why that separation is being suggested as two separate actions, because the density allocated within the PUD is not being requested to be changed, which is tied to the density bonus. I think that's where the distinction is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And I understand that. I clearly agree with what you said. I'm just trying to determine, what criteria are we to use now in evaluating the density bonus? You said there's nothing in the LDC, so it's a matter of just our opinion? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think it's presented to us to provide a recommendation to the Board on that document as well as the PUD. I don't know how we can evaluate a document we don't have criteria for. So I guess it's going to be our general consensus based on the testimony we have today, and both from the applicant and the public, and we'll just make a recommendation. This board's weight is with LDC and Growth Management Plan issues. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the density agreement is not necessarily consistent with those documents in regards to how they're spelled out to be handled. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MR. KLATZKOW: But you also review compatibility. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. KLATZKOW: And I think that's at the heart of this. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I noticed that there was not a red-lined copy of the 2017 revised agreement against the 2008 agreement the way there had been the 2008 against the 2005. So I don't know how I could vote for or against that agreement without knowing exactly what the changes are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And, again, that is not a document that we normally deal with. So I wasn't in a position to demand a strikethrough on something that is outside what we normally get. I understand your argument. I don't disagree with you, by the way, Ned, so -- but we'll work through it with the testimony from the applicant today, and hopefully they'll walk us through the differences along with the Housing Department. So with that, we'll just move ahead. I've spelled out how we're going to it. And, by the way, ladies and gentlemen, everybody will get an opportunity to speak that wants to speak on this issue. We will break at about 10:30 for the court reporter for 15 minutes, then we're break at lunch about -- close to noon. So with that, Karen, it's all yours. MS. BISHOP: We're trying to get used to the system for a second here. For the record, Karen Bishop representing the applicant, Macey (phonetic) Creek and Vestcor. This October 5, 2017 Page 8 of 98 is Ryan Hoover from Vestcor who will be clarifying the affordable housing agreement specifically, because that's what he does, and I will go through the PUD revision and some of the things that we've done in the neighborhood to look at. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. BISHOP: Okay. This property exists within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle area, so it's subject to the CRA's goals and objectives. The property is located at the intersection of Bayshore and Thomasson on the northeast corner. It has been vacant for a very long time. The original PUD was done in 2005. There was a change in 2008 to the affordable housing agreement. The criteria that we're looking to change within the PUD is to modify the -- to reduce the minimum square footage from 1,526 to a minimum of 650. Now, really what we're looking to do is have a range to allow different size units so you have different levels of rents. But 1,526 was -- you know, is too restrictive to be able to provide a better range. As a part of this reduction, we will also be taking out the parking underneath the building, so that reduces the overall heights, and allow for some open space with this also with the reduction of the square footage of the units. We've highlighted here some of the commitments that we are -- that this PUD is required to do as a part of the MSTU for Bayshore. As you can see, that there are certain architectural criteria that's required that we will adhere to as well as some costs for improvements along Bayshore and then, of course, landscaping and improvements along Thomasson Drive. Okay. Now, Ryan's going to discuss the affordable housing agreement, because it is a little complicated, so he's better at this than I am. MR. HOOVER: Okay. Again, my name is Ryan Hoover. I'm with Vestcor. So the -- or the most recent, I guess, in 2005, I believe, the affordable housing density bonus agreement was amended, and it was approved for 108 owner-occupied three-bedroom units at 1,526 square feet and of which 32 units are for occupants that were making less than or equal to 60 percent. It was also for sale only. In 2008 -- I'm sorry. This is the last time. In 2008 is when it was amended to 108, still 108 occupied, three-bedroom units at 1,526, but the change is that they were going to have 44 units for occupants that were less than or equal to 80 percent AMI. Still a for-sale product at that point. This just shows you actually the percent AMI and then the density bonus based on that percentage. And you can see it's highlighting -- the arrow there is pointing to the workforce, which is the 61 to 80 percent of AMI. The amendment that we are proposing is basically to have two options, and the first option is to have the owner-occupied affordable workforce units, and then Alternative B is to allow for rental. And the selection of A or B has to come before the first building permit is issued, and that would have to control the entire buildout. So you'd have to make that decision before anything starts and you have to stick with it once it's done. A achieves the density bonus by setting aside the 44 units for occupants that are less than or equal to 80 percent. That's no change from what's currently approved. And then B is just setting aside the 44 units for occupants that are less than or equal to 60 percent AMI. This shows you the rents for the 60 percent AMI level, and the number of those 44 units and the breakdowns of ones, twos, and threes, as Karen mentioned, we have a minimum because we would have one-bedroom units. We have ones, twos, and threes. And this shows you the rents for -- the maximum rents for people that are at equal to or less than 60 percent AMI. This shows you -- this is from the National Low Income Housing Coalition showing you what someone has to make. And the most expensive areas in Florida, you can see that Naples is No. 5. So the Collier County median income is 68,300, and this shows you at 60 percent and 80 percent, what one, two, three, or four people in a household can make to be qualified to live in the unit. So just to clarify, so one person at 60 percent can make $29,280, and one person at 80 percent can make $39,040. And then the next -- the bottom of this slide just shows you the different rents for both of those October 5, 2017 Page 9 of 98 different AMI levels. This shows a two-and-a-half mile circle around Macey Creek. MS. BISHOP: I think the purpose of what we did there was to show that within this two-and-a-half mile circle, the majority of the jobs here are what would be considered service industry jobs. There are some lawyers who make a little bit more money, but mostly the industry here is service industry, so they're not reaching the higher levels of income. MR. HOOVER: This is the existing -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pull the mike towards you. MR. HOOVER: Oh. I'm sorry. This is the existing master plan which we would be incorporating our site plan into. This is just a rendering of a proposed building. Some of the amenities are activity room, pool, a dog park area, barbecue picnic area, Internet cafe, and a fitness center for the residents. And just a little bit about Vestcor, the development company, been -- formed in 1983, have developed or acquired close to 14,000 multifamily units; about 6,700 were market rate, and about 7,000 have been affordable over that time. We currently own over 5,000 affordable units, and more than 30,000 of -- or 3,000 of our affordable units are over 10 years old. That's just to kind of show how long we hold on to ours. We don't come in and build something and then sell it and move on to the next one. We own two communities in Naples: Noah's Landing, which is 264 units, built in 2002; and Tuscan Isle, 298 units, which we acquired in 2014. We have a third-party management company, WH Reality Services. And the principal key executives, we make quarterly site visits to all properties in the portfolio, and we own and operate the communities long term. And some of the leasing requirements are residents are required to earn two-and-a-half times their rent. They have to have a good leasing history over the last three years, six months of continuance employment, credit and criminal reports are required, and no more than two people per bedroom. This kind of shows you that we can't just let anybody live in the units. It's pretty important to us that we know who's living there. MR. KLATZKOW: Is that somewhere in the PUD amendment? MR. HOOVER: The rental requirements? MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. MR. HOOVER: I don't think -- MR. KLATZKOW: So this has nothing to do with this application? MR. HOOVER: Well, it's what we're proposing. MR. KLATZKOW: But you're not -- but it's not a -- you've got no written requirements to do any of this, do you? MR. HOOVER: Okay. MS. BISHOP: What he's explaining is that the current -- he's got the two projects, Noah's Landing and Tuscan Isle, and this is how they run those projects that are existing, affordable housing projects. So this is the same thing -- the same criteria that they utilize for those projects will be the same criteria they'll utilize for this project. MR. KLATZKOW: Are you willing to make a written commitment to the Board on that? MS. BISHOP: That's what you do now. I'm assuming that would be fine. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, just -- MS. BISHOP: It's a part of the affordable housing agreement itself. I mean, this is the criteria for that. So I don't think there's an issue with those kinds of items. It's what they do as standard operating procedures. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Some of the particulars you've mentioned are incorporated into a paragraph describing the construction and the type of units that you're providing. Is this all -- I think the question, is all that in there? Because that is in the affordable housing density bonus agreement that the Board would eventually review. MR. HOOVER: Did you say the type of construction? October 5, 2017 Page 10 of 98 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you talk about the -- I think it's block -- you talk about the amenities, the amenity list that you had there. MR. HOOVER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's air conditioned space, the amount of air conditioned space, things like that. MR. HOOVER: That's all -- that would all be part of the plan. That wouldn't change. I mean -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's already in the affordable housing density bonus is what I'm saying. MR. HOOVER: I'm actually not sure. I believe that is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I can read it to you when we get there. MR. HOOVER: Okay. It's in -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's put it this way: There was, and if it isn't there now, I must have read the wrong one, but I will -- MS. BISHOP: It's there. MR. HOOVER: Well, yeah. When we had -- it shows the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought I underlined it -- MR. HOOVER: -- the number of bedrooms. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. And that they're air conditioned space, and then the amenities going with each alternative. You have two alternatives listed there. MR. HOOVER: Okay. Yeah, I don't know that we have air conditioned space on there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, we'll get to that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm not sure I heard the answer to the County Attorney's question. Would the applicant be willing to make a contractual undertaking or a legal enforceable undertaking of some kind to the county to maintain those standards? MR. HOOVER: And you're talking about the rental requirements? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah, like the background check. MR. HOOVER: Yes. We have to do that, yes. We would do that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So that will be in something that will come back to us at the consent hearing? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We won't be having a consent on this one. There's no time to have a consent. This has got to be heard by the Board at their next meeting. There's only one change to the LDC -- I mean, to the PUD, and I'll get Karen to verify that, and that's the main part of what today's meeting is for this board, and then the rest of it we're going to certainly render a recommendation on, but we're not looking at a consent. We don't have the time. MS. BISHOP: So we'll move on to the -- MR. HOOVER: We're done. MS. BISHOP: Well, we think we're done, but I was -- we have some other slides to show you the properties they already have and the type of people that are living in there and their last renters, which may be of interest. So I'm going to go through these just quickly. Okay. This is Noah's Landing. This is what the buildings look like. We can go -- this would be an interior unit. MR. HOOVER: This is a 15-year-old property. MS. BISHOP: This is the amenities there. MR. HOOVER: This is all 60 percent or less AMI. MS. BISHOP: Okay. So the last 20 move-ins at this project, this shows you, were dental assistants, electrical technicians, pharmacy techs, teachers, and this is how much they made, their average household income, as well as how many people are living there. Tuscan Isle is the other one that they acquired. Again, here's a living unit, the amenity package, club, your common area/club areas. And, again, here is the last 20 that moved into these -- this particular project. All -- their average household income at 32,000; the average household size, 2.4; and then the October 5, 2017 Page 11 of 98 occupations of those that are living there at this point. So if you have any other questions. I do want to verify that the only change to the PUD is the minimum square footage for that unit. That's the only change we've made. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And to get into the issue of what's in the agreement, there is an Exhibit C to each alternative agreement, Appendix C. It's a developer application for affordable workforce housing density bonus, and it's in that exhibit that, under the paragraph seven, you describe separately under each alternative what these units are. This particular one says the three-bedroom units will have minimum air conditioned area of 1,526 square feet, garage parking with two parking stalls for each unit, and also house storage areas for each unit. And it goes on and on and on. So are you telling me that's not now part of what you're proposing here today? MR. HOOVER: Well, I think what you meant -- that was Option A, correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was Option A, but Option B has similar language. I just want to make sure that -- MR. HOOVER: You're correct; that's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then it is there. Okay. Now, questions from the Planning Commission of the applicant? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have one or two. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: The classifications of homeowners by income level, there seems to be some confusion or at least inconsistencies in the way they are referred to in the materials. And if I'm not incorrect here, the categories are extremely low, very low, low, workforce, median, moderate, and gap, yet there is reference to low workforce in your materials, and I'm not sure what that means and how that fits into the approved classifications. MR. HOOVER: Okay. Are you talking about this chart? COMMISSIONER FRYER: It's the one that appears on Page 3 of 49 or Page 19 of the thumb drive. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think part of what Ned may be getting to is what I had discovered. You did consistently refer to the bonus agreement as it's in the -- referred to the LDC. In the LDC it says it's either affordable-workforce-gap housing density bonus. You consistently referred to it as affordable workforce housing density bonus. Not much of a twist, but when we're talking about different terminologies, it does mix it up a little bit. The agreement wasn't consistent in the reference to the LDC. That may be where some of the confusion is. At least when I was reading it, you kept saying workforce housing. Workforce housing generally means the 61 to 80 percent, but if you look at the title in the LDC, it's -- it doesn't match up necessarily to just that category. I think you defined that you were still going to do more than that. But now to get back to Ned's question, that may be where some of the confusion. It was on my part, at least, in trying to understand the agreement. Is that -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah, that is a large part of it; however, in addition to that, I guess I'm having trouble visualizing what segment of the population of the workforce, particularly if you're looking at the people that we frequently talk about as we're attempting to attract to the area firefighters, et cetera, teachers. It's hard for me to visualize who would be living in a 650-square-foot house -- unit, rather, with a family or the beginnings of a family if they're really part of the workforce versus not part of the workforce -- MR. HOOVER: Well, yeah, I understand your question there. So there's ones, twos, and threes. So if someone had a family, they'd, you know, be able to live in a two or three if it was more suitable for their needs. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Who would be living in the one? Because you're calling them workforce people. MR. HOOVER: Single people or maybe a couple. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Six hundred fifty square feet is awfully small. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Hotel room. COMMISSIONER FRYER: It is a hotel room. Okay. Well -- October 5, 2017 Page 12 of 98 MR. HOOVER: We have, I'd say, probably a thousand, I don't know, one-bedroom units across the state, and they're all occupied, and some people like it. It may not be for everybody. I mean, I don't -- it is rather small, especially if you have a family, but that's why there's only two people allowed per bedroom, so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions, Ned, or you're finished with yours? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Let me see if I have another. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Meantime, Stan, did you have anything? I saw your -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. I'm an engineer, so I tend to oversimplify things, because I can't stand complex thinking. And from everything that I've seen and read and talked to people, it seems like the big issue here is nobody in the neighborhood wants very small units because they rent very cheaply. And so I asked the people at housing for some kind of analysis, and what I got was an analysis saying, yeah, affordable housing is spread all over the county. But as part of that analysis, they sent me a chart that showed that basically 45 percent of the very low rental units are clustered in that one area. There's as much in that one area as in -- as in Districts 2, 4, and 5 combined almost. So it does seem like the people have a point that you're trying to put -- it's not the affordable housing. It's the small-unit affordable housing that Ned is talking about. You're trying to put too much of it in one area, and I can see their point in objecting to that. You know, if you want to spread it around, you know, instead of building a parking garage in Naples, you could build affordable housing in Naples, but that's not going to happen. And, you know, the very small unit affordable housing is just -- I don't know. I think that's the main point why most of these people are in the audience, and you're getting afield with everything else. And like I said, I tend to avoid the complexities here, but I think that's the main issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I don't doubt what you're saying, but we've still got to go through all the documents that were presented to us and critique them, so... MS. BISHOP: I just put up another graphic that talks -- that shows current salaries at the government. And so you can see that there are people, like, work at the library, makes 10 bucks an hour, their salary level is pretty low. So trying to find rent -- you know, if you live with somebody else, that may be helpful. But if you live by yourself, it can be a challenge to find a place. The other ones we looked at are -- here's the hospital salaries along with some other county stuff, and then the Naples Botanical Gardens. So although I appreciate that 650 square foot, you know, sounds pretty small, and it actually is pretty small. I mean, I live in a thousand square foot, and I consider that kind of small. But I'm fine with it, you know, just one person. So I think it gives people a choice on where they can go and what they can afford, because now I think it's -- like the going rate is what, 30 percent of your income they're saying you can put towards your housing. Well, you know, if you're making $12 an hour, you can afford your rent, you might have issues with transportation or some other issue. So having something you can afford, I think, will help you move to the next level, to the next place. And when you're starting out, you -- the theory being is you have to start somewhere. And what we found through some of the ULI information that was provided is that -- hold on. Visualizer. Okay. According to this, the -- it shows that employees -- 37 percent of the government employees are living more than 20 minutes away from their job. It also shows -- it shows that 52 percent of the county employees are driving longer than 20 minutes each way from the main campus. So having housing that would be closer to them would be a benefit not just for traffic on the roads but also, you know, just being able to spend more time at home instead of on the road driving. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm not sure -- are you finished answering Stan's question first? MS. BISHOP: I think so. Stan? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, Stan expressed it better than I did. What I was really after was the concept of concentration. Certainly, you know, one bedroom 650-square-feet rental units are appropriate in our society, really everywhere. October 5, 2017 Page 13 of 98 But with respect to what this proposal might do in terms of concentration, is it really consistent with the vision that has been repeatedly expressed by the planners and the governmental officials in Collier County as to what they want to see in the Bayshore area. Now, that's my -- that's sort of a rhetorical question that I'm asking myself and others. But my specific question to you, and I think it's my last one, has to do with what the developer's response was to the CRA 5-1 vote that took place on the 5th of September. I realize that's not binding, but it's something that I think deserves your considered response and possibly modification of your proposal. MS. BISHOP: Well, I mean, it's hard to have an answer. I mean, the CRA, we were there, we spoke with the CRA. I know that they have a vision. I mean, I read their -- I read all of the documentation on their goals and expectations. And although those kinds of details are not in the text, it was clear that this was -- that they had some issues with what we were proposing. And I can't -- I appreciate their thoughts, and I'm not quite sure. I mean, this is the project that we feel is going to work here. The one thing I see is that although this was originally proposed at a larger square footage all three-bedroom owner occupied in 2005, 12 years, nothing has happened on that property. So that would indicate to me that perhaps the market isn't going that way. I mean, I know there's been other proposals a few years ago for a total different change, but what I see is that this is an opportunity for a good example of how this can work. This will be a new project. It's not old. It's -- they'll have a flexibility in there. And although there were one-bedrooms, there are two-bedrooms and three-bedrooms, too. So it's a mix for this project. And I'm not sure how to make the CRA feel better other than knowing that this is something that you have one owner, one group that's going to be maintaining it. They have a good track record for their projects and for their maintenance, so I can only try to give that level of comfort, but I don't know that I can take away all of their concerns. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So, in other words, no change has been made from your proposal as a result of that vote? MR. HOOVER: No, no change has been made. But I will say real quick that of all the units, there's -- of 108 units, there's 18 one-bedrooms, and there's 48 two-bedrooms, and 42 three-bedrooms. So the minimum square footage is for 18 of the units. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: You talked about a proposal a few years ago. What happened to that proposal? Wasn't that proposal approved by the CRA? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It was the Solostice (phonetic) project, and it ran into a roadblock concerning the monetary monies distributed to this property, and the Board never passed it at that point. There was 300 and some odd thousand dollars -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: 350. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- loaned -- of a grant provided. I don't remember all the details right now, but I think that's what stalled it at that point. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And that's what we're trying to get through this time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We haven't gotten to that discussion yet, but that's a question that I certainly had -- was going to talk about a little bit. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: The Board didn't hear it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, they did. They heard it and they didn't -- well, they discussed it, but I don't know if they officially heard the presentation. Yeah, they did discuss it because they decided not to let it move forward without that money being addressed, that's my understanding. Joe. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Maybe a different board would want to hear it this time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Just in followup to Ned's question. My understanding, in all the correspondence I read, the CRA is against the project, flat, the 108 units, and there was no support for the project. That's fine. But the zoning already exists at 108 units, and there's nothing we can do about that. October 5, 2017 Page 14 of 98 They already exist. The existing zoning is there. And correct me if I'm wrong, and our speakers may clarify that, but it was my understanding, like I said, and everything I read was just against the project, flat. But we can't do anything about the existing zoning. It exists now at 108 units, and 44 units of those are affordable. We're -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Fifteen hundred square feet, though. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: At three-bedroom units, yes. Now we're dealing with a change in the floor area ratio or the number of -- the units stay the same. We're just dealing with whether they're going to be -- what size rooms they're going to be or what size units; is that correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've had numerous discussions with the CRA. They're concerned about the changes. They -- 108, I think everybody knows, was on this site. It's going from owner-occupied to rental -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Rental. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and from workforce at 60 to 80 down to low income, which is a different standard, and the size of the units. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's -- I don't think the -- I haven't heard the 108 brought up as a problem, because that's already a given. It's nothing we can do anything about. That's been there for a long period of time. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It's the low-income rental. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And in regards to the Land Development Code, again, I'm looking for guidance from -- either from the County Attorney or from the planner. We have no criteria other than maybe compatibility to decide how those units are marketed, whether they're rental or they're owner occupied. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, no. You've got an existing PUD. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. An existing PUD was -- I mean, basically the county gave the developer 340,000 or $350,000 in HUD monies -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. MR. KLATZKOW: -- with the promise that it would get 108 owner-occupied workforce housing units. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That did not happen? MR. KLATZKOW: That did not happen. And you've got an applicant coming with an amendment to the PUD saying, well, we want the alternative to do a lower income rental, okay. It's a compatibility issue. That's all it is. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But in regards -- and I'll ask the question now since we brought up the monies. Of course, we -- the federal government essentially recouped that loss because they did not give the county in subsequent years the -- either with CBDG (sic) or HUD money. So, in essence, we lost that money. MR. KLATZKOW: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Is there any type of action in this application that's going to recoup the county's loss, opportunity loss? MR. KLATZKOW: At the end of the day, the bargain that was made for the county is we will give you $350,000, and you will give us this housing. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And that didn't happen. MR. KLATZKOW: If that happens, we will have reaped the benefit of the bargain. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. MR. KLATZKOW: For this application to go through, the Board's going to have to figure out whether or not they wish to waive it because this -- they're happy with the proposal, or they don't want to waive it. That's a -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But I saw nothing in this application with regards to making any type of repayment to the lost -- October 5, 2017 Page 15 of 98 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, Joe, if they provide the affordable housing, no repayment would be needed. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that was the purpose of the grant in the first place. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Got it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the other option is, I've heard -- I was told this, I can't remember by who, that they could simply declare bankruptcy under the current ownership and completely remove that grant because it's a second, not a prime. MR. KLATZKOW: But that doesn't matter, because the benefit of the bargain is the 108 affordable housing units, and that's the current zoning. So whoever develops this is going to have to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they have to do the portion that the grant applies to, which is the 44, I believe, of the 108 have to be affordable. And, see, that's what they're saying they're going to do. Now, I think the discrepancy still goes back -- it's not the money. It's not any of that. It's really the issue of the changes of the affordability sector and the sizing and the other issues that they're asking for and whether it's owner occupied or rental. Some of those fall under purview of the Land Development Code, which is what we're here to discuss, and others fall under that rental agreement. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you finished, Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: One last question, then. But our vote to approve the change in the PUD is based solely on the square footage of the units right now? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Of all the subjects that they're bringing up, the only one that I recall being in the PUD is one strikethrough from 1,526 to 650 square feet. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Other than that, there are no changes to the PUD, because the PUD and the LDC don't get into how we rent or how we own units. That's not part of the LDC. It's part of the rental agreement -- or the bonus agreement; I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Most of the discussion regarding who they're going to allow these units to be rented or sold to are the affordable housing agreement -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- not the zoning? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So we can -- so they're -- basically, as you did, I guess skillfully, I'll call it, separated the two so we can deal with the PUD, and then we can discuss the housing agreement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have criteria to deal with the PUD. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's in the LDC. We know how to deal with that. The affordable housing agreement, bonus agreement, is a separate document that we don't necessarily have criteria for but we can weigh in on because it's part of the LDC, so I thought we would separately. That's what I was trying to get at. Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. I have a question for you. Can you please tell me what Vestcor's main business is. Is it the rental business? MR. HOOVER: It is the rental business, yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Another question is, why is this such a rush? I mean, I have seen this particular piece of property sit in the county records with not having meetings for a very, very long time, and all of a sudden this is a quick rush-through. Why is it a quick rush-through? MR. HOOVER: Okay. So I'll try and explain it as quickly as possible, not to get into too much detail, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you have a SAIL grant that had a deadline in September. It got continued by the Governor till October 18th. That means the Board's got to hear it and we've got to hear it because the grant's got to be qualified by acknowledging that the zoning is available on that property. October 5, 2017 Page 16 of 98 MR. HOOVER: That was a lot faster than I was going to say it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought I'd save some time, because we're getting into a lot of tangents that we don't normally get into, and I'm trying to expedite a little bit of some of this conversation. But that is -- that's what's going on. I've read the SAIL grant, so it is legitimate. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. So the SAIL grant is for '17, or is it for '18? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seventeen or 18 what? COMMISSIONER EBERT: The year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, no. It's this year; that's why this has had such a push on it. The Board has to hear this by the deadline date in order for them to qualify for the grant, which requires the zoning to be basically in place. COMMISSIONER EBERT: But, I guess -- I guess what I'm asking, Mark, is I have seen this sit, because we always have the look-ahead, and this has sat at the county for so long, and then all of a sudden it's -- you know, they could have come and done this a long time ago, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's the -- well, they couldn't do it until the SAIL grant became available, and then they've got to meet the deadlines of the grant. That's what I think prompted the expeditious need for this to happen. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And then this grant is for extra, extra low income; is that it? This grant is for lower income rather than workforce and gap housing? MR. HOOVER: Okay, yeah. It's not for gap housing, but the part that's focused here is the 60 percent of area median income, which is low-income housing; 60 percent. COMMISSIONER EBERT: That's workforce? MR. HOOVER: Workforce is 61 to 80. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. So the grant for a lower -- it's lower than workforce? MR. HOOVER: So what we're applying for is 60 percent and 80 percent. So we're applying for both. That's the RFA -- that's what we're applying to through the state for low-income housing and workforce housing. It's something that comes out one time a year. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you mind putting on the overhead the graphic you showed with the corridor 41, the yellow and red, the one you previously showed in your -- you said -- MS. BISHOP: The big circle? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. There it is. And you basically are trying to argue that that represents an area of heavy employment for low wage earners or wage earners that need this kind of housing. MS. BISHOP: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's just yes or no. Don't get into a long statement, if you don't mind. MS. BISHOP: Yes, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. How -- does that -- how is that area differentiated than any other area in Collier County? As an example, in North Naples we just awarded a grant to -- or a -- I don't know what to Arthrex for millions of dollars to create 560 jobs. Seed to Table's coming in at Livingston and Immokalee Road; 400-plus jobs, all low-wage -- mostly low-wage jobs. So why is this area the only one that you seem to focus on for that perspective versus the rest the county? MS. BISHOP: Well, I picked that circle and that area because it's walking distance from home. And when I first moved to Florida, Naples, sometimes I had challenges with transportation, and I had to walk. So I picked two-and-a-half miles, which made sense. If for some reason your car's not working, you can walk there. But it doesn't necessarily negate the rest of the county. I was -- my thought was what if I had to walk to work. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you didn't do an analysis of the amount of areas that are available for work and people for housing within two-and-a-half miles in other parts of the county? You just did it for this one. October 5, 2017 Page 17 of 98 MS. BISHOP: Correct, because that's the site that we're looking at. I appreciate that there are areas -- other areas that have those same needs. Land is becoming more scarce and scarce and scarce. So this was the one that we looked at. This is the one that they chose. So that's -- I kept my focus on this particular area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, since your focus is on this area, what analysis did you do for the current amount of affordability in that area compared to the rest of the county? MS. BISHOP: Well, I have a map from -- and since I'm new at the affordable housing, I've learned a lot recently, but I have the map that Cormac provided me showing me where these things are located, and there's a lot pretty much evenly distributed around the county, although except for North Naples doesn't appear to have as many as the rest. So I didn't look at the analysis for the whole county to see who's got what. We looked at certain industries like the Collier County -- like the government services, we looked at the hospital salaries, Botanical Gardens salaries, which we've showed. Those are the areas -- you know, they're the closest to where we are, and, of course, the hospital is farther away than two-and-a-half miles. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got several hospitals, none of which close, within that two-and-a-half mile radius. MS. BISHOP: Right. They're farther away than two-and-a-half miles. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So that doesn't really come into this equation then? MS. BISHOP: No. Actually, the circle, for me, was more about transportation and being able to walk to work then it was looking at the whole county because, like you said, the hospitals are also farther away. But from what I'm understanding from the ULI reports, that the majority -- well, I've got the number right here -- that 26 percent of Naples Community Hospital employees live in Lee County. So, you know, I think the -- a lot more -- and they were talking about the county schools, same thing, 14 percent, which is 948 people for the schools, live outside of -- they live in Lee or Hendry or Charlotte or Broward but outside of our county. So there clearly is countywide need. This particular parcel has a -- you know, is concentrated with a lot of other industry around it, so that's why I did this graphic. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And you just -- you don't have -- you have not done a graphic, you don't have any information about the specific amount of affordable housing in this location compared to the rest of the county? MS. BISHOP: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, I thought that's the table you'd shown. That is not affordable housing. That's approved affordable housing. I asked about affordable housing. There are two different -- MS. BISHOP: You're right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- criteria. Affordable housings and approved affordable housing. If you have housing that's affordable based on its market rate, that's still a designation in this particular area and other parts of the county that this doesn't show. MS. BISHOP: Well -- and that's very true. I had this conversation with a couple of the commissioners because, for instance, Golden Gate City, which is four square miles, doesn't show on this map, but that is also an affordable housing. Naples Manor doesn't show on this map; also is what would be considered affordable housing. So the amount of information -- you know, this was provided to me by staff, but I don't know necessarily that they've done the analysis on the whole county. And I know that I did not do that. I used the available information between the ULI reports and then the national low-income housing information. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll move to staff report. MS. GUNDLACH: Good morning, Commissioners. Staff is recommending approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nancy, in all the years that we've been working together, your presentations get shorter and shorter, and it's much appreciated. Thank you. October 5, 2017 Page 18 of 98 MS. GUNDLACH: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, we'll go to public speakers, unless there's any questions of staff by the Board. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Let's move to public speakers. Now, ladies and gentlemen, we'll call your name one at a time. You can come before either mike. And if you haven't been sworn in, please let us know that. I saw some people come in a little late. You need to be sworn in for the record to be complete. We normally limit people to five minutes, but we're not going to cut you off cold. We just ask that you provide newer information and not be redundant. If you simply like what the previous speaker said, it's fine to come up and say, "I agree with the previous speaker," then that just helps expedite and move ahead. So with that, Ray -- and, by the way, if you haven't registered to talk, at the end at the registered speakers, I'll ask if anybody else has anything they'd like to address on this particular issue. Go ahead, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: First speaker, Maurice Gutierrez, to be followed by Jim McDonnell. MR. GUTIERREZ: Good morning, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning. MR. GUTIERREZ: My name is Maurice Gutierrez. I am a homeowner but currently the chairman of the CRA. And, historically, the reason we have a CRA is to address issues exactly like what we're talking about here. It never has been, which is why we have the lion's share of problems in our community. And I agree that that share should be -- that that designation should be shared by other parts of the community. Historically, we haven't had a voice, so I thank those that created the CRA to give us a platform, but the fact that we have actually a large percentage of rental properties has a very large spectrum: Single-family homes; rental communities, which have failed. Canamar (phonetic) was the optimum community that failed and really brought our community down. But we're here to talk about really semantics. The CRA wrote in the PUD specific language. It wasn't haphazard, it wasn't lucky. It was our vision, because the CRA identified problems that our community were facing and worked for a solution to prevent them from occurring again. Because, you know, insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and hoping for a different outcome. We acknowledge that the return on the investment of home ownership is called pride. When you have too many rental communities within a small spectrum, you lack that pride. And that was one of the problems that we found to be very true regardless of the quality of the rental community, regardless of the income level associated with the rental community. So we were very specific and originally approved the Cirrus Pointe, originally agreed with the proceeding redevelopment when Cirrus Pointe didn't get off the ground. So when I hear things such as, oh, it's only going to be a rental community instead of an ownership community, that semantics is like using the word "Naples" and having the word "north" and the word "east" in front of it. I don't need to tell anybody, when you speak that way, the instant you hear that word, you have a -- you have a vision in your head. And we've been working very, very hard to try to change that vision. The fact that they have gone from ownership to rental is our key problem. We have mobile homes on single-family lots. We have mobile homes in communities. We have a gated community called Windstar. That development brought us off the ground. It set the stage for others to follow. Unfortunately, economic conditions have torn us apart like Hurricane Irma. Every time we were just about there, the bottom fell out from under us. We are about to propose options for redevelopment in our area. And I use the keyword "redevelopment" because it's really difficult to undo what's incorrectly been done in the past and pull it off successfully. And approving this project is going to set a stage for future developers to question whether they really want to invest in our neighborhood or not, because we are not gated. We cannot isolate ourselves from issues that impact our neighbors, and that's actually what makes us so strong. I mean, you look around, it's a workday. We've got quite a few people here, and it is not because they are in favor of this project. I feel differently from our meetings. It's because they are here to vote against it. Again, it's semantics. We want ownership, we need to change the dynamics of our community. We October 5, 2017 Page 19 of 98 can address affordable housing, and we have. We have rental units, we have every conceivable mistake you can have in zoning. C5 warehousing across the street from a single-family home on a single-family residential street. Now, how do you repair that damage? You embrace it, you try to work with it, but what you do is you identify what has not worked, and you work hard to not happen again. I think that goes to the compatibility issue that was mentioned, because it is not that we don't want that type of housing. We don't want the rental component associated with that housing. Again, we get no return on investment. There is no pride in rental other than the owners and the profit associated with that business. We're a neighborhood in transition. We need help in every direction we can from investors. We have managed to identify the Triangle and look what's coming. We don't want to send a message that would not imply we want development, but we want smart development. The days of mistakes hopefully are over in our district, and it is the CRA's mission in its statement to improve the area by changing what has occurred and making decisions that will improve life for all. Our level of rental communities -- I'll give you a perfect example. There's waterfront efficiency units that are rented annually that collect rent every Friday. That, to me, is not a good neighbor. So those types of problems we really want to avoid, and in doing so, we want to bring in the development that other parts of the county have so embraced and flourished. We don't feel that a low-income housing project is a problem. We feel a low-income housing rental project is a problem. Because, again, it doesn't reflect to what our mission is, and that is to improve the area for all our residences regardless of economic opportunity. And, ultimately, we are the last frontier. There is no more developable property. So our motto is not "don't build this in my backyard." Our motto is, "please, no more of that in our backyard." And until other areas of the community shows that they have met our density and disproportionate rental to our community, I cannot support a project like this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Maurice. MR. GUTIERREZ: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next speaker, please. MR. BELLOWS: Jim McDonnell. MR. McDONNELL: Thank you for the opportunity to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pull the speaker closer to you, sir, if you could. Because you've got to get picked up by the recording. Thank you. MR. McDONNELL: Okay. My name is Jim McDonnell, and I'm here representing the community called Windstar. It's a community. I think most of you are familiar with it but, essentially, it has 600 homeowners. We are very much in favor of the previous speaker's comments. We've been to the meetings. I have personally read the brochure that is published by the CRA and feel that this is not what we should be doing. Now, I'll try not to repeat his specific comments. But let me mention that there's a letter that was written by Pat Rossano I think to you, Mark, and to the Commissioners, dated August which has a lot of detail in it about our feelings and our objections. I don't think it's necessary to go through that letter, and I don't intend to do it. Pat couldn't be here. He wanted to be here. He's traveling out of the country on business at the current time. I believe everybody's read that thoroughly so, as I said before, I do not intend to go into it. But you will find out our objections in the letter, and I will repeat them today. We don't think that the rental units are appropriate for the Bayshore community. We don't think the 600 square feet is appropriate for what we're trying to do in the Bayshore community. Those things are -- have been questioned by you folks; they've been questioned by everybody. So I think everybody's aware of what the issues are. The 600 people in our community do not feel that this is the right way to go. They think it's a no-win situation for our community and for the Bayshore area, and that's where we come out on it. And I'll be glad to answer any questions anybody has. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody? October 5, 2017 Page 20 of 98 COMMISSIONER FRYER: Just one quick one. Mr. McDonnell, what was your title, again, sir, in relation to Windstar? MR. McDONNELL: I'm on the board of directors. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Tom Melvin. MR. MELVIN: Good morning, my name is Tom Melvin. I'm also a Windstar resident. But I'm speaking really just for myself. And I do agree with a lot of the things in Mr. Rossano's letter; actually, all of them, but I did want to emphasize a couple things that I thought you were picking up on, and one is in the agreement -- and this maybe has more to do with the building size and the impact of the proposed building on the area. The building size that's approved in the current agreement, 108 units at 1,526 square feet, plus two-car -- two parking -- two-car garage or two-car parking under the building, plus storage, gives at least 164,808 square feet of air conditioned space plus the garage parking. What's proposed by the developer would be -- if you use his average number of units would be about 99,000 square feet or about a 40 percent reduction. But given his plus or minus 20 percent on the unit count, he could build more small units and fewer big units, and he could build as small as 92,000 square feet of space, a 56 percent reduction in the size of the building. Plus you're getting rid of all the parking that goes underneath. So that's an entirely different character of a structure in our development. The other thing that happens -- and, Mr. Strain, you were referring to the addendums. Page 33 has the physical description of the affordable workforce housing units in the current agreement. And in that it talks about the three-bedroom units having certain amenities including the parking stalls for each unit, the storage area for each unit, and the fact that the community would have the following amenities open to the residents: A pool cabana, fountains, sidewalks, and gated security. Well, all of those things are missing from the description of the community as a rental project. If you look to Page 49 of the agreement, you'll see it talks about the same number of units. It does say that the floors are going to be vinyl, but it also says parking will be provided, period. No indoor storage, no pool and cabana, no security, nothing. So envision this on this property on Thomasson Drive with very long frontage in a key area of our community, and this is going to be a project that looks cheap. I think it's inappropriate for the area and should be turned down. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. MR. BELLOWS: Patricia Young. MS. YOUNG: Good morning. Patricia Young. And I'm here not as a resident of CRA but as a resident of the nearby Isles of Collier Preserve, so I have kind of a different perspective and also some comments based on my own personal life having lived through issues that we're talking about today. Not only do I live at the Isles, I am very, very interested in the CRA, and I have attended their meetings regularly, taken notes, and I go back to the Isles and report what's going on in the area. I, myself, grew up in a very blighted inner city crime-ridden neighborhood in Philadelphia that was never improved, and so I marvel at what the CRA has accomplished here. And, on a teacher's salary, in the high-priced real estate market of Washington, D.C., I managed to purchase a modest home with a long commute. Also, I am a sometimes religious ed teacher volunteer at nearby St. Peter's Church, so I have a lot of interest in what's going on here. And I applaud Collier's concern for expanding housing that's affordable, and that's "affordable" with an A, because the capital A "affordable" is a federal program which is now under question. Although I -- one factor here in this particular location, which is my biggest objection, is where it's going to be located in the CRA area. There already exists abundant affordable units in the CRA area. And how do we know that? Just look at the economic level of the two public schools in the CRA area. Avalon and Shadowlawn each have a student population with 90-plus percent designated economically October 5, 2017 Page 21 of 98 disadvantaged. It's a shocking number. And most of these students live in the CRA area. As often happens with this kind of school profile, they have academic ratings of only C and D. Probably such imbalance evolved on its own over time as an unintended consequence, but by the county considering more affordable units here, a deliberate segregating of the population is being engineered based on income. And studies show that isolating low-income levels in a school is the highest predicter of low achievement. We need to mix it up with housing. It is time to let the open free market forces prevail in the CRA. We could use more reasonably priced ownership housings options. And, secondly, by the county considering more income-based housing in the CRA area, it may be undermining its own important vision of broadening our economic base to attract businesses other than tourism. The CRA area is one of the very few urban, culturally filled, close to the water, and historical areas in Collier with a straight shot to Fifth Avenue or the Everglades, and it is our downtown. Such places, along with good schools, are what bring new businesses to a town. The CRA has worked very hard at turning the area around, designing things that will attract a broader based citizenry. In an area with housing varying from trailers to elegant single-family homes with a prime urban location, why is there not more representation of this economic mix in the school population? Two reasons: A disproportionate amount of income-based housing and poor performing schools. Let's promote affordable housing with a small A instead of clustering affordable housing together as it has been done here in this CRA jurisdiction. Incentivize developers to mix in smaller sized versions of the housing they build. That way all children get to attend schools with a healthy economic mix. That is how my own kid got to go to the best schools in the D.C. area. And when owners sell, they can make a profit; not just the developers making a profit, tapping into federal loopholes in the affordable housing program which, by the way, was recently disclosed in the Wall Street Journal. Finally, in the CRA, let's work to showcase Avalon and Shadowlawn to attract buyers with kids; make these two schools urban magnets but aligning them more with the unique amenities in the CRA area. Avalon could expand its relationship with the Botanical Gardens, for example, to get involved with the research -- the Everglades research. I have seen this kind of school re-imagination work toward improving entire communities in the D.C. area. And as a religious ed teacher at nearby St. Peter's church, I have a special interest in these wonderful local kids who I've had in class. Having them in schools with little economic diversity has not worked for most, but Collier can do something about it. With several other land choices for affordable housing in Collier, please choose responsibility for the children, maintaining the trajectory of the CRA efforts. Well thought-out development of Cirrus Pointe could be a game changer for all ages. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, ma'am. Next speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Sandra E. Arafet. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Ray, could you announce the next speaker so they could be ready as well. MR. BELLOWS: Excuse me. And the next speaker would be Kathy Keely Smith. MS. ARAFET: Good morning. My name is Sandra Arafet. I'm a full-time resident of the Bayshore area, and I'm a member of the MSTU, the Bayshore MSTU. I am here to please ask you to vote against this amendment. As you have heard Maurice Gutierrez, the first one, every speaker has said exactly what our vision is for the area, and this is definitely not the vision for the area. We don't need any more renters. We don't need -- we need affordable housing, but we don't need any more low-income housing. We already have plenty in our area. This is not our vision. We have been working very, very hard to improve this area of the Bayshore. And I'm please -- I'm going to be short because I know we have a lot of speakers, but I'm please asking you, please take into consideration what the CRA has done, the MSTU has done in this area, and what our October 5, 2017 Page 22 of 98 residents of the area are looking for, and please vote against it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next speaker, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: Kathy Keely Smith, to be followed by Joe Adams. MS. SMITH: Good morning. I'm Kathy Smith. I'm a lifelong Naples, Florida, resident, and I'm a Bayshore homeowner. I moved into this redevelopment area on hopes that they would redevelop, which they have, and improve the quality of living, which has been done. I'm not against affordable rentals, but there are so many in this area, a much greater amount than anywhere else in the county. We'd be going backward, not forward as most of the rest of the county has. If you want home ownership, it should be like the already approved RPUD. There's no input the district could give other than leave it as it is, affordable home ownership. I'm asking the Planning Commission to recommend no changes to the RPUD and forward the recommendation not to amend. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next speaker, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: Joe Adams, to be followed by Michael Sherman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, how many more speakers are registered? MR. BELLOWS: Two more after this one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. ADAMS: Good morning, everyone. My name is Joe Adams. I am a member, or I serve on the Haldeman Creek board, which is in the CRA area, and also the Pathways Advisory Committee with the MPO. I think the -- I attended the very first public meeting here. It was a meeting, according to the woman who ran it who's here today, was the developer. As just a -- something that needed to be done, and I'm just here to tell you what we're going to do. You know, that kind of got my hackles up a little bit because I didn't know that that's the way things worked. But I did have some pointed questions, and having been a property manager of tax credit properties here in Naples over the years, three different -- or two different communities, I know all about that, and I know how it works, and I know what the incentives are for the developers as far as money is concerned. I think what bothered me the most about the presentation we heard again today and this whole process so far is that I felt like somebody was throwing cloth, you know, over to obscure the issue. You know, there's two choices here, an A and a B, being offered by a company that only does B, number one. They don't buy products, develop them, and sell them; they rent them. And then as far as the employment presentations, they talked about a library page. I had to Google that, because I didn't know what that was. I thought it sounded like somebody in Washington, D.C., library or something like that. But it wasn't. Apparently, it's an entry-level library job, and most of those are part time. And I was just wondering if the developer in this case could tell us how many of those live in this particular area where they could walk to work, because there's no libraries in that area. And a lot of those employees that -- or jobs were -- have nothing to do with our area. They're county employees who make -- some make too much money for affordable housing, and at the end of the day, the question that I asked to the young man that does the presentation today, at the meeting at the CRA, was this: I said, so what you're asking us to do is give you the ability to decide what's best for our area. And, of course, they have no incentive to do anything other than what is best for their company. So they could develop 100 percent low income, or extra low income -- and all those terms are confusing, and I think are meant to be that way to get us off the topic -- workforce housing is another term which is very confusing to most people. I don't know what that means to this day. I think all people who work for a living are part of the workforce. But apparently that has something to do with how much money they make. October 5, 2017 Page 23 of 98 And I know that when I had my first job, and I was a young person, I didn't live within 20 minutes of my job. I didn't live within walking distance of my job, but I had to struggle, just like most people do, to get up to the point where I could afford to buy a house, and I still never walked to work. But I'm against this whole idea. I agree with everyone who has spoken before: This is not the vision for our area. There is an opportunity, I think, for the landowner in this case to -- if he can get an extension from the bank to keep him from going bankrupt with that piece of property, there are some exciting things being discussed in the CRA area as far as our community and so forth that they've been talking about there for 20 years. So I object to the idea of this type of housing, not the company, not the people; I understand. And they have an opportunity to buy a piece of ground with grants from the federal government, or the state government, and so they're trying to grab that, and I understand that, too. But it just would need to be somewhere else. I think that piece of property is a very valuable piece of property. Why it hasn't been developed, I don't know. But the vision that the CRA has for the area, the vision that they put on this piece of ground was intentional. They want it developed the way that they originally suggested, and this is not it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. And, Ray, before we call any more speakers, we're at that point where we should take a break. We will come back at 10:40 and resume with the public speakers at that time. Thank you. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everybody, if you'll please take your seats. Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to resume with the meeting. And we left off with public speakers. Ray, you want to announce the next speaker. MR. BELLOWS: Michael Sherman, to be followed by Karen Beatty. MR. SHERMAN: Thank you. My name is Mike Sherman. I think I come to this with a kind of wide perspective. I have 45 years in the real estate business, and I've been a homeowner here since 2001. And I retired a few years after that and became very interested in the Bayshore area and the chances to lift this community which was in pretty rough shape. And because I was retiring, because I had time, and because I was a real estate aficionado, I really became involved. And the next thing you know I started buying property with the idea that I would develop small single-family homes. I'm the guy that bought the Kool-Aid completely on the CRA. I bring this up because many people have been influenced by the impact of what the CRA is trying to do. And through these 17 years that the CRA has been here, I've been, first, a casual observer at many of the meetings and then a member of the board and then an investor and now builder of homes, and I have four homes under construction at the present time in the district, and I live in the district. And I think the one way to look at this is to say that we all acknowledge the need for affordable housing, particularly for public service families, police, fire, teachers, and so on, which is why the present PUD has a moderate income demand for roughly a third of the units. So to paint us as somebody who's not trying to help in affordable housing is wrong. This was all done as part of giving the present owner, who we never see at these meetings, by the way, who is going to be the main recipient of benefit from this -- the present owner was given extra density in order to provide affordable housing. But this proposal to spot rezone this, which is basically what's going on with the change -- with the idea of changing the PUD to a low-income small rental units on Thomasson is way off base. Thomasson is about to have a roundabout and sidewalks, lighting, drainage, and new landscaping all funded by the Bayshore MSTU which, by the way, is funded by this neighborhood's taxpayers, not the General Fund, and this neighborhood's taxpayers stand united against this proposal. For 17 years dedicated local citizens in the CRA have been improving the tarnished reputation of this area which had been so badly neglected. Improvement and reputation has been vital to the development of Naples Botanical Garden, Hamilton Harbor Yacht Club, the Isles of Collier Preserve, Windstar, Botanical October 5, 2017 Page 24 of 98 Place, and 360 Market, all created with CRA support and always with the promise that CRA policies will bring a diverse community of high, middle, and low-priced homeowners, not low-cost renters. The Bayshore arts district market for modestly priced new homes, the kind of things that I'm trying to build, will be put at risk if we are again pushed to the wrong side of the tracks. Police, firefighters, and teachers want to own safe, affordable homes, not rent tiny apartments in a huge low-income housing project. Collier County should not risk the effort on Bayshore to achieve regional low-income housing goals. Unlike much of Naples, this area already has a surplus of low-priced rentals. A couple of things have jumped into my mind. One is, there's a big crowd here. Virtually everybody is against the proposal. I wonder how many in the crowd -- and I certainly don't want to raise a rise of hands -- are renters from this district. They don't pay attention the way homeowners pay attention, which is the core of why we want homeowners -- more homeowners in the region and a more equitable spread of people across the county. Another interesting fact is that right across the street from this site we have a 38-acre site which is about to go under development with Mattamy Homes. Mattamy Homes is a large Canadian developer who is going to build ownership units. I think the present number is 244, if I'm -- that may be a guess, but it's close. And for about two years now members of the community have been talking to Mattamy Homes about what they were going to do and trying to get them to raise the profile of this to help all of Bayshore arts district grow and prosper. If this project is approved, if I were sitting at Mattamy Homes in Canada or Toronto, I'd say, hmm, they're putting in a low-income housing development across the street from our new development, what a nice idea. Maybe we ought to cheapen the houses that we're going to build. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, we need to kind of expedite -- wrap it up, if you could. Thank you. MR. SHERMAN: I'm done. I can't quite understand how staff got to an approval on this project, or a recommendation of approval on this project, when we have an organization like the CRA which has spent so much time building and trying to build the reputation of the area. It's just hard for me to understand. So please, please listen to this local community. They deserve to be heard. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next speaker, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: Karen Beatty, to be followed by the last speaker, Jeff Scherrer. MS. BEATTY: Hello. Thank you for your time today. I'm Karen Beatty. I am a resident of the Bayshore Drive area since 1986. I live in the subdivision called Sable Shores. I'm also an advisory board member since 2004 and a realtor since 1985 -- I mean 1995. I'm talking first as a resident. As I said, I've lived in the Sable Shores community since 1986. That subdivision off of Bayshore is comprised of six streets. In those six streets we do have some single-family, but of the six streets, I wanted to tell you how much affordable and workforce type housing is already there. Sabal Court has two; Cocoa has level 11; Basin Street, two; Areca has 25, 12 of those is a sober house units; Canal Street has four. There's one duplex on Cocoa, a two/two. It's been available for two months for $1,100, and it hasn't rented. Also, there are very reasonably priced rentals available on Bayshore right now. I looked it up in MLS just last night. In Abaco Bay there are five available. They are two/twos for $1,100 to $1,250. In Botanical Place there are 10. Those are three/twos, for 1,240 to 1,395. So Bayshore has had its share -- does have its share; had more in the past. We actually had some of the apartment complex condominiumized, and then the Bayshore Place -- Bayshore Club Apartments were torn down when Arboretum Village was going to build. I think if you talk to the Sheriff's Department and saw the statistics, Bayshore has improved a lot since those Bayshore Club Apartments were torn down and some of these apartment complexes were condominiumized. I'm not against affordable housing. I think it's a wonderful thing, and I think we desperately need it. I just think, as Stan stated earlier, we have our -- a high percentage in the Bayshore Drive area, and it doesn't October 5, 2017 Page 25 of 98 align with our mission and purpose for the area. Within a mile from the proposed development, there's 17 acres. It's a series of properties that we assembled back in 2005 for the purpose of a catalyst project. At this time there are three bidders. In fact, there's a public meeting tonight with the three developers for that project. And that would not necessarily be compatible with a rental community nearby. One of the proposed features is a cultural district with Opera Naples and some retail and restaurants. So I'm feeling like having a rental community like this within a short distance from that is not a favorable thing. Not only do we have numerous rentals, we have a lot of trailer parks that are very affordable. I think if any of you drove up and down our streets, you would see just how many we have. It's quite a bit. So I'm recommending that you do not amend the RPUD. And I think we owe it to our citizens. Our citizens in our area are being taxed, and the purpose of it is to redevelop into something better than what we've had. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next speaker, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: The last speaker is Jeff Scherrer. MR. SCHERRER: Good morning, and forgive me; I'm not too prepared. I just came in here from Texas to look on the house from the storm. But I just came to this this morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you state your name for the record, sir. MR. SCHERRER: Jeff Scherrer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you spell that last name. MR. SCHERRER: S-c-h-e-r-r-e-r. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. SCHERRER: And I actually wish the builder could have spoke a little bit more. Maybe you and I can get together and give them nothing for the land and come up with a better option because they're saying -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, you need to direct your questions -- MR. SCHERRER: It's obviously not worth anything, so maybe two builders could redevelop it to what is stated for the record that it should be, and that's what I'm confused, too, about. I'm not sure if this vote today is -- if we can amend this or not, because I'm a little confused. With the other guy, a little bit of smoke and mirrors and, again, a little bit of fake facts. I mean like fake news, fake facts. I live there. I'm a builder from Texas, and I bought a home on Riverview. You are getting, I think, about a thousand dollars three hundred (sic) in taxes a year, rebuilt the home. You're now getting close to 7,000. I'm looking at other properties in that neighborhood to do the same thing and to build new homes, bring them up to code as I did this one. There's one that's sitting there, and the price is going down because this is the kind of thing that people are hearing. I bought into a vision, okay. Now, a vision is long-term, and the vision is working. And I congratulate all of you all because it's happening. So do we want to continue with a longer-term vision, or do we want to just settle for a short-term buck? And that's what's going on here. Again, smoke and mirrors, confusion. We have a name for that in Texas. It's called a donkey rodeo, you know. I say please stick with the present plan. It's coming along. They talk about income. I make a little more than $30,000 a year. My neighborhoods -- I know my neighbors. I think we have two lawyers, doctor, business owners, almost everybody I know on the streets are professionals that make well over 30,000 a year, and we have probably a good bit of retirees as well. But we bought into the vision, all of us, and the vision is working. And all I ask is please stick with the long-term. And if there's a way we can get this land from them to make a better situation, I'd be willing to do it. And so keep that in mind, too, because it's going to deteriorate the people's value because it's not -- they didn't say it was going to be people that are enjoying the spa and the workout room. It's people, more people October 5, 2017 Page 26 of 98 riding bikes. They said minimum salary 30,000 a year. I think you can afford a car, you know, on that. But they said the traffic's going to be walking and bikes. Gosh, I almost run over people as it is now going up and down that street on bicycles. So, once again, I'll be short. Thank you for the time. And, please, long-term vision, folks. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Ray, were there any other registered speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No other. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody in the public who would like to speak on this matter who has not already spoken, please raise your hand. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll be finished with public speakers, and we'll go back to any remaining questions from the Planning Commission of the applicant or staff. I have one question -- oh, go ahead, Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, I wanted -- I don't have any questions. What I wanted to do was get clarification. I'm on the August 17th hearing date staff report, because that is the one that had all the information; is that correct? MS. GUNDLACH: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Sometime when we're ready to vote, I want to walk through this, because I want to be very clear. I only see one change in the PUD, and then I really need to understand why we are giving the options we're given, Options A, B, and C for the affordable housing density bonus. Why the options? Why not just one option? And it either is going to be A, B, or C. I, frankly, don't understand, and I don't understand from the housing staff; I've never seen this before where we have these options where they can decide to go Option A, which is all rentals; Option B, which is owner occupied. I want to walk through these various affordable housing density bonus agreements so I clearly understand what it is the applicant's asking for and what it is that we're essentially voting on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rather than try to have that answer during discussion after we've closed the public hearing, then, why don't we just try to get your answers now to whatever extent you would like. MS. GUNDLACH: We have our affordable housing staff here. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, let me go to the staff report. I'm looking at -- I'm on the 17 August one. And from my understanding, I'm looking at the Exhibit B correction. Let me go down. Okay. I had the PUD amendment. All I see on the PUD amendment, which is Page 11 of the PUD amendment, it is -- let me tell you what -- it's Page 16 of 450 in my file. All I see is one thing where it's -- we struck through the square footage of 1,526 and are changing minimum floor area to 650. The applicant stated that there was going to be no parking that the -- below the building, that it will be basically -- but this thing still says below building parking for two cars and additional storage area will be provided for each unit. That's still in the PUD. MS. GUNDLACH: That is still in the PUD. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The applicant said that was not the case. So are we striking through that line, or is that an option? I don't understand where we are with this. I only see one change in the PUD document; is that correct? MS. GUNDLACH: That's correct. That's the only change we're making. MS. BISHOP: It would still be an option if the -- if it was owner occupied. But for what we're proposing -- because I spoke with staff ahead of time. We aren't proposing to put parking underneath the building. We're doing a two-story or three-story building, but no parking underneath. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So understand then, this petition is basically allowing you to do whatever you want based on Options A, B, or C? MS. BISHOP: Well, we're going to do Option B, which is the rental, but the way that the owner -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It doesn't say that in this document. MS. BISHOP: And because the way that the owner, the original owner wanted to keep his original October 5, 2017 Page 27 of 98 Option A, which is the owner occupied, he allowed -- so our proposal for us -- this is all we're going to do. We're doing rental; that's what we'd do, if we get approved. You know, I mean, that's all relative to getting approved. But if, in fact, you know, maybe they don't get the tax credits or something happens where it doesn't happen, then both those options would be available for the project. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Again, it's open-ended. You're asking for all three options depending on what the market could bear and basically where you think the financing's going to come from. MS. BISHOP: Well, for this particular buyer, they do one thing, and that's the rentals. So -- but that it true that it would -- that the affordable housing agreement gives you more options. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Then I have to go back to staff. Why do we have all these other affordable housing agreements in the document, and why are they part of the petition if there's only one agreement and that is for the 44 additional units that are rental? MR. GIBLIN: There is one agreement that is proposed to keep an Option A, which essentially changes nothing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Cormac, you need to identify yourself. MR. GIBLIN: Cormac Giblin with the Housing Department. The proposed new second amended affordable housing density bonus agreement offers two options. Option A is intended to keep everything as it is today. Option B gives the option for the units to be rental and lowers the income to 60 percent rather than 80 percent of median income. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So those options are open-ended? MR. GIBLIN: They are. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Can be amended anytime by anybody after this is approved? MR. GIBLIN: The decision must be made before Site Development Plan approval and building permit. So anytime before that drop-dead date is when the decision could be made one way or other. This has been, I'll say, the flavor of recent density bonus and affordable housing agreements for the past few years is that at the zoning stage there have been different options, A, B, or C built into many of them. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. I hear what you said, Cormac, but the issue is when does the community find out what decision is being made and what say do they have after this public hearing? None. MR. GIBLIN: The say is made today, and it could be any of the two. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. That clarifies it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we have had projects come in market rate, even, with two separate master plans for multiple kinds of uses. So that is really not unique to this project. We've seen it before. MR. GIBLIN: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else? Go ahead, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Schmitt made the point that I'm not sure was addressed with respect to Page 16 of 450. The 1,526 was lined out and 650 was inserted, but the language with respect to building the parking garage beneath is still there. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And my understanding what Ms. Bishop said basically was that if they go with Option A, then they would build the four stories, six stories over parking, whatever it was; the original. Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Does this language on Page 16 only apply to Option A? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No, it will be in the PUD regardless. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So whether it's rental or ownership, they're going to have to put the two car -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No, it's an option they can exercise. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The way it -- under the maximum height -- is that what you're referring to in the table? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm looking at this language where it says, "below building parking for two cars and additional storage area will be provided for each unit." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What page are you on? October 5, 2017 Page 28 of 98 COMMISSIONER FRYER: Sixteen of 450. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Page 11 of the PUD, but it's 16 of 450. MS. GUNDLACH: This one's optional. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Page 11 of the PUD is a -- is your Development Standards Table. Basically, that's where the 1,526 was crossed out for the 650. Garage story is below-building parking for two cars, and additional storage will be provided for each unit. Now, does staff see that as an option or a requirement? MS. GUNDLACH: We see it as a requirement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So then, Karen, how could you not include that in the rental agreement? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, I think reading of the language, I think one case could be made -- that it is required, but if that's not the intent of the applicant, it should be made clarified that it is not a requirement. MR. KLATZKOW: Hold on, hold on, hold on. If they want to eliminate the garage, you have to amend the PUD. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. MR. KLATZKOW: That's not part of this application. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only issue -- and I stressed this in the beginning -- that they're dealing with is they're taking out the 1,526 and going to the 650. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had not perceived you changing anything else. You've still got to put parking on the site. MS. BISHOP: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But now you're saying you're not going to put parking -- you're going to put parking on the site, but you're not going to do it in the manner that the rest of the PUD dictates. MS. BISHOP: When I spoke with staff about the changes we were making here, I asked them if, when they read that section, does that look like an option. So if you were going to put it under the building, here's what you have to do. But if we don't put parking under the building, then we don't have to abide by that we particular section. Now, if staff is now saying something different, then that would have been a change I would have proposed at the time. Now, if I have to go back and amend that document again, I have no problem with doing that, but our proposal does not have parking under the building. That is not what we're proposing. That lowers the building down to grade, and then the parking will be around the site. That is what our Option B proposal is. COMMISSIONER FRYER: You wouldn't be able to do it under the plain meaning of this language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was just going to say, you've got the word "will" in there, which is shall, so you're obligated to do it. I'm a little surprised this now is coming out at this late date. MS. GUNDLACH: It's not a conversation I recall having, Mark. MR. KLATZKOW: All right. Look -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. MR. KLATZKOW: -- we're just trying to get clarity here. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. MR. KLATZKOW: All right. Thank you very much for bringing this up. So your view of the PUD is that you're going to put on-site parking? MS. BISHOP: Correct. MR. KLATZKOW: So there will be no parking in the streets. It will be just -- MS. BISHOP: You know, a parking lot around a building like you would see in any multifamily project. It will not be under the building. So you don't raise the building up to put the parking under the building. It will be parking around the site at two units -- or two spaces per unit, as the code requires. MR. KLATZKOW: I mean, this is not a material change, at the end of the day. But if the Planning Commission so wants, I would suggest that we amend this provision to allow that if that is the intent here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I believe we could do it on the fly to correct the issue -- October 5, 2017 Page 29 of 98 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- but it's just that it was brought up at this point when it was assumed that you weren't -- because I had asked you, I believe, on the phone -- MS. BISHOP: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- you're only changing the 1,526 and 650. MS. BISHOP: That's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So all this other stuff was supposed to remain as-is. You would have gone through today -- MS. BISHOP: I would have changed it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and you would have come out in the end and found out staff would not have issued you a SDP because you didn't have what's stated there in this document. MS. BISHOP: Then I would have been coming back in front of you again to do that again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Correct. MR. KLATZKOW: Is there going to be an additional storage area? MS. BISHOP: There are storages -- not under the building, but there is opportunity for storage. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, look, I'm trying to save you heartache later, at the end of the day, by getting clarity today. MS. BISHOP: The plans haven't been designed at this point. I mean, there are projects -- they have projects where they provide storage. MR. KLATZKOW: Your requirement now is below-building parking for two cars and additional storage area for each unit, okay. If what you want to say is below-building parking or a parking lot for two cars and additional storage area, that's fine. I'm trying to figure out, are you doing the storage area for each unit. MR. HOOVER: We can -- yeah, we can have a storage area for each unit, but it's not in the garage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think -- MR. HOOVER: It will have to be -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- what the option is is -- what they're asking for is they want to strike the 1,526 to 650, and they want to strike the references to the garage storage area. Normally those are not in PUDs to begin with, and it's whatever the developer wants to do at that point. This one was done to accommodate the fact that the developer previously was trying to get commitment. MR. KLATZKOW: Are we doing the storage area or not is what I'm getting at. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The storage area is something that's an accessory structure. It just meets the accessory setback. MR. KLATZKOW: No. I mean -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So, I mean, I've never made anybody do a storage area. MR. KLATZKOW: But right now it's a requirement, and you may need that requirement, by the way, if you're reducing the square footage of each unit. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And may I ask -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Joe wants to follow up on his. Go ahead, Joe. Then Diane. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: My recollection of this in the original zoning -- so I'm going back to the zoning -- it was residential over parking garage, number one, to meet the base flood elevation requirement for that area. That, I thought, was one reason. One was -- the other, to meet both -- the parking requirements because there wasn't going to be sufficient property around the units -- around the building to allow for parking and to meet the preserve requirements. So I know we're not at SDP stage, but you're confident you can meet the requirements for parking without having -- MR. HOOVER: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- residential over parking? MR. HOOVER: Yes, that's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And still meet the preserve requirements and the stormwater storage October 5, 2017 Page 30 of 98 requirements and all the other requirements associated. MR. HOOVER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, part of that is because going to -- if they go to smaller units, they won't need as many parking spaces. The calculation won't require it because they're not going to have as many bedrooms. So that may be part of it. MS. BISHOP: With smaller square footages, too, the buildings got smaller, which opened up the areas -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, you've got more space. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. The building footprint got smaller. MS. BISHOP: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: But each unit said that it would have two parking spaces. So I don't care if it's 650 or 2,000 square feet, it was to have two parking spaces. MS. BISHOP: That's pretty typical. I don't really -- even if it's a one bedroom -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One-and-a-half is usually -- MS. BISHOP: -- I still -- usually you have guest parking and additional parking, so those requirements on general always met at two spaces per unit. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. And where would you put the storage unit? MR. HOOVER: Well, there isn't -- I mean, the original requirement, I think it says, was garage storage. We don't really have a place to put storage. You could put a closet, I mean, in a hallway. I don't really know -- it's not really for this product, so I'm not really sure -- MR. KLATZKOW: We're amending this on the fly. I'd like to see what the amendment looks like. Could we put on the overhead this language? And then we can do whatever strikeouts that the Planning Commission can agree upon with the applicant. It's under the garage storage area. So you can eliminate the whole thing; you can eliminate parts of it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: From what I heard they're going to strike through the entire line. MS. BISHOP: Well, it still looks like an option to me. That's where I guess I'm a little confused. I mean, if you're going to build that, then that's what you have to do. But if we're not going to build it, then I don't know that it applies. I guess that's where -- the confusion between Nancy and I, because that's what I asked her. MR. KLATZKOW: It reads like a requirement to me, and I'm just trying to save a few -- MS. GUNDLACH: You didn't ask me, Karen, so please stop saying that. MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. Look, it doesn't matter. We're trying to get clarity now. Whoever said what to whom doesn't matter. I'm trying to give you clarity now. So the question is, what part of that provision stays, what part of it goes, or does it all get eliminated? MS. BISHOP: I would say it all gets eliminated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you don't intend to provide two parking spaces? MS. BISHOP: No, no, we are, but that's part of the LDC. You have to provide two parking spaces per unit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. But just so we're clear, you're not going to do underbuilding parking? MS. BISHOP: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You're not going to have two cars under the building, but you're going to provide two spaces for -- per unit on the site? MS. BISHOP: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the additional storage area you are or are not going to provide? MS. BISHOP: If we provide it, it will be interior. It won't be stand-alone outside that we're aware of at all. We've not done that before. MR. KLATZKOW: The issue is, are we requiring you to put in the storage areas or not? MR. HOOVER: No. October 5, 2017 Page 31 of 98 MR. KLATZKOW: Then it all comes out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the end, because it will fall back on two parking spaces will be required. MR. KLATZKOW: And that's part of your application is remove that requirement? MS. BISHOP: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Understand. Okay. Well, we will debate it under that premise then. Joe, did you have anything else? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, I do. Again. Cormac, for clarity, all options still remain in this petition and all options are the ones that are going to be forwarded to the Board; is that correct? MR. GIBLIN: Options A and B. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Options A and B, correct. MR. GIBLIN: And just -- I also need to put on the record that the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee did hear this item on Monday. It didn't make it into your staff reports because of the late timing, and they voted to recommend approval as presented. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Was that unanimous? MR. GIBLIN: It was. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe's on that committee. MR. GIBLIN: He was not present. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank God. I was going to say, how could you vote there and vote differently here? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I wouldn't have voted on it if I was there. I'd have to recuse myself. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I was just curious. Okay. That takes us to, Diane, you had some questions or you -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: No. I think they answered that portion of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions of the applicant or staff at this time? Go ahead, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'd just like to -- thank you. To be clear, this agreement, this second amended agreement, is that where Options A and B are found? MR. GIBLIN: Correct, that's where Options A and B are. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. And this was a document that was presented to us without any redlining? MR. GIBLIN: There was a redline provided or created. I don't know if it's in your packet or not. COMMISSIONER FRYER: It's not. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Just for clarity, there's about seven or eight different affordable housing agreements in the staff report, which is tremendously confusing. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah, and way unnecessary to have all that -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Way unnecessary. COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- repetition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, not all -- yeah, it's not -- there are several -- three agreements, I think, for this project, so I'm not sure -- I'm not sure they duplicated all three numerous times, but we do have -- some agreements were needed because they're historical agreements that went with the project. Anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Cormac. I have a question of the applicant. Do you have -- do you have on-site management? October 5, 2017 Page 32 of 98 MR. HOOVER: We do have on-site management. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that full-time, permanent? MR. HOOVER: Yeah. We have a third-party management that manages -- the same company manages all of our properties around the state. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, do they have somebody residing at this location? MR. HOOVER: Typically, we'll have -- yeah, typically, we'll have a manager's unit, or the head maintenance tech can have a unit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Anybody have anything else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think that takes us to the end of questions, public testimony, staff, and applicant's input and reports. We'll close the public hearing. We'll go first into discussion before we go into a motion. So as far as discussion goes, I would ask that the Planning Commission still consider that we will look at the PUD changes first and then the agreement second. The PUD changes -- are now there's two of them. They're asking to go from 1,526 to 650 and to drop the requirement for the garage and storage area. Does anybody have any input on that? Go ahead, Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Not the time to mention this, but what about the gated security? That gets eliminated also? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where are you read it from? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Right here, Page 33 of 49. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that's in the agreement. When we get to the agreement, we can -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- bring that up. So anything revolving the PUD? The only thing I've got a comment on -- and this is not comments that are going to be applicable necessarily to the affordable housing agreement, because I have a different position on that. On these we have to treat applicants equal, and we have to look at the LDC and see where the LDC would be inconsistent with what they're requesting. I've looked at the other projects in the neighborhood. And with the exception of one that was done way before this one -- and it's the one immediately to the north, which is 450 square foot per unit as a minimum, the other projects are 700 or greater. So this 650 is inconsistent with what we've approved typically for not only that neighborhood but as almost a standard throughout the county. We've not gone below 700 where I could find. So I'm uncomfortable with the 650. I don't think that's warranted, nor is that necessary for this project in regards to consistency with what we've done even on Mattamy Homes. Mattamy Homes was 700. So from that perspective, if they had requested 700, I think I would feel obligated as consistency to say that's consistent with other LDC standards we've applied and, thereof, it would be allowed. They asked for 650. As far as the garage storage area being crossed out, we have addressed those kind of things on the fly before. We don't require garage/storage area language in other PUDs. I understand why this is there, but that's more of an operation because of the affordability than -- which I think is an agreement issue -- more than how we can demand it remain in the PUD, like we couldn't demand it in any other PUD in Collier County. So from the PUD perspective, I can't object to the garage/storage area being crossed out. I do object to the 650. I would suggest that if we're even entertaining changing the PUD, it would never go -- it wouldn't go below 700. Those are the only two comments I have on the PUD, and that's the only two issues I believe we're dealing with in the PUD. Now, that's still -- we've got a long ways to go before we get into the issues involving the agreement. October 5, 2017 Page 33 of 98 That's a whole different story. But those are my comments on the LDC. I don't know what the Board thinks about that or where your thoughts are, but I thought I'd express them. Go ahead, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chairman, I agree with you. Probably I'd go further than you have in your statement, however. We have a responsibility under the straight rezone checkpoints in the ordinance and also under the PUD amendment checkpoints. With respect to the former, the straight rezones, it's our responsibility to study and consider, and with respect to the PUD amendment findings, we have to actually make findings that are then submitted as recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners. And I believe that this project, as it's presented, is not consistent with 6, 10, and 18 of 10.02.08.F. That's the straight rezone. And I think it's also inconsistent, and I could not support findings under 10.02.13.B.5, particularly sub A, D and H. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're directing your concerns strictly to the PUD, not to the agreement? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Correct. And with respect to the agreement, I don't see how we can responsibly consider it without a redliner. And it wasn't sufficiently presented to us to identify the exact changes. And so for me to vote in favor of any change to the agreement would be flying blind, and I'm not going to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, let's go back to the PUD. Anybody else have any questions on it? Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I concur with your minimum square footage. I think this area, even if it were just, instead of a one-bedroom or 650, 700 seems more realistic considering the other units that have been approved in that area. And I go back to, though, I believe the residential over parking was strictly as a result of the size of the building to allow for parking to meet the parking requirements for the original PUD. And Karen stated clearly that the building as designed is smaller, but they still have to meet the parking requirements. So I have no problem with that language being removed. It does not alleviate them or remove the requirement from when it comes in for SDP approval. But I cannot support the 650. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Me either. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. Okay. Is there a -- well then -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Are we voting on this whole petition? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. We're voting strictly the PUD language first, then we're going to talk briefly about the agreement, or however long it takes. So from the PUD perspective, the two issues on the PUD, is there a motion concerning the PUD? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'll make a motion to not approve. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Karen, seconded by Patrick. Discussion? I will go along with the motion because the 650 is the -- is one of the issues that I disagree with. I don't necessarily disagree with the removal of the garage storage area, but the 650 is smaller than what we've typically done in that neighborhood and the other communities in the county. So I can't see going to the -- starting a standard that will open a floodgate of requests for below 700 at this point. So I'll support the motion. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. October 5, 2017 Page 34 of 98 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The motion carries 7-0. Now, as far as the agreement goes, we heard a lot of testimony about affordable housing and all that and why this agreement, the applicant believes it's needed. We've heard the public on why it may not. And one thing that I found most deficient in the applicant's presentation in regards to this is their premise under which they think the area needs more of this level of affordable housing. In 2015 the GIS department did an analysis of tax assessor's affordability based on planning area. Ray, would you put this on the overhead for me. These are the 15 planning areas in Collier County. If you notice, No. 4 is the area that we're involved discussing today and No. 5 is another part of East Naples. Four is actually called East Naples. Five is called South Naples. Now, the reason that's important is the next one. Ray, could you put the next color on. In 2015 the GIS department got the tax assessor's valuations, and they looked at affordable -- housing that is affordable. I've got to watch the terminology -- below 126,000. And you look at the density. Well, that density -- every dot on there is units. If you'd look at it in the yellow highlighting, the East Naples units are the highest in the county for that affordable range of six -- a little over 6,286 -- 200 and -- yeah, actually, 6,286 units at that time. Adjacent to it, the next one down, is South Naples; 6,200 units. Now, those two -- and then you -- and then if you were to look at Golden Gate, it's about 5,700 units. But everybody else is 50 percent or -- almost 50 percent less than those higher ones. So to say this area isn't already saturated with the affordable range or housing that's affordable, I think, is a misstatement, and I think this kind of information shows that the idea of equitably providing affordable housing throughout Collier County, certainly the burden is carried higher in the East Naples and South Naples area than anywhere else in the county. And based on that, I can't -- I certainly would not suggest that this agreement needs to be changed. The agreement's fine the way it is. Anybody else? Ned, I think you already expressed you're in the same mindset. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mark, I'm going to agree. I had somebody do a little research work on this, and the CRA has spent over $13 million to purchase land, get rid of the low-cost housing and rundown improvement to improve the CRA. We just approved Mattamy Homes going in there. I do not feel they would be very pleased with having this across the street from them. These were all supposed to be either workforce or gap housing units. They were all to be three bedrooms, they were all to be owned, and I feel that's the way it should stay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I basic -- I support the affordable housing density bonus agreement as currently written. I would encourage the two builders that were here today speaking to get together and come back and build the unit as originally proposed with the affordable housing density bonus agreement. I'm not against the affordable housing. It's already there. The existing zoning has already been approved. The agreement's already been approved by the board, and I believe that's what should be built, because that is what the public was told would be built. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Patrick? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karen, did you want to say something? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'm good. I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a motion so Patrick can second? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I make a motion to deny PUDA-PL20170001626. October 5, 2017 Page 35 of 98 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We already did the PUD. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You want to deny the affordable housing density bonus agreement that's attached to that? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Patrick already seconded. Okay. Motion made by Diane. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Patrick. Discussion? I want to add one more item. I am going to support the motion to deny because of Policy 1.10 of the Growth Management Plan which says the county shall create or preserve affordable housing to minimize the need for additional local services and avoid the concentration of affordable housing units only in specific areas of the jurisdiction. And this certainly is going in that opposite direction. So with that I'll call for the vote. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. Thank you, all, for your participation. (Commissioner Dearborn left the boardroom for the remainder of the meeting.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ***Okay. We are going to move into the next one for about 30 minutes. By the way, some of the Planning Commission members who stay here for lunch, you'll probably have to use the facility downstairs if you're -- or if you intend to. Do you need to be there early? Then do we need to break a little before 12? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. So quarter to 12 to quarter to one? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Whenever. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whenever, okay. With that, ladies and gentlemen, we are going to move into the next item on your agenda. It's No. 9B. It's PUDZ-PL20160001985. It's known as the Cleary RPUD. It's on Immokalee Road about a quarter mile east of Logan Boulevard. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. The Cleary PUD, ladies and gentlemen. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on -- from the Planning Commission. And Stan will have to do his when he comes back. Go ahead, Tom. MR. EASTMAN: None. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I've spoken with Mr. Yovanovich and read emails. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Just staff on this one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I have seen plenty of emails, I've talked to numerous members of staff. I met with the applicant's team, and I talked to the attorney hired by the -- one of the adjoining properties. I also -- based on the people I've talked to, I thought there was going to be a large number here for this particular project. I didn't see many people stand up to be sworn in. Okay. I guess you're leaving your October 5, 2017 Page 36 of 98 discussion up to a central person. That's fine. Thank you. Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I spoke to Mr. Yovanovich and emails. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Numerous emails with attachments from the public. I received an email from Mr. Yovanovich's, I believe, secretary, asked me to contact Rich. I did not have any questions, and I spoke briefly to Rich before the meeting that I didn't have any questions in regards to the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: My apologies. Too much coffee. Two hundred copies of the same mail objecting to this thing, other emails objecting to it, and I talked with Mr. Yovanovich at length. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Richard, it's all yours. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you, and still good morning. Rich Yovanovich on behalf of the petitioner. With me today is Tom Cleary, one of the owners of the property; Wayne Arnold, our professional planner; Jim Banks, our transportation engineer; and Mike Delate, our civil engineer who can answer any questions regarding the project. I'm going to do an abbreviated presentation because Mr. Neale was retained by the property owners for Saturnia Lakes. You saw all of the concerns that were set forth in their letter. He and I had multiple conversations, and I believe we have resolved all of the issues that his clients have raised, and I'll walk you through some changes to the documents that will need to be made. But I put up on the visualizer an aerial photograph outlining the property in yellow. It's approximately nine acres in size. It's on the south side of Immokalee Road. When you look to the east and to the south, that's Saturnia Lakes, which is zoned as the Rigas PUD. Immediately to the west is roughly another nine-acre parcel owned by Oakwood Park West, LLC, and then to the west of that is a roughly 17-acre parcel that is going through the process now to have its Comp Plan designation changed to commercial and for a commercial PUD to be on the property. We are asking for two options on the property, and they are an either/or. The first option would be to develop it as a typical residential community up to 63 units for the property. We would be using the county's density bonus program for infill parcels since we're less than 20 acres in size, and in order to go get an additional three units per acre, we would be required to buy one TDR to get two bonus units, and the Comprehensive Plan, as your staff report indicates, actually encourages infill parcels to be developed at the seven units per acre. The other option is for group housing, which is for senior housing, that we've -- and it's the full range of options. CCRC, independent, ALF, and also skilled nursing are the options that we're asking for at a floor area ratio of .6. I'll put the master plan on the visualizer. The revisions that we'll need to make to the PUD document, which I think can be taken care of by some footnotes to the Development Standards Table, are as follows: For the eastern boundary of the property, which adjoins Saturnia Lakes, we agree to limit the building height for multifamily or group housing for the first 50 feet to no greater than 35 feet zoned and 40 feet -- did I get that right, Pat? MR. NEALE: Uh-huh. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- actual for that first 50-foot setback -- 50-foot area from the east property line. We also agree to a minimum setback of 30 feet along that east property line. Once we get to the 50-foot setback along the east property boundary, we could go to the requested height for the multifamily, which was 40 feet zoned and 50 feet actual, and 45 feet -- that was for the multifamily, and 45 feet zoned, 50 actual for the group housing. So I would propose we'd add a Footnote No. 5 addressing the limitation on the height for that first 50 feet, and then we address in the Development Standards Table the minimum setback along the east property line of 30 feet. We always agreed to include some construction standards related to the multifamily and group October 5, 2017 Page 37 of 98 housing, and I'll read them into the record. They're similar to the standards that have been utilized for apartments, but since we're not doing senior housing, I don't know that we need the dog park and other things that have been agreed to. But we have agreed that it will be concrete masonry unit construction. We agree to stucco, but based upon an earlier conversation with Briarwood, I don't know if they want to limit us to just a stucco finish, but we agreed to that. I'll let Mr. Neale address that if he would agree to other finishes to the structure. Cement or slate tile roof or approved equivalent, minimum 9-foot ceiling heights. We'd have a concrete paver entrance, which we've agreed to on several other apartment complexes, and a gated entry. So that would be added to the commitments section of the PUD. We also agreed that for the multifamily product that there would be no balconies facing onto the east property line adjacent to or adjoining Saturnia Lakes. So for the senior housing we would be allowed to have balconies, but for typical multifamily property, we would not be allowed to have balconies on the east property line. And then, finally, we discussed the floor area ratio, and our goal is to build the type of senior housing that Collier County has become familiar with, which is it has larger units, it has more amenities. And, as you know, our code currently provides a .45 floor area ratio. But I'm sure there's an exception to this, but I would say almost every senior housing product that's come through in the last 10 years or so have all asked for the floor area ratio of a .6 because larger units are built, amenities are provided, thus resulting in higher quality of senior housing product that's found its way to Collier County. And we have asked for that same deviation for those reasons, and I believe the HOA agrees that they would support the .6 because they, too, would like to see the type and quality of senior housing that has been coming to Collier County, and that is why we asked for that deviation. I know Wayne Arnold will take you through some revisions to the standards for the amenity area. When we met with Mr. Strain, he pointed out that if we were to do the multifamily, we haven't really identified where on the property the amenity area would go, so we've come up with typical development standards that Wayne Arnold will take you through. Your staff has reviewed our petition, and all of that's already in the record, so I don't need to go through it again, but your staff is recommending approval and has found us consistent with both the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Code. And we are requesting, based upon the staff report and all the information you have in it, that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the PUD with the revisions that I've just said in the record and with the one deviation for the .6 floor area ratio. And I'll have Wayne take you through a couple of -- he's got a little bit to get into the record, and then we'll answer any questions you may have, or we can answer questions now depending on the pleasure of the Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions at this point of Rich? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I had a productive conversation with Rich, and in the course of it I asked some questions to give him a heads-up, and we agreed that the answers would be forthcoming, and we could put them into the record. I think we can go pretty quickly on this, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. COMMISSIONER FRYER: First of all, with respect to the south border, the preserve area, what is the distance of the south building line to the closest Saturnia house? MR. YOVANOVICH: You have that exhibit, right, Wayne? I've put that up on the visualizer for you. I don't want to misspeak. It's -- my recollection is a couple hundred feet. I know you can see that. The actual -- we have copies for all the Planning Commissioners if they'd like a copy of it. But the distance from the structure on the left to our structure on the right is 285 feet. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Two eighty-five to the building line or to the actual built exterior of the residence? MR. YOVANOVICH: From right here, which is existing, to right here, which is the proposed, is October 5, 2017 Page 38 of 98 285 feet. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. I got it. Thank you. All right. That answers that question. Let's see. Well, I'll reserve -- I have a couple of questions for staff. MR. YOVANOVICH: I know one of your questions was the water management system, and we have verified that it's -- the water management system for Saturnia Lakes has been -- anticipates our connecting to it. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That actually was probably someone else's question. I didn't ask that question. MR. YOVANOVICH: I think you -- you asked me that question about water management. COMMISSIONER FRYER: No, I didn't. MR. YOVANOVICH: You didn't? I thought you did. Someone did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I did. MR. YOVANOVICH: Oh. You too look so much alike. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not asking you questions now, but I asked you that when we were together, that you should explain that. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Can you guys -- you can confuse the two of you sometimes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He's got white on top, I've got white below, so... COMMISSIONER FRYER: I raised the question about the chain of title. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I've had -- my real estate partner has confirmed that chain of title is in the trust, and I will get you the exact name of the trust. COMMISSIONER FRYER: It's the two Clearys as trustees? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. What I was looking for was -- in 2000, Thomas Cleary, as an individual, conveyed to the Cleary Trust, but what I found missing was an instrument showing conveyance from Royal Palm Nursery, which was a general partnership, presumably composed of the Clearys, from that to Thomas Cleary individually. That was the piece that I found missing. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. And we obtained title search reports from First American Title confirming that title is exactly as I've held it. I can provide to you whatever backup you may want, but we have the examined product from First American Title. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So there was an instrument of conveyance from Royal Palm, the general partnership, to Thomas Cleary individually? MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm assuming in order for First American to provide title insurance in these names, they have verified that all necessary deeds are there. I don't have them in my hand, but we do have a product that we can issue title insurance on that says these are the owners. COMMISSIONER FRYER: This one will be coming back for consent, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Based on the changes so far, it sounds like it will, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So you'll be able to furnish that instrument of conveyance as part -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I will provide you the title search report and whatever backup we have, if you need it, Mr. Fryer. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. And you were preparing a buffer exhibit. Is that what this is, the buffer exhibit? MR. YOVANOVICH: That's the one from the -- that's looking south to north, and then we have another one that I believe was included. Was that included, Wayne -- MR. ARNOLD: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- that shows the east to west. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Those are my questions for now, Mr. Chair. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, sir. Anybody else at this time? Go ahead, Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Rich, how much of that preserve is still standing after Irma? MR. YOVANOVICH: Tom, do you know? October 5, 2017 Page 39 of 98 COMMISSIONER EBERT: Because we've had a lot damage in the area. MR. YOVANOVICH: I know. Well, you live that way. Do you know? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes, I do. MR. YOVANOVICH: I haven't looked. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Is it there? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I didn't go across the street and look. On your site plan, you pretty much show the senior residence here. MR. YOVANOVICH: That is a potential layout -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: I understand. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- of the senior residence. COMMISSIONER EBERT: My question was where is the parking? I see a lot of building. I don't see parking. MR. ARNOLD: If I might, Mr. Chairman. I'm Wayne Arnold, for the record, and we prepared that exhibit. And we modeled that after other senior housing project footprints that we've looked at, which would contemplate underbuilding parking. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Underbuilding parking. MR. ARNOLD: Yes. And, again, as Rich indicated, it is conceptual. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. So are you looking at, like, Sandalwood, like that type, 55 and older, and you're looking at -- MR. ARNOLD: The senior housing options that we provide for include all over age 55. So, yes, similar to that model, if -- those are independent units. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes, I know. They're monthly rentals on that. MR. YOVANOVICH: I think they're annual rentals. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Annual rentals? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. It's not a buy-in product like others. COMMISSIONER EBERT: No, it's not. It's a rental product. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. And the height -- just so we're all clear, the height that we've given you included the parking under the building. So it's not the parking plus that height. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the actual height included the parking. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Zoned height at 35 doesn't include parking. So that means you're going to build to 45 feet. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I wanted to make sure. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. Actual -- that's why the actual's there. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's very important. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. That's why I clarified it. MR. YOVANOVICH: The actual is the actual. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm just clarifying. Anybody else? Diane, did you finish? COMMISSIONER EBERT: For now that's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Rich -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Just for Diane's benefit, that preserve looked like it had -- by the aerial, it looked like it had a fair amount of cypress in it, and the cypress weathered the storm very well. They only shredded some leaves, and they're already starting to come back. So I would guess they're fairly well buffered for a while. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Rich, in our meeting, I made it real clear to you that unless you're October 5, 2017 Page 40 of 98 going to put some Medicaid beds in, I don't see the public value in increasing the FAR on these ALFs. We have -- I've had two parents who have had to go into ALFs, and there just isn't affordability on Medicaid beds in Collier County. In fact, Medicaid will pay the 1,600 or 1,400, but they still charge you the difference up to 6,000, or whatever the number is, to be in those facilities. You didn't agree that you would do that, so I did the calculation, and I'm not sure if the neighborhood understood this because they now have -- they have some agreement with you. But when you were asking for 200 ALF units at .60 and your argument was that you had to have them larger. Well, that's simple. At .45 you would only have 150 units, so they'd be the same size. I'm not sure what the benefit is in allowing the .60 when we're not -- from a monetary viewpoint, it sure doesn't help a lot of citizens in this county who cannot afford the -- anything above Medicaid, and we don't have anything in this county of substantial nature to provide Medicaid beds. So I'm still taking that position. And I don't know if the -- I'll look for Pat Neale to explain why they thought there was a change in size of the units, because I don't see how the FAR, when you correspondingly do a ratio down to the number from 200 at .60, you get 150 at .45. So the size would be the same. But, anyway, that's just a statement, and I'll -- you and I will have a -- continue to probably disagree on that. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I don't believe that one of the standards to get a deviation is to provide Medicaid housing in order get the deviation. It certainly has not been applied historically to this type of housing. There's no question that there is a need for this type of housing which, in fact, is a community benefit. It stops people from having to leave the area they're currently living in when they get to the point where they want to go to this type of housing, and it is not in any way detrimental to the community to allow for the .60 floor area ratio. The -- I don't even know if you can get Medicaid for this type of housing. I've had that same situation. It wasn't with a parent. It was with a grandparent, but -- and it was for skilled nursing. And, you know, I get that it's expensive. But one of the criteria for approval of a deviation is not that I address a financial need for some people in the community. We are providing a higher quality senior housing project for a demand that's out there, and that's -- that satisfies the deviation criteria. And your staff has determined, as this commission has determined on many, many occasions, that this requested deviation is not detrimental to the community, and that's the standard. It may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety, and welfare of the community. And there has been no demonstrated detrimental effect on health, safety, and welfare of the community by our requesting this .6 floor area ratio. That doesn't mean there isn't a need for exactly what you're saying in this community, but that has to be dealt with through appropriate marketplace forces and the ability to even get Medicaid in the first place. I don't know. It's not part of the zoning criteria in our code. And I know we'll just have to agree to disagree on that. And, so I -- again, we can't agree to additional -- providing Medicare or Medicaid beds in exchange for the increased .6 FAR. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm not going to -- we could debate this all day; we'll never change. And I'm not going to be in a position to approving .6, as long as I sit on this board, that doesn't include some help for the Medicaid side of things. And you've offered nothing in that regard. Deviations are not a mandatory "shall." They're something that can be based on our discretion up here, and I'm telling you now that I don't see the need without some public service above and beyond what .45 requires. MR. YOVANOVICH: And, Mr. Strain, you and I had this discussion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yep. MR. YOVANOVICH: Where do I find what the measurable standard is that will make the Planning Commission and the Board happy that I've satisfied the Medicaid facility bed? It doesn't exist in your Land Development Code, and you cannot impose an arbitrary standard on any property owner. And it's not measurable. And I haven't offered anything, because I don't know what will make October 5, 2017 Page 41 of 98 people happy. MR. KLATZKOW: Nobody's imposing anything. It's a deviation from a requirement, okay. There is no entitlement whatsoever for a deviation from the code, period. It's completely discretionary, and among that would be the Board's finding a public purpose to it. The Chairman's announced a public purpose for why he would grant a deviation. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, what would be the standard to get it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would be something I'd need to understand from you. You're looking at 50 more units by going to that FAR. There needs to be a good percentage of those looking at Medicaid beds. We have, what, one facility in all of Collier County. Goodlette Arms is the only one that offers, I believe, Medicaid beds at the value of Medicaid; all the rest allow you to -- when we get ordinarily. All the rest allow you to -- when we get older, looking at 4-, 5-, 6,000 a month with a Medicaid offsetting a portion of that and the rest out-of-pocket. Not everybody can afford that in this county, and some of us, as we get older, may want to live in this county. I'm suggesting we start looking at it now, like we're starting to look at things involving hurricanes and storms that we didn't expect before. And that's another issue we're going to be bringing up here today. This facility needs to have a permanent on-site generator for a certain amount of time in which we can anticipate power being out just like the Governor has ordered across the state. Those items change. Things change over time. We have to look at standards and improve what we've already got, especially after a lesson we just learned over the last -- last 30 days. And this is another one that's come about and I had to experience firsthand to realize where we were in this county and what we were lacking. And I personally am not going to let it happen, if I can help it, so... MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't think there's a disagreement on the generator and the need for generators, and hopefully -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where's that required in the code, Rich? MR. YOVANOVICH: What's that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where's that required in the code? It's not. It's something else that's needed for health, public, safety and welfare, just like the Medicaid beds are. MR. YOVANOVICH: And you and I had this discussion as well. We both believed that for senior housing ALFs it was required, and if it's not, we'll address it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we will address it. It will be, so. And I've already stated my intent, and that issue we just will have to disagree on, so... With that, we'll -- you had -- Wayne was going to speak next? MR. ARNOLD: Good morning, again. Wayne Arnold, for the record. Certified planner with Q Grady Minor & Associates, and Rich gave you an overview of the general requests that we're proposing. The significant issues I think that were raised in the neighbors' letter, as Rich mentioned, have been addressed with some of the changes that we would make to the development table in regard to the stepped and tiered approach at building heights and setbacks. The other exhibit that we prepared that Rich showed you that Mr. Fryer raised the question on were twofold. We created two exhibits. This one happens to be looking north from the nearest residences at Saturnia Lakes and, of course, that takes you through our preserve area and through the various buffers that Saturnia Lakes provided for themselves and then, obviously, too, what we proposed, a 50-foot-tall maximum building height building. So you can see that because those trees -- as Mr. Chrzanowski mentioned, we have a series of pine trees and cypress trees that are high, that -- we believe that's more than sufficient buffering to provide not only the separation and compatibility with Saturnia. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's looking north? MR. ARNOLD: Yes. This is the view looking west from Saturnia Lakes, so Saturnia Lakes is to your right on that page. And what you see is the nearest building happens to be east of their entrance road. So those folks have a layer of landscaping, a lake, their own perimeter buffer, their access road with a landscape median, and then they provided a 30-foot-wide landscaped area before you get to our property line for over 300 feet of October 5, 2017 Page 42 of 98 separation. So this was the compatibility evaluation that I did as an expert. And looking at the pure building separation and the layering of landscaping, it's my opinion that what we've offered was compatible. And as Mr. Neale indicated in his letter, they've asked for some additional setback for going above 35 feet, which we have agreed. So the exhibit I prepared showed our building at the 30-foot setback line that they were proposing initially. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I get misoriented quite a bit. The looking north one to me looks like more the looking west, and the looking west one looks like more the looking north. Am I misoriented? Disoriented? Unoriented? COMMISSIONER EBERT: No, Rich did -- MR. ARNOLD: The exhibit that I put back up on the screen, Mr. Chrzanowski, let me point to what's our preserve. I'll circle it so you can see. That area is really the preserve area. It's well over 100 feet wide. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. But what I'm saying is this says it's looking north, but the section is actually looking west, isn't it? MR. ARNOLD: No. The structure -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Well, west. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ladies and gentlemen, please, not from the audience. I'll have to work just with the applicant up here. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah, looking west, right? MR. ARNOLD: The one exhibit is looking north, so -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Oh, I agree, one exhibit is looking north, but it's not the one you say. COMMISSIONER FRYER: The labels are reversed. MR. ARNOLD: No, sir, they're not. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Never mind. MR. ARNOLD: But the point of our conversation when we started this was we have a large separation between structures, and in one case it's through several layers of landscape buffer that exist and will be provided, and in the second exhibit it shows the buffering that is provided because of our preserve that's south of our proposed building area and the preserve area that's on Saturnia Lakes. So, in my opinion, those are compatible. The other issue was relative to height, and we had analyzed the height of -- the zoned height for other PUDs in the surrounding corridor, and you find heights that -- the 45 feet zoned and 50-foot actual height that we're proposing is not inconsistent with what others have been approved at. Now, as in Saturnia Lakes, the Rigas PUD, they allowed 50-foot-tall multifamily buildings. The developer, GL Homes, who -- I worked on the zoning for Saturnia Lakes back in the day, they made a conscious decision not to construct the multifamily dwellings and decided to build 100 percent single-family community. But the zoning allowed the 50-foot height. So our 45 feet and 50 feet is not inconsistent with the zoned heights that were provided with our immediate neighbors and in other communities along the corridor. So in that regard, the building height and the separation makes it compatible. The other issue that I would simply touch on, and it's in your staff report and Rich mentioned it, is we're asking, because we're a less-than-20-acre property, we qualify for the infill provision under your Comprehensive Plan, which qualifies us with a base density of four. It allows you to gain up to three dwelling units per acre because we're an infill project, and the county has tried to encourage that. And they added a few years ago the provisions that to qualify for it, to help their TDR program, you're required to purchase your first bonus unit as TDR units in order to qualify for that. But the Comp Plan is very clear that we qualify and we're eligible for that. There was a Comprehensive Plan analysis completed by your staff, and we believe that the seven-unit-per-acre density that's proposed is not inconsistent with the other densities along the Immokalee Road corridor. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Wayne, that probably is a good time to break at this point. We need October 5, 2017 Page 43 of 98 to have a lunch break for the court reporter and ourselves. So what we'll do is we'll break, ladies and gentlemen, for lunch. We'll come back at one o'clock. At that time we'll finish the applicant's planner's presentations and questions from the Planning Commission, and then we'll go into public speakers after staff report. Thank you. We'll see you in about an hour. (A luncheon recess was had, and Tom Eastman has left the boardroom for the remainder of the meeting.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody. If you'll please take your seats. We'd like to resume the meeting and pick up where we left off, sort of. For the Planning Commission's benefit, it's obvious that we are not going to get to all the items on the agenda today. One of the items I'd like to ask the Planning Commission to continue to the October 19th meeting is the AUIR, the Annual Update and Inventory Report. It's PL20170000596/CPSP2017-1. If you're so inclined, would someone make a motion to continue. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I make a motion to continue it. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Stan. Discussion? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Motion to amend. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion to amend? COMMISSIONER FRYER: To include the NIM old business as well, to have that carried over as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's great. Okay. Is that a second? And the prime and second agree to that? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then those two items, which is 10A and 9F, will be continued to the 19th. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. Motion carries 6-0. Let the record show, by the way, that Patrick is not here at this time. He had to leave. The other thing, Jeremy Frantz is probably watching. Jeremy, I'm not sure if you are -- that we'll get to your item, which is 9E. We'll try, but we've still got a lot to go through today, so we'll have to take that as we get on to the afternoon. So with that, Wayne, we left off with your presentation, so please proceed. MR. ARNOLD: Hi. For the record, Wayne Arnold. And, Mr. Strain, if I could, Mike Delate is here from our office, who's a site civil engineer. And if there are questions relating to water management, I'd like to put Mike Delate up now. He has a commitment at two o'clock today, and then I only have one other item to address as part of my presentation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's fine. The question that I think you -- I mentioned when we all met was, you had said that you were going to be putting water through Saturnia Lakes, and I just wanted to make sure everybody understands how and why that can happen. MR. ARNOLD: We can address that and, secondarily, on our master plan we were asked by the county staff as part of the review to locate the control structure location consistent with the permits that are in October 5, 2017 Page 44 of 98 place for Saturnia Lakes. So that's why you note a location for discharge on our master plan. It's not always common, but staff did ask us to do that, and we did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. DELATE: Good afternoon. For the record, Mike Delate, engineer with Grady Minor. I'd like to present to you the staff report as part of the Saturnia Lakes original permit. At the time it was called Rigas ERP. And part of that staff report indicated -- and I'll put it on the overhead. The section I highlighted there -- maybe, Nancy, could you -- MR. BELLOWS: Can you zoom in on the highlighted. COMMISSIONER EBERT: You're going to have to -- MR. DELATE: As we get there, in essence, you can read it. But it says the system, which is the Saturnia Lakes water management system, accepts flows from an 80-acre off-site area north of the project, and that area, in essence, is from Immokalee Road south to the border or the property line of Saturnia Lakes, and I'll add this. So I've marked up the plan from the permit, and you can see the subject parcel is on the west side of their entry road there, and I marked that. What they did prudently at the time -- this is part of the Harvey Water Management Basin, Collier County -- was install and construct collector swales all along the parcel boundaries of Saturnia Lakes and intercepting inlets, and the water then is intercepted by those inlets and taken into the Saturnia Lakes water management system. So when the subject parcel is developed, they will have to comply with Water Management District rules in terms of discharge, and the permit indicates what their allowable discharge rate is, and then the system will take that water and convey it through Saturnia Lakes down farther south into the Harvey system. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Has your firm or someone verified that the discharge system built for Saturnia Lakes took this future potential into consideration and it's acceptable now, or does that have to be modified? MR. DELATE: No. It is acceptable now. The system is in adequate condition on the outside of Saturnia Lakes to accept this water. By the time they go and develop it, they may have to clean up around the inlets and whatnot. But its condition now is accepting offsite flows as it stands. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any agreements in place for mutual maintenance concerns over the water management systems that are being used now by another party within Saturnia Lakes? MR. DELATE: That I don't know, but typically in the entire Harvey basin that's not the case. Water just flows from project to project. But we've done projects farther south, and it's taken waters from offsite and conveyed them through. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So this was a permit requirement of Saturnia Lakes which is formerly Rigas -- MR. DELATE: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- at the time they came in to get approved, and they accepted -- the developer at that time accepted it? MR. DELATE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any -- Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Mike, then that was fully permitted through -- an environmental resource permit through the South Florida Water Management District? MR. DELATE: That is correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And your permit for your connection and development will go through the process as well? You'll be amending an existing ERP? MR. DELATE: It will require a brand new permit. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It will require a -- MR. DELATE: Brand new permit. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Brand new permit, okay. Recognizing that the water will flow, then, to the east into the adjoining subdivision? MR. DELATE: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. October 5, 2017 Page 45 of 98 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. That was a page from the Water Management District permit that you put up on the screen. MR. DELATE: Yes. As you can see on the lower right there, they're stamped. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. So it's not include -- I mean, to me that would be a permit mod. It's saying you've got all that and -- MR. DELATE: Yeah. The permit for Rigas, or Saturnia Lakes, indicates it accepts the flow, but it did not permit, either conceptual or construction-wise, anything outside of the boundary of Saturnia, so... COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. So you got a brand new permit. MR. DELATE: Correct. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: It makes no difference -- MR. DELATE: Makes no difference. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: -- one way or the other. It's about the same. Okay. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. No other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Mike. MR. DELATE: Thank you. MR. ARNOLD: All right. Again, Wayne Arnold. And, Mr. Strain, where I left off, I really wanted to express from my notes, you had asked us to look at -- since we didn't identify an amenity area location on our master plan, to come up with some amenity standards. So I didn't add it to the table. I just created a separate page, development standards for amenity area. And I can put that on the visualizer. And I highlighted just by circling these. I didn't put any minimum lot area requirements or minimum front side rear setbacks. What I did is expressed PUD boundary setbacks. And since we agreed with our neighbors to have a minimum 30-foot setback on the east side for the principal building, I put the east boundary setback at 30 feet, as you can see, for an amenity area, west boundary 20 feet, and then proposed from the south boundary 100 feet knowing that our preserve is a little over 100 feet as it stands today. I just made it a round number. And then zoned height of 30 and 35 feet to accommodate potentially a clubhouse. I'm not sure that the site warrants a full clubhouse. It may be one of those small community pools with a bathhouse. I don't really know yet. It depends on who the entity is that would build. But then if you have a senior housing project, they may have a larger clubhouse structure of sorts but probably integrated into the building that's going to meet all the other setbacks anyway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the 30 feet from the east boundary is what you all had agreed to when you -- MR. ARNOLD: Principal structure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Principal structure. MR. ARNOLD: I just made it the same -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: At the same time, part of that other discussion was you weren't going to have balconies on multifamily. The 30 feet and the balcony, what was the purpose of those restrictions? MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think Mr. Yovanovich had that conversation with Mr. Neale, but I believe it had to do with privacy and potential noise generated from people out on a balcony. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you don't see any more enhanced concern over privacy over an outdoor recreation area? MR. ARNOLD: I don't know that I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tennis courts with lights and pools and things like that? MR. ARNOLD: I don't think so. I mean, if our principal buildings can be there, then an accessory building, I don't know that it's going to be any more intrusive than this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, there's -- tennis courts outside is a little different than a balcony on a multifamily, and so is a swimming pool. Okay. We'll see what the residents have to say. MR. ARNOLD: I think that concludes my presentation unless you have other questions for me. October 5, 2017 Page 46 of 98 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions of Wayne Arnold? (No response.) MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm not done with you yet. MR. ARNOLD: Oh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I always defer to the other members first. MR. ARNOLD: Forgive me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 2 of your PUD, under the operational requirements for a group housing, emergency generator with enough fuel to last for the term that the Governor has requested of others, and I think that's five days, is -- needs to be added as Item No. 8, I would assume. Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I mean, with enough fuel, that could either be a propane generator or there's Teco Gas Service. It would be suitable then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, whatever. Just as long as it takes -- as long as they've got five days. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I guess it would -- sufficient fuel source, I guess -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- is how you want to word it, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That way they're at least covered. MR. ARNOLD: Did you say, excuse me, five days, Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's what the Governor's request was that is in debate right now. Because he wanted them installed on existing facilities by December, and the organization that runs ALF said, hey, you can't get much done in three months anywhere, and it's not possible. You guys don't have that issue, but at least when you do build, if we get this locked in now, it takes care of it. On your Development Standards Table, the Footnote No. 4 refers to -- it says, landscape buffer easements and/or lake maintenance easements shall be located within open space tracts or lake tracts and not within a platted residential lot. Can you drop the word "platted." And the same thing on the second sentence, drop the word "platted" before residential, because you may be using SDPs when you come into the position with your multifamily. MR. ARNOLD: Correct, and those probably are then only recorded as landscape easement buffer easements on a Site Development Plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. They'll be separate easements, though. I just want to make sure that you're going to separate them as easements, and I'm not sure that language in Footnote No. 4 would address the SDP application as separate easements, because it keeps referring to platted. MR. ARNOLD: And that was a distinction we've had because of issues you brought up, Mr. Strain. It's individual lot owners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. ARNOLD: Kind of extend their yard into what could be a buffer easement. I don't think we have the same issue with regard to a Site Development Plan where the code already requires that they be placed in separate easements. But I'm happy to eliminate the word "plat." I don't know that it affects anything we would be trying to do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Just drop that word for now; that way we can take a look at it any way we want. MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I ask a question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to ask it just because I do because -- anyway, go ahead. MR. YOVANOVICH: No. It's just, when you do a plat for -- I mean, I'm sorry -- a Site Development Plan for a residential development, is the whole thing considered one lot and it's a residential lot? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Usually it's a parcel, but -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, plats I understand create parcels. I just don't want to -- I'm afraid that the whole thing is considered one big residential lot, and I wouldn't be able to have that easement within the lot, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we take a look and do this: All landscape buffer easements October 5, 2017 Page 47 of 98 and/or lake easements will be recorded or platted as the case may be. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You can correct that by the time we get back on consent. That way we're covered. In the 30-foot issue that you worked out with the group next door, the Saturnia Lakes people, does that 30 feet include the perimeter buffers? MR. ARNOLD: Yes. It was a building setback question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. I just wanted to make sure I understood it. What about -- okay. So at 30 feet -- and it's a building setback, and we allow parking spaces in setbacks, you could build a parking lot up, then, to the buffer width, which is 15 feet. Is that what they understood? MR. ARNOLD: I don't know that that's their understanding, but that's how I would -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if you had a carport in the parking area, that's not a principal structure; it's accessory. So it, too, would be at 15 feet, not 30. I didn't know about if the community understood that, so... AUDIENCE MEMBERS: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ladies and gentlemen, when you come up, you can -- we'll talk about it some more. But this is for the applicant's information. I think that there obviously, then, needs to be some clarity. And, Wayne, on the master plan, there are two notes on the master plan I talked to you about that I don't think are needed on master plans anymore. It's Notes 1 and 2. Did you have any problem taking those off? MR. ARNOLD: Mr. Strain, I don't believe so. The first note notes that it's subject to -- it's conceptual and subject to minor modifications during agency permitting. I think there's language in the code that says essentially the same thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There is. MR. ARNOLD: And then No. 2 says, all acreages except preserve are approximate and subject to modification -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's in the code, too. MR. ARNOLD: -- and that's in the code. So, yes, I don't think we have any objection to removing Notes 1 and 2, and renumbering Note 3 as Note 1. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let me see where my next one is. Well, you know, you've got your deviation. I think I've already talked with Rich about that, so you know where I stand on that. And your balance of issues have already been discussed, so that's all I've got at this time. Anybody else have any questions of Mr. Arnold? MR. ARNOLD: Mr. Strain, if I might, I would just simply add that if this is coming back for consent, the PUD table will need to be modified to reflect the agreement that we have reached with the Saturnia Homeowners Association with regard to the setbacks -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. ARNOLD: -- and staggered heights, so that will need to be incorporated into the changes. And I think the condition -- the new condition relative to construction standards that was discussed with the concrete structures, et cetera, would need to be added as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I agree with you, and I didn't reiterate that because I assume -- I'm assuming the Planning Commission will vote on it, but I'm assuming that we're going to request, because of the changes, that it come back for consent. MR. ARNOLD: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we'll go to staff report. MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I add one more thing for the record to clarify things? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MR. YOVANOVICH: I forgot to mention this. And I know this is a concern for the residents about what's the architecture going to look like for the senior housing, and I just want to make sure, my October 5, 2017 Page 48 of 98 understanding, and I believe the code already requires, that the senior housing comply with the county's architectural standards which means you can't have one big long building. You have the proper massing and breaking up of the buildings. And I just wanted that put on the record that those standards do apply to the senior housing portion of this project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And this is an RPUD. Ray, does the architectural code apply to senior housing when it's an RPUD versus a CPUD? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. In a residential PUD, this is a nonresidential use community facility. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it's an RPUD. MR. BELLOWS: It's an RPUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Makes it a little odd. Why don't we just add a -- yeah, just stipulate it. Put it somewhere under developer conditions that you're going to abide by 5.05, or whatever the number is for -- MR. YOVANOVICH: And that's why I wanted it on record; we understood it applied to us, and we're not trying to find a way around that, so let's just make sure that it's in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Nancy? MS. GUNDLACH: Good afternoon, Commissioners. The subject property is consistent with the Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Code; therefore, staff is recommending approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nancy's got this down pat, I'll tell you what. Thank you, Nancy. I don't have any staff questions. Anybody else? Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have several. Let's see, first of all, the ordinance language "compatible with and complementary to," does staff consider the word "similar" to be the equivalent of those? MS. GUNDLACH: What do you think, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Can you repeat the question? COMMISSIONER FRYER: There are a number of places in the staff analysis where your affirmative conclusions are based upon findings of similarity, and I observed that in some of the criteria that we're required to look at the language is "compatible with and complementary to," and I don't see the word "similarity" in those criteria that we're supposed to evaluate. And I was just wondering if staff considers the words to be analogous. MS. GUNDLACH: We do. MR. BELLOWS: That is my understanding, that it is. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Then there's a reference to three other projects: Addie's Corner, Tree Farm, Abaco Club. And my question has to do with geography. How proximate are these developments to the one in question? MS. GUNDLACH: They're located near 951 and Immokalee. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. Well, I know where they are, but what I'm asking is, what is the distance from there -- how proximate are they to the property in question? Are they two miles away, five miles away? MS. GUNDLACH: Definitely within five miles. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Within five miles. MS. GUNDLACH: Yeah. Could be three. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So then it comes to the question of the word "surrounding." Does surrounding to staff mean within five miles? MS. GUNDLACH: It could mean that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And let's see. MS. GUNDLACH: Commissioner, I just got a clarification. It's less than two miles. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Less than two for these three similar properties? MS. GUNDLACH: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. Okay. There are three options that are being asked for? Three alternatives or two? I'm getting my projects confused. October 5, 2017 Page 49 of 98 MS. GUNDLACH: I'm not sure what the question is. COMMISSIONER FRYER: There's single-family, multifamily, and seniors, right? Three? Three options. MS. GUNDLACH: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. But the seniors qualifier only applies to the group housing, right? It doesn't apply to single-family or multifamily. The way it's worded it says, allow construction of a maximum of 63 residential dwelling units or 200 housing units for seniors, but the "for seniors" just modifies the housing units, right? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. That is correct. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. And my chain-of-title question has been answered; Rich has sent me the deed. Let's see. I think that's all I have, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Anybody else? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes, I do. Just a little bit more on his. I noticed that you also had Tree Farm, Addie's Corner, and Abaco. Addie's Corner and Tree Farm are in an activity center, so that's where you come up with these larger units. In talking with staff on this -- and I'll be very honest with you; I remember the rural fringe mixed-use district and everything. And in going back and looking at this, I'm going, wait a minute this isn't the rural fringe mixed-use district where you use the TDRs and stuff. Then I found out from one of the staff people that, well, this has been in the books for many years but it's not been used since I've been here. And I said, how long have you been here? And they said 22 years. So it was kind of new to me that you applied that. But an activity center is much more than these. You have HD Development across the street, which is part of Olde Cypress, at 2.42 units, and then you have Saturnia Lakes, which is three -- which is a little over three units. And so these are a lot more units compared to what's really around this at the time. And if you go west, that's the Estates where those lots are much bigger. So that was one of my main questions in this, the amount that you're asking for. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anything else? Do you have more? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Not at this time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. We'll move on to public speakers. And as some of you may have been here before when the other public speakers spoke, just use either microphone. Ray will call out two names so that one's waiting for the other. Five minutes, please, unless -- if you have more, we'll be a little tolerant of that, and ask that you not be redundant, and you can simply say you agree with the previous speaker if you like. Ray, if you'd call the first public speaker. MR. BELLOWS: First speaker, Robert Owens, to be followed by Mary Jane Cary. Or you wanted first? MR. NEALE: If I could. MR. BELLOWS: Pat Neale. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you mind conceding your first position to Mr. Neale? MR. OWENS: No problem. MR. NEALE: Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you, Board, for allowing this project to be heard and for moving forward. My name is Patrick Neale. I'm the attorney representing the homeowners -- Saturnia Lakes Homeowners Association. And I've been in discussion with the president of the association, Mr. Mike Manganaro, who, unfortunately, can't be here today. But Mr. Fortino, who is a committee member at the association, will also speak today subsequent to me. The concerns expressed to me by my client for this project were primarily those of height, intensity, density, and the high -- they believe that it should be a community that's in keeping and compatible with their community. After discussions and correspondence with Mr. Yovanovich, my client has agreed to some October 5, 2017 Page 50 of 98 concessions that they made to my client to their development plan to help mitigate some of those things. That said, there's still -- you know, you may hear from -- in fact, you probably will hear from other members of the community that they still have concerns about some of these issues, and those will be put on the record as well. The representations that Mr. Yovanovich made as far as the agreements on setback were correct, and on the height issue, 35 feet building height with the 40 feet max from the range from 30 to 50 feet, and then from 50 feet in to -- 50 feet max building and 40 and 45. The construction standards we agree with; the design standards as well. The balconies -- balcony issue as well, we did agree to those. The floor area ratio, my client -- it was represented to me, which I represented to my client, that the increased floor area ratio would yield a more high-end, for lack of a better term, assisted living project and provide better amenities, and in keeping with my client's desire to have this be a higher-end project, we were willing to accept the .6 floor area ratio. One of my other clients -- one of the members of the association brought forth a concern, which I think would be addressed at Site Development Plan; if this is an assisted living facility, the fact of having seniors, like myself, turning in and out of the facility, you may want to consider, when it comes to Site Development Plan phase, to put in a turn lane there at the entrance and a turn lane to exit so that there's an ability to slow there. The issue that was just brought up, and it was because of the generator issue, is that some sort of sound attenuation is certainly, for the generator, something that my clients would be concerned about. And we hadn't really -- Mr. Yovanovich and I hadn't really discussed the accessory use parking issue, but it was my understanding, or my discussion with him, that the parking was going to be underbuilding parking. I think any parking within the setback would be something that my client would be concerned with, but that's just an ancillary piece. I'm certainly here to respond the best I can to any questions from the Board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any questions? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Sir, you raised a number of issues in your letter of the 28th on behalf of Saturnia Lakes HOA. MR. NEALE: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Are you telling us that all of the issues that you have with respect to -- on behalf of the HOA as your client have been resolved? MR. NEALE: Yes. Yeah, those issues that were raised in that letter have been resolved by the agreement with the client at this point. So, yeah, from -- my position as the attorney for the HOA and the agreement of Mr. Manganaro, the president, yes, they have been resolved. Whether they're -- all the members of the association agree, I can't speak to that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: But your client, the HOA, is on board? MR. NEALE: Yes. AUDIENCE MEMBERS: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ladies and gentlemen, please, we'll -- you'll have your turn. Everybody can speak when we get to the rest of the public speakers. Are you done, Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pat, when you decide -- or when your group decided that this .60 was okay, they were -- they're asking for 200 units with an FAR of .60. Now, if you do a simple ratio and compute it out, if they were to do .45 units with 100 -- .45 FAR with 150 units, everything stays the same. So why was the alternative chosen to do the higher, both density and FAR, when you could have probably argued less FAR would compute to less density and you still end up with the same-size units? MR. NEALE: Understood. And this was based on a discussion that Mr. Yovanovich and I had. And it was my understanding that, based on the desires expressed to me by my client, that the better amenity package would come with the higher density and higher FAR, so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, a better amenity package could come with a higher density because October 5, 2017 Page 51 of 98 they would use that higher FAR to create bigger units, but if they had less units because of a lower FAR, then they wouldn't -- they'd still be the same. Okay. MR. NEALE: The question was whether they would maintain the same number of units with the lower FAR, then you go with smaller units, and that was really the question. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane, then Joe. COMMISSIONER EBERT: You mentioned a turn lane. MR. NEALE: Yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: If we could go back to the -- Nancy, could you put that towards the road, the picture of the plan. You're coming in right at the beginning of the property. I don't know if the person next to you would want a turn lane to get rid of some of his property. So I -- and I know the road system. I don't think they'd like that very well either at this point. MR. NEALE: Understood. It was -- a comment was made to me by, I think it was Mr. Yovanovich, that they're thinking of sharing that entrance over there so that there would be a potential for a turn lane at that point. It's just something that would be -- you know, one of the residents brought up to me the sort of blind terror of people pulling out into traffic there or coming off the road without having the ability to have a deceleration position. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So they've already spoke with Mr. Walker who has the property next to you? MR. NEALE: I don't -- I can't assert that. I'm just reporting what Mr. Yovanovich said to me. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. Regarding the FAR, my understanding, that the FAR, as written, is a maximum. It doesn't necessarily mean that they have to meet that. That's the maximum limit. And that's your understanding? MR. NEALE: Yeah. Yeah, the .6, as I understand, was the absolute maximum. It wasn't that they had to build to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So as a followup, you don't have any agreement that says if they get the .6, they'll build bigger units? You just -- MR. NEALE: Well, it was the representation made. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was the assumption. That was the argument put forth, but there's no requirement to build larger units. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct, but the assumption is that because they will have the larger, that they would, because they're still -- they've still got the max number of units in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Pat. MR. NEALE: Thank you. What I'd like to request is that Mr. Anthony Fortino speak after me, because he's representing Mr. Manganaro, who's the president of the association. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's okay with me as long -- that's fine. Is he a registered speaker, Ray? Just move him forward. MR. BELLOWS: Yes, he is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. NEALE: Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So the -- excuse me. The HOA has counsel, and the president of the HOA has separate counsel? MR. NEALE: No, no, no. Mr. Fortino is -- he's on the committee there. He is -- he's representing Mr. Manganaro solely as a member of the committee, and Mr. Manganaro can't be here today, so he's speaking for him. No, he's not the attorney. I'm the -- for this matter, I'm the attorney for the association. October 5, 2017 Page 52 of 98 COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. MR. NEALE: Thank you. MR. FORTINO: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the Board. Thank you for hearing us. I am here representing myself as a board member, eight-year resident of Saturnia Lakes, as well as our board president, Mr. Michael Manganaro. I concur with Mr. Neale's testimony in the negotiation and points that we've discussed with Mr. Yovanovich and the Cleary PUD. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chairman, what is this witness's name, please? MR. FORTINO: Anthony Fortino. F-o-r-t-i-n-o. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. MR. FORTINO: One point I'd like to make, and, you know -- and I think Mr. Chairman brought it up on the 30-foot buffer. I think that we would like to have that solely as a landscape buffer and not as the ability and the requirement to leave -- you know, keep cars parking in that area. So that -- I wanted to put that on the record. I also want to commend the Board for bringing up two items, such as the generator. Mr. Neale had discussed that briefly. I think that an attenuation sound screening, depending on where that generator was to be placed on site, would be appropriate for the Saturnia Lakes residents, so that there wouldn't be a disturbance when it did kick on. I also want to commend the Chair on Medicaid and Medicare bedding. I was unaware of that, and I know it would potentially change of business plan of the applicant, but that's something that could be discussed. It would affect FAR as well. But I do concur with Mr. Neale's testimony. And I know that there are members of the community that are going to be speaking, so thank you very much for your time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Robert Owens, to be followed by Mary Jane Cary. MR. OWENS: Thank you for allowing me to speak today, Commissioners. I'd like to point out that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just start by stating your name. MR. OWENS: It's Robert Owens, and I'm a resident of a Saturnia Lakes. Again, I would like to talk about this recent agreement by our president. To my knowledge, there was no board meeting held and agreed to, and the residents here are unaware of any agreements that were made on behalf of the community. And I would like to also point out that the buffer zone and the east/west elevation where it shows trees would shield some of the view of most of our community on Butterfly Palm of these homes is really not there. I mean, it looks good on paper, but those trees aren't there. And when we had a pre-meeting in the spring, the Clearys, the association, or the attorney for the Clearys, had said that they would be willing to plant trees or other vegetation on Saturnia Lakes property if given permission to help mitigate some of this tall building. So, again, I'd like to submit that. Anyway -- and again, Mark, I'd like to tell you I admire your insistence on some Medicare assisted housing. I have a level one with memory loss, and it is hard to find places in the community that way. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know what you're going through. Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: Mary Jane Cary, followed by Walter Cary. MS. CARY: Hi. My name's Mary Jane Cary. I've been a full-time resident of Saturnia Lakes since 2005, served as the landscape and lakes committee chair in the community for two or three years, and then became a Collier Extension master gardener. I've been one since 2008 and work with folks around the county, especially HOAs, with Florida Friendly Landscaping Program issues. One of the issues that I would like to raise -- you know, we heard some very nice words about a preserve that can be used as a visual buffer between homes in Saturnia and the proposed housing. As a sidenote, I do find it interesting that there are all of these different options for what could be placed on that October 5, 2017 Page 53 of 98 property, and yet the only one that we seem to be seeing visuals of today is a multistory senior housing facility. But about the buffer. We actually have some preserves in Saturnia Lakes. In fact, one that's very similar at the north end of Butterfly Palm up against Immokalee that contains mostly pines and cypress. We have several other preserves in the area but, according to the PUD, my understanding is that property's actually owned by the county but our HOA is expected to maintain it in perpetuity and keep it free of exotic invasives. I remember several years ago we were having great difficulty with Brazilian pepper, in particular, invading our property from the Cleary property. We attempted to work through some of those issues. We were fighting back the encroachment that was occurring on our property. Didn't really get very much assistance there. It is -- in that particular Cleary preserve, there are -- yes, there are pine trees and cypress trees, but there also are probably sufficient stands of Brazilian pepper. I can only imagine that that PUD may be responsible also for the removal of those exotics and, therefore, may reduce the visual barrier between our homes and any properties that are built on that piece of ground. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next speaker, please? MR. BELLOWS: Walter Cary. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Followed by? MR. BELLOWS: Followed by Frank DeCarlo. MR. CARY: Hi, Committee. Thank you for allowing me to speak. One of the topics -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you mind stating your name for the record. MR. CARY: Excuse me. Walter Cary. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. CARY: And I will tell the truth. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm assuming you're already sworn in, right? MR. CARY: I did not swear in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I'm glad -- then we definitely need -- this morning we swore everybody in that was supposed to speak, and I noticed a lot of people from Saturnia didn't stand up. So if you've now decided to speak and if you've already spoke, anyway, please stand up and be sworn in by the court reporter, including the gentleman at the mike. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's the testimony you will give and have given, correct? MR. CARY: Have given. One of the topics I was going to talk about was flood control coming from this property that would bleed over into the Saturnia Lakes. During the recent hurricane, our lakes did a good job of holding back the water, but we did have street flooding. All of the streets took on significant water, so that should be revisited, and I guess that will be done at a different meeting, not this meeting. But that is one of my concerns is the street flooding. When you -- and another concern I have is the buffer zone. When you enter our property from Immokalee coming down, our main road, which everybody will use, is only 30 feet west -- or east of this property. So we need to make sure that their setback is a full 30 feet with appropriate plantings of trees and other mitigation plants so that we don't have to stare at a 45-foot-high building that's going to make our property values considerably less if you drive in and look up at a 45-foot building from our driveway. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. And so to answer your question, the drainage and all that is looked at during a Site Development Plan review. That's the details they get into with their calculations of stormwater management. And whatever the code requires, that's what they'll have to put in. Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: The existing -- we approved a .06 CFS per acre discharge October 5, 2017 Page 54 of 98 rate. That's why a lot of these projects, including where I live, held back so much water, because they're holding back a lot of water. We used to be allowed to discharge a lot more water. But you remember over the last year or so they've come in with decreased discharge rate. As you decrease the allowable discharge rate, you're going to hold back more water. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And just understand that in most cases, for the size storm that we had for Irma, the drainage system is designed that you will get street flooding. That's where -- that becomes, quote, part of the water storage area. And it's typical in most every community, the way they're designed, because of the way -- it's discharge rate holding back the water and requiring the treatment -- staging of treatment of water and all the other -- associated with the design. But there's no public hearing for that review. That's done through the Water Management District and through the site plan. So you referred to another hearing. There will be none -- it's not another hearing, but it is a permit application process that you can certainly provide your objection to, I guess, if you -- because if it goes through the Florida -- South Florida Water Management District, it will be a permit application process. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: But during Dan Summer's presentation to the Board, he said the greatest rainfall measured was 9.6 inches. That is not a 25-year three-day storm. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And in a 25-year three-day storm, you only flood to the crown of the road, and that's the low point of the crown of the road. So a lot of these roads had six inches of water on them. Where I live had even more than that. So somehow somebody was holding back much more water than should have happened and, yeah, you're right, there's no revisiting it unless we revisit the allowable discharge rates. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the road system's designed for the 25 year? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: The crown of the road at the low point of the crown is supposed to be above the 25-year three-day storm or at the 25. So when you get a 25-year three-day storm, you should be able to drive down the middle of the road and just barely through a puddle. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So from an engineering viewpoint, you're guaranteeing to us we're not going to have another Irma for 25 years? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: What I'm telling you is we're holding back too much water. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, can I mention something? Even though when Harvey was happening in Texas, we had 14 inches, 13 to 15 inches of water. Ours was not a hurricane, but we had a three-day. And then when Irma came, I mean -- I live in the Cocohatchee Slough, and it was getting quite high in the back. In fact, South Florida Water Management started emptying that canal as fast as they could because they were not sure that the canal could even keep up with it. So we really had two very close. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: But if you look back, we had a very bad drought, maybe the worst drought I've seen down here. And we had that first bad storm, the 15 inches, right at the end of that drought. It filled everything up. Instead of dropping water levels in my canal, the water level stayed, and the day of the storm, the day of the next storm, all of sudden the water level dropped a foot. They could have dropped it a foot two or three days before the storm. I took pictures of all of it. I have a staff gage set up, so I know that it happened. And I sent them emails saying, you know, what's going on? And I think I copied the Board on that, too. So there's some issues here we have to revisit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I would expect that somewhere down the road we'll have a critique of what we could do better as a result of these kind of storms. So hopefully that will occur sooner than later. Thank you, sir. You'll have to come back up to the mike if you want to finish your discussion. MR. CARY: Yes. And adding to that discussion, my street was flooded in the front up to the crown; a third of my driveway was also flooded. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's the way it's designed. MR. CARY: So it was significant flooding. If we'd of had one more heavy rain, I would have been October 5, 2017 Page 55 of 98 sweeping water out of my house. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand that. Thank you. Next speaker, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: Frank DeCarlo, followed by the last speaker, Ron Rapuano. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Frank -- MR. BELLOWS: Thank you for the correction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is Frank here? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who was the next one after Frank? MR. BELLOWS: Ron. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ron? I'll ask other speakers after all the registered speakers get done. DR. RAPUANO: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Dr. Ronald Rapuano. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you spell your last name just in case our court reporter needs it. DR. RAPUANO: Sure. R-a-p-u-a-n-o, and you pronounce it like Minocotti (phonetic). CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead and write that. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Can you spell that? DR. RAPUANO: As most of the other people here wearing a white shirt, we were not really aware of the extent to which any of these agreements had been made up until today. So we're a little blown out of the water from that perspective. We were given to understand there was a hearing that we should attend. We did not know that any kind of a deal had been made. I think the biggest concern for the members of my community, Saturnia Lakes, is the density of the use of that property next door which does not fit with the surrounding area whatsoever. The other thing is, I'm the guy who mentioned the traffic. If you drive on Immokalee and there's a green light at Logan, the traffic is moving through that green light at 60 miles an hour or sometimes more. So if this were to be senior housing -- and there's a big difference between senior housing and assisted living. If the developer plans to put an assisted living, that's a whole different ballgame. And senior housing, fine, 55 and over. Assisted living is a business. We live in a residential environment. So the traffic patterns are pretty significant. And, frankly, when I heard the developer discuss the fact that, oh, we can put carports right up to the property line, that's a hose job. You know, we were given to understand there was going to be a landscape buffer from our roadway in to whatever structures they're going to build. And if they're going to build five-story structures 50 feet high, that does not fit with anything in the surrounding community, and it is overbuilding for sure. That's trying to squeeze the last nickel out of that property for the developer, and it will destroy the surrounding community, ours. And the other thing is, when we had the flood, I walked outside after the storm stopped. I was up over my ankles on my sidewalk, and it was about halfway up my driveway as well. There were a lot of big trucks cleaning out the rain sewers in the street for days because apparently there's a problem with the flow of rainwater -- it's not sewage -- but, you know, the escape route for the water wasn't working. I don't know what was wrong with it. But we were kind of stuck having that flood. And if any of you do watch the Internet and see what the up and coming weather is, we're only halfway through the hurricane season, or thereabouts, and there's one out in the Gulf that could come and visit us. So I don't think we're done with these heavy rains by any means. And I just hope that the members of the Commission will keep in mind that the .60 that may be the allowable legal maximum is far beyond what is reasonable and relevant to our area. One of the reasons I bought in Saturnia Lakes is it's one of the higher locations in Naples. I'm at five meters above sea level. And let me tell you, when we're talking about that hurricane surge coming in off the Gulf, you know -- the greater the density, the greater the problems, especially with the traffic. And if it's going to be a business, as far as I'm concerned, they need to get a variance. And nobody in our community was advised by Collier County that this was what the meeting was going to be about. We simply thought this was a simple hearing where something would be proposed and we could understand it and that was it. October 5, 2017 Page 56 of 98 So I thank you for your time and attention, and I hope you will decide not to have this business dropped on us, because it will destroy the ambiance of our community and the surrounding communities. Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ladies and gentlemen, please. We have to refrain from the clapping. Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: The previous speaker raised a legal question that I'd like some guidance on, if I may ask for it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And it has to do with height. When staff and others study the requests, they study them in relation to surrounding areas, nearby areas, and the like. My question is: Is it -- is the comparison to what has actually been built in the neighboring areas or what the neighboring areas could have built to in height but didn't? DR. RAPUANO: Nothing higher than two stories. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, you can't talk from the audience, I'm sorry. Everything's got to be recorded. The mikes have to be used. Who did you pose that question to? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I guess the county attorney. MS. STONE: Sorry. Can you repeat the question? COMMISSIONER FRYER: When staff analyzes the material, we see references to the requested amendment being similar to, let's say, with respect to height, similar to the heights of nearby areas. And I believe, if I'm not mistaken, that Saturnia originally could have been built to higher heights than it actual was. So is the comparison to what could have been or what actually was built? MR. KLATZKOW: Ray, you usually look at zoned height, right? MR. BELLOWS: Correct, as approved in adjacent zoning districts. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Zoned height, not actual height, necessarily. MR. BELLOWS: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think the question's different than that. And, Ned, you can correct me if I'm wrong. What he's saying is, Saturnia had the right to build to 50 feet, but they only built single-family adjacent to this project at 30 or 35 feet. So should the comparison be to what they could have built but didn't build and they probably can never build because they've got 30-year mortgages or homes on this site, or should the comparison have been to what's actually on the ground? COMMISSIONER FRYER: You said it better than I did, Mr. Chairman. MR. BELLOWS: In most instances we note the existing conditions and heights of the existing structures, but we also note what can be done through development and the zoned height of those PUDs. So it's good to know that the adjacent properties are zoned for higher buildings but they haven't developed that, but it's also important to note that they were actually constructed at one story. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So you take both into consideration, what they could have done and what they actually did? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. There are many development options that can occur, even in this PUD, that might have different heights. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But what we're talking about mostly is compatibility. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So are we looking at compatibility for what's actually built and going to be there for infinity, or are we looking at what could have been built but wasn't built? You tell me. What's practical? MR. BELLOWS: Well, certainly the existing conditions should be -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. That's what I was trying to get to. October 5, 2017 Page 57 of 98 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Now, wait a minute. I have to -- again, I've got to defer to a legal opinion on this, because it -- are you making a zoning interpretation? Because it's my understanding it's what could be built, not what exists. And what could be built -- they could level those houses tomorrow and build something different. So is that an official legal position, or is that a zoning position, or is that the way you feel, or is that -- MR. KLATZKOW: It's for you to decide what's compatible. There's no definition of compatible. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But compatible is what could be built today, and you can go to 50 feet today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mike. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning Director. In the terms in the world of planning, there are many shades of gray. And what you do within a compatibility analysis is subjective to the individual biases that each individual bring to the table. You will look at what is built. You will look at what is approved to be built. You'll look at what it sits with in the Future Land Use Map in terms of what its designation is within that as well. And then you would see what's being proposed in relationship to the buffers, in relationship to where the structures would sit in relation to their neighboring properties. All of those things get factored into each individual's arrival upon what they determine is compatible, because what I determine is compatible comparatively to Ray, to an individual Planning Commission member isn't always in alignment. But I agree, what's built is what you first would look at, what could be built is another factor that would be evaluated, and then where it sits within the Future Land Use Element and how it sits back in relationships to property lines and how those property lines are mitigated with buffering and other sort of design and compatibility measures. All of those things are brought forward to make -- to arrive upon that individual determination. So, I mean, as much as that's not an answer, but those are the factors or the criteria, I think, each individual goes through to make an evaluation as to what's compatible or not. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I didn't ask Mr. Neale to clarify a point that he made, an advocacy point in his letter. But in his letter he argued that the limitation upon the Cleary property should relate to what was actually done in Saturnia, and what you're saying is that what was actually done is a factor, but so is what could have been done. MR. BOSI: And another factor that was brought into his argument and discussion was the buffering and the adequacy of the buffering, and that helps establish compatibility. It's not a simple -- there's not one factor, and I think it is. But you would go through that litany of factors to make your arrival upon determination. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's helpful. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Next? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's clear now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No other speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, is there any members of the public who wish to speak who have not spoken so far? Please raise your hands. We'll get you one at a time. Sir, back there, and then this gentleman next. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Been sworn in? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everybody that was -- you were sworn in earlier? MR. KELLY: Yes, I was. My name is Jerry Kelly. I'm a four-year resident of Saturnia Lakes. Three-and-a-half of those years I sat on the board at Saturnia Lakes. I know how the process works. And I know you've heard this already, but I want to make sure all of the commissioners are crystal clear on this point. Those discussing the Cleary project kept referring to an agreement with the HOA. It does not exist. Two people knew about that. Two people signed that. No one else in the community knew anything about it. So they do have an agreement with the HOA. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, sir. October 5, 2017 Page 58 of 98 Yes, sir. MR. GUSTAFSON: Rod Gustafon, a member of Saturnia Lakes. Thank you, Commissioners, for allowing me to speak. I'll give you the spelling of my last name: G-u-s-t-a-f-s-o-n. First of all, Saturnia Lakes is 580 private homes in a resort-style community, and there were two people out of those 580 homes that went to this agreement, and I'm just agreeing with what Jerry said. I think Cleary Development was very misleading, and I'll explain in a couple ways. The depictions of their photos showed this lush treeline 50 feet high blocking our view from these buildings, and we know that they're going to plant trees that are anywhere from six to 10 feet, and it's going to take 15 to 20 years for that to grow up to that height, and a lot of us won't be here. So I think that's unacceptable. Also, there were several points that Commissioner Mark Strain brought up, and one he pointed out -- and I'm glad he questioned Mr. Yovanovich. I hope I said that correctly. But you talked about the difference between the 200 and 150 units, and it seems very clear that a lot of the things they're presenting is very vague, especially to us. And I would like Mr. Yovanovich just to answer this when I'm done. Do they plan on -- if this gets approved, are they going to go through and ask for a variance and then to have this rezoned from agricultural to residential, or is it going to go to commercial? And I believe it would be commercial with what they're putting in, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Today's meeting is the zoning. MR. GUSTAFSON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's the -- we make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners in some four weeks, possibly three weeks, whatever the time frame is. It will go on their agenda. They take our recommendations, your input into consideration, the applicant's input into consideration, and then they render a final decision. Ours are merely a recommendation. But this is the zoning phase. So what they're getting now is -- all they're asking for and what they would end up being involved in front of the Board of County Commissioners, and it is single-family, multifamily, or senior living facilities like an ALF congregate -- ACLF or something like that. Those can be -- by the way, the ALFs are considered -- they go in both commercial and residential districts, so they kind of cross the line between the two. They're not necessarily considered commercial. Although they operate like a commercial, they're still residential because they house people. So it's kind of a mixed bag with that one. MR. GUSTAFSON: And then if he could answer -- I'd like to know once this deal gets done, which it seems like it's going to be approved, you know, I'm very concerned that immediately they will sell it and, you know, a developer will develop it who has different ideas. And many of the things presented today are very vague, and it's very concerning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, you brought up a good -- you bring up a good point. I've been here over 40 years now. And since the day I got here, I've had to be involved in various volunteer boards in the county so I could always be aware of what's happening to my neighborhood. And every time an issue came up, I had to get the civic association and people involved. And that's going to go on forever. Today's and the Board's decision, it means nothing if someone wants to come in and ask to change it. They have that right, and they most likely could. Whether they succeed or not, that's a different story. But your neighborhood needs to always be aware and be fighting continuously. That's the only way we can protect ourselves anymore. Nothing's permanent with the processes that we have, so... MR. GUSTAFSON: Just one last thing. These people are the HOA, and I would say the majority of them, by a raise of the hand, did not approve of any of this, and it's disgusting. Thank you for your time. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'm curious about something. Before you go, sir, I got -- and I'm one of the elderly people Mr. Neale referred to before, so my memory's not all that great. But I got 200 copies of the same letter from the residents in here, and I think I got the same letter from Mr. Neale, exactly the same letter, and -- it looked the same. October 5, 2017 Page 59 of 98 MR. NEALE: It's just an attachment. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And that looked like it was from the HOA and everybody agreed to it. Well, I got them signed by 200 different people, so I know you all saw the letter. But then I'm hearing that somebody had a separate meeting about that letter; is that right? AUDIENCE MEMBERS: Yes. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And nobody was told that that meeting was going on? AUDIENCE MEMBERS: No. MR. GUSTAFSON: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ladies and gentlemen, please, let this man answer the questions, if you don't mind. MR. GUSTAFSON: No. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: But the HOA is represented by those two people. So when they meet, do they have to always call the HOA and call every member of the HOA and say -- or call all the residents and say, hey, we're having a meeting? MR. GUSTAFSON: This was an issue that affected all the homes. It affects our property values. And they said they would keep all of the homeowners appraised. The signed petitions were against this project that were turned in to you. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Right. MR. GUSTAFSON: And -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: But you all signed the petition individually. You all saw it, and it was the same one that Mr. Neale sent me, I think. MR. GUSTAFSON: It was not in favor of this project. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Right. But then somebody sat down and had a meeting about it and made an agreement, and now you're saying that they should have taken everything to everybody and had you all agree to it. MR. GUSTAFSON: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. Just so long as I'm straight. MR. GUSTAFSON: We were all left in the dark. We were -- many of the people were just in shock when they heard today that -- earlier when Mr. Neale spoke, that an agreement had been made. And it's terrible when you have 580 homes that have -- there are families in there. These are their dream homes, and now you're going to be looking at this from every one of these homes, this 50-foot cement building, and it's going to destroy our front entrance, because they're going to take away all the green we have there, and it's going to -- our property values are going to go down. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: But I don't know that you represent 580 people either. MR. GUSTAFSON: No, I don't, sir. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Thank you. MR. GUSTAFSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to speak that has not spoken? Gentleman way in the back and then -- oh, you've already spoke. I'm sorry. You've already had your -- just a minute? Wait and see. MR. BRACHMAN: Yes. My name is Joe Brachman (phonetic), 2323 Butterfly Palm Drive, Saturnia Lakes. And, first of all, I wanted to thank all of you. I think this meeting's being conducted in an excellent manner, and I'm very impressed with how cordial you are, and I want to thank you very much. But my real concern would be the impairment of use and enjoyment of the property of the homeowners of Saturnia Lakes, primarily those on Butterfly Palm Drive, Triandra, Barrigona and, to a lesser extent, Leafshine. So you have about 80 homes that really sort of surround this proposed property. And it is really not a 50- to 60-foot-tall property. It's more like a 70- to 80-foot-tall property. When you drive into Saturnia Lakes and look to your left, you see rooftops. I mean, this is high ground up here, and it's wet ground where they're going to build. Highly likely they'll have to fill that in, so it will be at the same or higher level than the entrance road, and that's a full 20 to 30 feet higher than where my October 5, 2017 Page 60 of 98 house is. So you have a pool, you have a lanai. You go out back, you're not going to see the sun when this is built. You're going to see a big, tall building. You're not going to have the sun in your pool. You're going to have shade. And you may see somebody up there 50 feet above you, 60, 70 feet above you looking at you from their balcony. So if you look at those properties, their use and enjoyment will be severely, severely curtailed by approval of this property as envisioned. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Now, is there anybody else who has not yet spoken? This gentleman here, since he's got a beard, and then the gentleman back there. Come on up. You do need to grow that a little longer, you know. MR. OPLAND: I'm David Opland. I'm also a resident of Saturnia. I wasn't planning on talking -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Again on your last name, sir? MR. OPLAND: -- because I'm kind of a shy guy. David Opland, O-p-l-a-n-d. But I find it interesting that we can go from land that's already agriculturally zoned and take it three steps up to -- virtually to commercial property. So we have -- we bought into this -- this beautiful community with the beautiful entrance, and it's going to be destroyed if they do the multifamily -- well, the higher density development. If you approve -- there's three really very different developments that are coming out of this one approval, and I don't understand that, because if you went through just a residential approval, I don't think you'd have the crowd here and the resistance within our community for the change in zoning -- change in development. But since you're going to a higher multifamily, bigger buildings, it's -- I just think it's not consistent with Saturnia Lakes as a residential development. So I think -- I hope that was clear enough. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. OPLAND: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. Thank you. Next gentleman? You already spoke. Just a second? Okay. Come on up. No, just make it short. Let's not go take up very much time, okay. MR. GUSTAFSON: Rod Gustafson again. I just wanted to point out one last thing. Cleary Development had a meeting for the residents, but they only invited from one street, the street that was closest to the development, which was 10 homes out of 580 homes, and they're the only ones that got the notice. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the required notice by law. The distance is 500 feet, I believe, or sometimes 1,000. But in this case probably it was 500. That's probably why. MR. GUSTAFSON: Okay. I didn't know that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And, sir, you wanted to have one quick moment? DR. RAPUANO: Again, I'm Dr. Rapuano. And I did have a beard, not quite as full as yours. The point that I'd like to make right now is what is the term "compatible"? Isn't compatible meaning in the present tense? Are we going to go back to land use when the Indians were here? I think we should all consider the relevance of the fact that there are a lot of people here, we have a residential community which is very quiet, it's full of kids, and compatible use would be housing that is somewhat similar to what we have. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Gotcha, sir. Thank you. Now, is there any -- yes, sir, our last speaker. MR. MARIN: Hi. My name's David Marin. I live on Butterfly Palm in Saturnia. Exactly three hours ago there was another hearing, and that hearing ended with you guys, I think, denying what they wanted. And one of the key points at the very end of the meeting, Mr. Strain, you brought up was you didn't like the fact that they wanted to build 650-square-foot apartments versus 700. And to us 35-foot-tall building versus a 50-foot-tall building means everything in the world. And that 50-square-foot October 5, 2017 Page 61 of 98 apartment denied those people their approval. And I'm saying every story counts. We're fine with a two-story building, a two-story townhouse. We might live with a three-story building. Four stories is pushing it for Saturnia Lakes. And 50 square feet meant something to you guys at that previous meeting. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay. That brings us to the end of the public testimony. There is a couple followup questions I would like to have staff respond to. First one, Nancy, can you confirm this is not in an activity center nor is it part of a band to an activity center? MS. GUNDLACH: It's not part of an activity center or a band to an activity center. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mr. Sawyer, would you come up on the microphone, please. Mike Sawyer is our Transportation Planner, and he's been sitting here all day waiting for something to say. And so we've at least got to accommodate him. MR. SAWYER: For the record, Mike Sawyer, Transportation Planning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, looking at the plan that's on here right now, would that entry have a dedicated turn lane into it? You wouldn't -- pardon me? MR. SAWYER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would be required. So you wouldn't be turning off the active lane on Immokalee Road directly into this and backing traffic up. You'd be pulling off into a turn lane, then turning into this; is that correct? MR. SAWYER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I needed to confirm, because it was questioned earlier, and that's why we slid this down. I think you had questioned it. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I questioned it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody -- thank you, Mike. That's all I needed. And with that, we normally offer an ability to rebut by the applicant. So, Richard. COMMISSIONER EBERT: But before he rebuts, can I ask of him a couple questions? Richard, may I ask you a couple questions? I'm just going to go back to the NIM meeting notes that I -- in here you mentioned 65 units. So it's really 63. So you've dropped it two units, correct? MR. YOVANOVICH: Because of -- yeah, the math regarding -- there was a -- let me tell you why the difference. Yes, it went down two because the county had taken, through eminent domain, a portion of the property for Immokalee Road. So what they took reduced our density from the 65 to the 63. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. The other thing that I was reading in here is -- I was thinking this was right -- going to be right next to the GL corner unit that's going up -- the center that is going up there, but I found out that the Colin Walker property is in here. And in here you say that that's Falling Waters piece right here. MR. YOVANOVICH: I say that? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah, yeah. This is the Falling Waters piece right here, and I believe this is GL here. So that's why I'm going, whoa. So is this other property sold for Falling Waters? MR. YOVANOVICH: If I said that -- was this at the NIM? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I don't remember saying Falling Waters, but if I did, I was referring to Mr. Walker's property between -- on the -- which is between what GL is coming in for for the commercial piece and the Cleary piece. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. The other thing is in here you put down that the county is going to require us to share access with the property owner to the west. So the county is going to require you to go to Mr. Walker's property? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. Actually, if you look at the master plan, which is up, we are shouldering the burden of the entirety of the entrance road that will serve both our property and Mr. Walker's property, October 5, 2017 Page 62 of 98 and that's why you see that arrow that we're going to provide him access so there will be one shared access point for both of our projects. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. So you will -- so Mr. Walker's property, then, will be accessed through your entryway? MR. YOVANOVICH: That is the way the county has insisted that we set up our site plan so that they can minimize the number of traffic cuts onto Immokalee Road. So Mr. Walker will be getting the benefit of our entry road. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. I was just going through the NIM meeting, and those were a couple of the questions. I think also, as far as compatibility, we were talking about that, and I found out the infill districts -- and that's about all that's left in this area -- that they can get more by using TDRs. And I'm thinking, wow, if you can get 63 in there or 200 senior living, Mr. Walker could then, too, if he uses his as an infill. That was to me -- going property for property I think that I'm going to say that that kind of bothered me if -- when I'm thinking there's going to be -- who knows what's going to be next door. But if you can put into -- 200 more senior living or another 63 for infill, that seems to be a lot for the neighborhood. This is in already. Does this not seem not okay to you? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, let me -- can I answer that question? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Sure. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's more than a yes or no answer. I think what you have to do is -- and I acknowledge this, that I started doing land use work in this town only 24 years ago. The world was a little bit different place 24 years ago. Zoning work -- I had brown hair back then, and it was much easier to get through because we didn't have any neighbors when we were doing zoning projects. Now -- we are now left in the urban area with basically only infill parcels, right? There are no big tracts left in the urban area to develop. So we're now down to the infill parcels where the Board of County Commissioners, in their Comprehensive Plan, said for parcels less than 20 acres, we encourage the increase of density -- those are the words. I can put them up -- encourage the increase of density up to seven, and we want you to help us implement the TDR program that we implemented in the rural fringe mixed-use district. So we're going to make you buy the first one. So you pay for the first one, and you get the other two as a part of doing what they want, encourage infill so we don't have urban sprawl. We want to fill in the urban area first before we go further east. That's what the Comprehensive Plan says. It's been in there for quite a while. And my recollection -- and I could be wrong on this, and I'm sure you guys will correct me -- is we had that infill provision where you got them for free, all three for free, and there was a modification that required -- now you've got to buy a TDR, and that was to implement, in around 2000, the program we now have. So we are -- the Comprehensive Plan has always directed us to these types of parcels to have a higher increased density, and that's what we're asking for, and we will help implement the sending land program for people who lost their development rights. You now look at transportation and all the other impacts, and we passed the transportation test. There's no question. Mr. Walker will have to do the same thing when he comes through, pass the transportation test. And if he passes, he should be entitled to an approval. Now, as far as -- the Comprehensive Plan has always allowed in the urban area group housing. Not -- it's no mystery. Group housing is an allowed use under the Comprehensive Plan in the urban area. You go through the same zoning process you do if you want to go to residential, just like the Rigas PUD. Now, what I find ironic is the Rigas PUD, and many other PUDs of decent acreage size, and this one was, has the full range of allowed residential uses, including multifamily up to 50 feet. Now, you want to talk about compatibility. Every project has to both be internally compatible and externally compatible. So the Rigas PUD was approved. We're allowing both single-family and multifamily up to 50 feet. It was determined to be internally compatible by having that. October 5, 2017 Page 63 of 98 So if it's internally compatible to allow single-family to coexist with multifamily, with -- if you look at their Development Standards Table, I can assure you there is no separation requirement between multifamily and single-family requiring, from a practical effect of, almost 200 feet in one area and 300 feet in another. They could have been much closer to each other with a far less buffer. So if that's internally compatible, I don't know how it could be internally incompatible. We have all kinds of projects out there for infill that go into -- next to existing neighborhoods. We just -- not just, but a few years back on Vanderbilt Beach Road you had the situation where you had adjoining properties both developed with group housing. Wilshire Lakes, single-family homes near these. Tiburon Golf Course, very nice exclusive area. All of that was determined to be compatible, and it worked out okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rich, I think she's -- did you tell me he's answered your question? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, then I'm going into my closing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This isn't an opening for a whole new 20-minute presentation. It's supposed to be a 10-minute rebuttal. Is this your rebuttal? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, you let me know. My point is this -- and let me tell you a source of frustration for us, and it's not -- it's not -- I'm not criticizing anybody who lives in Saturnia Lakes, because I wasn't privy to what your deal was with your HOA. I'm just saying -- so what we did is we worked with the HOA representatives in good faith. We did that, and we agreed to certain conditions. What was -- what authority they did or didn't have, I don't know, okay. I left a lot of my presentation out because I thought that we had reached an agreement. So a lot of what I'm saying now and what Wayne would have said to you about compatibility internally, externally, projects around it and how this all worked would have been in my original presentation in explaining why we think we're okay and why it is absolutely compatible to have senior housing nearby to single-family, et cetera. So that's why I went into that. It is part of my closing. And I agree, it may have been beyond your question, but I'll stop, and then you can ask whatever questions, and I'll keep going. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. I just had one other quick one. Do you have a contract on this property now? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Pardon? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Now what? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You want a rebuttal? Is that -- you just said -- is that your rebuttal? You all wrapped up? MR. YOVANOVICH: No, I'm not done. I stopped because I guess I'd gone too far in answering her question. She want to ask another question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, she said you already had answered her question -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I stopped. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- at the point you were about midway. That's fine. Anybody else have any questions before he gets his rebuttal time? COMMISSIONER FRYER: No. Continue with the rebuttal time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Please. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Then I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: After rebuttal, okay. Go ahead, Rich. MR. YOVANOVICH: A couple other things I think that were -- so I bring that up for height purposes, too, I think what your staff has said is they've looked and realized, based upon the distance that's out there, the height we're requesting for senior housing, now coupled with the fact that we're going to October 5, 2017 Page 64 of 98 stair-step it from the close -- so we're now -- for the first 50 feet we're capped at the 35 feet zoned; 40 feet, I think, addresses the compatibility issues. Your own -- a question came up about the preserve and the removal of exotics. Your code already requires that if you leave it bare, you have to supplement the plantings, so your code already takes care of that scenario if there's a lot of exotics in the preserve. The 30-foot setback I understood to be a 30-foot setback. I wasn't thinking about parking in that area. If that's the deal killer, we'll make it work from a site planning standpoint that there won't be parking or structures in that 30-foot area for carports. We have -- and I did say at the NIM, you know, let's talk about if you have some bare spots in your berm that you would like some supplemental plantings, we could talk about it. Nobody has come to me and said, hey, we've got these bare spots in our berm, let's talk about supplemental plantings. I did say that, and I meant it. We did it for Addie's Corner when Esplanade came in and had raised some concerns as well for that. You know, it was right about the same time those were going through. So we have always been willing to talk and work with our neighbors. There were a lot of people at the NIM that we attended. I explained to them what we were asking for, the senior housing. The HOA received a notice. You can tell the HOA is pretty effective at getting the word out because you got 200 signed petitions that were sent out by the HOA. So the HOA was keeping their people informed. This was not done in secret, from our perspective. I would like, briefly, Wayne to come up and talk about compatibility, because the only expert testimony you've received about compatibility is our staff report, your professional planners, and I would like Wayne to come up briefly and talk about that, because the professional planners have determined we are compatible and have provided that expertise, and there are hundreds of examples, I'm sure, in this community, of projects that have both single-family and multifamily in them, and they peacefully coexist, and they're compatible. To allow this property or -- for somehow to say that Saturnia Lakes, because it developed however it developed, takes away the ability for other projects to develop under the Comprehensive Plan and with product that makes sense and is -- and I would say that this actually is not only -- it's comparable or it complements what's happening. Look, the facts are, we're all -- I'm Exhibit A. We're all getting older, and more and more people are going to be aging in place, and they're going to want to stay, and they want to have opportunities for safe, high-quality decent housing and independent housing, and assisted living are those things that we've all got to deal with, and they're gong to be located in Collier County, and they do work well with residential communities, especially the way we've planned this. So I'll bring Wayne up quickly to talk about compatibility. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, before you bring Wayne up quickly, are you done? Are you done? Or is Wayne going to -- you're not going to come back up after Wayne is here? MR. YOVANOVICH: It depends on what he says. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Rich, you have a 10-minute rebuttal. We're going to be over -- how long is Wayne going to take? MR. YOVANOVICH: A couple minutes. MR. ARNOLD: Three minutes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Even -- okay. Then, Ned, you had a question of Rich. Why don't you ask it now, because he's not going to be up here again. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Rich was almost answering it; maybe he did. And it has to do with the statement that you made in the NIM with respect to helping Saturnia rebuild the buffer area. Would you tell me the exact stage of any discussions you've had on any -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Nobody has said to me, hey, Rich, our buffer needs some supplemental plantings here, here, and here. I mean, if they would -- I can't have a conversation until they tell me they've got a problem. It sounds like maybe there is or isn't a problem. I don't know. COMMISSIONER FRYER: In the NIM you offered to do it. MR. YOVANOVICH: I did, and nobody reached out to me and said we'd like some supplemental plantings in our buffer. October 5, 2017 Page 65 of 98 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is that it? Okay. Wayne? MR. ARNOLD: Hi. I'm Wayne Arnold, Professional Planner. And really, I think, the testimony you heard from Mr. Bosi addressed a lot of the compatibility issues because, frankly, you can't look immediately adjacent to you to determine what your allowable height should be. If that's the case, we'd be a city of one-story buildings, because that's what was built here, you know, 100 years ago. That's not the way it works. That's not -- height doesn't in itself make something incompatible. It's a factor like Mike indicated; it's a factor of setbacks, buffering, separation. You know, keep in mind this property isn't the size of Saturnia Lakes. It's nine acres. We're in front of a six-lane highway, Immokalee Road. We're going to be -- it appears we're going to be one lot away from a commercial shopping center on 18 acres at the corner of Logan and Immokalee Road. Nobody thinks that Logan and Immokalee is really appropriate for what it's zoned for today, which is agriculture, but they're going to make a compatibility analysis that at the intersection of two major roadways in Collier County that have a traffic signal that a commercial shopping center is going to be compatible. And, you know what, that happens to be adjacent to Saturnia Lakes. And I have a copy of their PUD. They don't have an interconnection to them, but they are going to have 47 tall foot (sic) buildings if you look at their proposed project. So what we're asking for at a maximum actual height of 50 feet -- and to the gentleman who said that these are heights that could be 70 feet, that's not accurate. Our point of measurement for an actual building height will be the center line of Immokalee Road. So however -- Immokalee Road elevation, 50 feet above it is the maximum height for the buildings that we are proposing. And if you look -- and I know we talked about is it the existing condition or is it the zoned condition -- but I pulled everything along this corridor for two miles, and I can tell you that what we're asking for at 45 and 50 feet is not inconsistent with what's been approved whether it's in the activity center or not. You know, I live in a community that has multistory buildings. I live in a community that has high-rise buildings, two-story condos, and single-family homes. We all coexist. You know, in some cases they're across the street from each other. Because -- and when you look at our relationship of where we are, we have a preserve to the south, and you have two cul-de-sac streets that probably have six or eight homes that have a direct view into our property -- the others look east/west. They don't really look at us. And the same thing with their entrance. The exhibit I showed you, you know, you have layers of landscape buffer over 300 feet away looking into what could be likely a four-story-tall building, three over parking or four-story building at the maximum heights we're proposing. That is not inconsistent or incompatible with the surrounding community. And, again, I keep in mind they had hundreds of acres to spread their density to. We have nine, and we're immediately adjacent to Immokalee Road. I don't have the luxury of pushing that down. But I did work on the Rigas PUD, and I know for a fact we developed site plans where there were multifamily PODs within it. GL Homes made a business decision, and I'm guessing that it was because they could get a higher return on their investment by selling single-family lots rather than multifamily homes back in the day. I mean, they're a beautiful community. They've aged well. They have beautiful mature landscaping, and that only happens because somebody planted it. So from my perspective, my professional opinion, we're very compatible both in height and use. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Wayne. Anybody have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If there's no further questions from the Planning Commission, we will close the public hearing, and we'll go into discussion. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chairman? October 5, 2017 Page 66 of 98 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I am going to ask a question of Mr. -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Walk up to the mike. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm going to ask a question of Mr. Neale. Should that be before we close? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, yeah. We'll reopen the public hearing. Patrick, if you could come up. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Before we go into that, do you want to take a break now or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I was hoping we could get this done before we took a break. And, Terri, bear with me for a little bit longer. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'll be quick, Mr. Neale. Consistent with your responsibilities concerning attorney-client confidentiality, since the question has been raised about representation, who you're speaking for, of course, it's recognized that the homeowners association can certainly take a position without it being 100 percent of the homeowners in question and, undoubtedly, that's why there are people here today. But I would like to hear you say a little bit, if you would, about this process to give us a sense of the extent to which the association perhaps has garnered support from a large number of the members or exactly how the process went. MR. NEALE: Yeah. And, you know, within the bounds of attorney-client privilege and confidentiality -- again, for the record, Patrick Neale -- I was only retained as the attorney on this particular matter -- I think I sent a letter to the staff on September 28th, and I think I was retained on September 27th. I was retained by the president of the association, who, you know, under Florida law or basically any corporate law, the president has the authority, at least the apparent authority, to bind an organization. So it was my understanding that, working with him and Mr. Fortino, that they had been assigned and delegated the authority and responsibility for negotiating for the community on these matters. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Now, anything else before we close the public hearing? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, the public hearing is closed, and we'll open for discussion by the Planning Commission. Anybody have any discussion points? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't either. So anybody want to make a motion? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I make a motion we approve the petition as stated with the amendments and -- that were discussed during the hearing. I didn't take them all down -- but with the subject amendments -- and this will come back on the consent agenda to review those. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Joe, seconded by Stan. Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Perhaps a clarification or an amendment to the motion to see if we can specify things. We are going to be coming back for consent, correct, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. We're going to vote on that, but I would assume we all want that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. Number one, Mr. Yovanovich has offered to assist the subdivision with respect to buffer planting, and I would encourage there to be an agreement to that effect, and I would like to see that encouragement part of the motion as well as the other concessions which have been made including -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: We don't have anything to do between -- the agreement between the two. We could put it in the PUD or put some kind of language about enhanced buffering, but as far as an agreement -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, on Addie's Corner we had something -- we did work out some language where they would be working together on that buffer, but -- October 5, 2017 Page 67 of 98 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: We could put that in the motion, but not -- not a -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: I want to encourage, that's all. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. I just want to encourage a get-together, because I think there's some more agreement that can be reached, not only on that point, but also the no parking in the setback buffer area is an area where I would encourage further discussions. And so I would ask for an amendment to include those points into the main motion. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I thought Mr. Yovanovich made that commitment on the record that the parking would be adjusted with no parking in the buffer area. I thought -- I know we closed the public hearing, but I thought he already made that amendment publicly. I don't know if -- we'll have to reflect that in the PUD document. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I just am asking that the motion contain encouragement language. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. I agree with the -- I agree with the comments and add that to my motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The second? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I agree; second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I will not support the motion of approval for the following reasons: I think the height across the board is too high at 50 feet. I think the project is supposed to be transitional. Now, compatibility is one thing. Making it transitional is another. You don't double the density and increase the height to this magnitude next door to a project, especially when it's not an activity center. So I don't think the height is justified. The setback along the east property line, I certainly agree that's warranted at 30 feet, but it should be a buffer with supplemental additional plantings. I go along with the construction standards. I don't know if that's going to be -- I know you guys have made a motion to approve, but since that wasn't part of it, I'm not going to support the motion. The new amenity area standards, I think those were warranted but, again, I haven't heard how those are fitting in. The architectural standards were supposed to apply. The applicant said he'd add that to the PUD. I'm assuming that would come back on consent. I believe that the density for the ALF is too high. It should not be given .60, especially since they won't look at a higher public purpose to gain that additional density, but at .45, 150 units is relevant in ratio to that. I think the density for the dwelling units is too high at seven units per acre. I think it should be five, which is 45, and more compatible and transitional from Saturnia Lakes. I think they need to add a generator. They need to show the location of the generator, and it should be one that is far enough away from Saturnia Lakes and other existing facilities so that they're not disrupted by it. I think the dumpster locations ought to be shown on this master plan, and I think that the buffer requirement ought to be added to the text to assure that they will retain always an 80 percent opacity with the buffers being used with a preserve combination. And that's -- all those things aren't in the motion. I don't believe the applicant's going to agree to them anyway, so I am supporting the -- I'm not supporting the motion for approval. I would certainly have recommended denial. So anybody else have any discussion? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Further discussion. Yeah. Regarding the generator, again, it was my understanding that it was part of the record that the applicant agreed to that, also agreed to the attenuation. But I have to say if the generator starts when power goes out, it's not going to be the only generator running in the area. So I think that's sort of a -- we can put the attenuation there, but it means nothing because there will October 5, 2017 Page 68 of 98 be other generators running. The only time the generators should be running is when there's no power, and it becomes almost a moot point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. They run them weekly for an hour to make sure that they're maintained. That's how -- they have automatic starts on them, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, there's no need -- if it's a gas-powered generator, meaning either a -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Propane. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- propane or natural gas, it's not required that they run every week. But I would support -- I mean, there's no reason why they can't put attenuation up, and it was my understanding that was already agreed to as well, so that's part of my motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there's been a motion made. There's been discussion. Anybody else? If not -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: One -- I'm sorry, one other point, addressed to the Chairman's concerns, many of which I think are well taken and well founded. I ask -- and I don't think that my suggestion, which maybe comes as an additional motion to amend, is going to -- is going to garner the positive vote of the Chairman, and I understand that. But, nonetheless, for the purposes of when this comes back for consent, if there are some of the points that the Chairman has raised that can be resolved in a manner that is consistent that resolves his concerns, I would like to see that on consent as well. And I'll make that an amendment to the main motion. MR. KLATZKOW: You've got a motion to approve, essentially. You're not saying a motion to approve but you want them to come back with Mark's reasons for denial? COMMISSIONER FRYER: No. I've asked that two endeavors be encouraged, and now I'm asking -- MR. KLATZKOW: I don't know what "encourage" means. He's going to come back with a PUD on the consent as to what has been agreed to. COMMISSIONER FRYER: If Rich comes back and says no deal on any points, I understand that. We'll vote on that, but -- MR. KLATZKOW: No, no, no. You're not voting on that, though. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The vote's done today. That's the problem. We can't revote on the consent. We can only acknowledge the consent is written as instructed by the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, how, then, do you deal with my encouragements earlier? MR. KLATZKOW: You don't; that's why the encouragement -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We don't normally encourage. We either say yes or no. This is what you do or what you don't do and -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'll withdraw it. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. I also will not support this. The transition is too great. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER EBERT: The transition is too great. I worry about the property next door going into this same thing. And it's fine that they do a two-way thing where they have to share between the two of them, but I just cannot approve this one either. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, hearing no other, we'll call the vote. All those in favor of the motion, raise your hands and signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those -- same sign against. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. 4-2, motion carries. That's approved. Thank you, all. We're going to take a 10-minute break. We'll come back -- October 5, 2017 Page 69 of 98 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Mark, before we take a break, please explain to the members of the public this is not a -- it was not unanimous, so it will be heard as a public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's going to be heard anyway. I mean, the Board's got to hear it. And, by the way, is there a motion to hear on consent? COMMISSIONER FRYER: So moved. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made and seconded. This will come back on consent. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? COMMISSIONER EBERT: So these people may go to the BCC and have your opinions heard there also. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The Board of County Commissioners' meeting is not scheduled at this time that I know of, because this has got to come back here for what's called consent. Consent is merely checking the writing to make sure it's accurate. After -- then at some point between now and then it will get scheduled for the Board. MS. GUNDLACH: Pardon, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The Board will probably hear it in November. MS. GUNDLACH: Mark, it's scheduled for the Board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When? MS. GUNDLACH: It is scheduled for the Board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When? MS. GUNDLACH: I believe in November. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, okay. Do you know the date? It looks like the Board's going to hear it in November, so keep tuned. (A brief recess was had, and Commissioner Chrzanowski and Tom Eastman are absent for the remainder of the meeting.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Everybody, if you'll please take your seats. We've got one more case to manage today. And before we go into that one, there is some -- another housekeeping matter. We have gone on quite a while today, and I anticipate, especially -- there's members of the public here and there's issues to be discussed, we will be going on for a while longer. I've asked that we continue Item 9E, which is the Land Development Code amendment for preservation standards, to the 19th as well, and that 19th I just found out is virtually open, so it should be a good day to handle the AUIR and this -- and one PDI that's on that date. Is there a motion from the Planning Commission members if you so agree that 9E should be moved to October 19? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I make the motion to move it to the 19th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Ned. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. October 5, 2017 Page 70 of 98 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-0. Let the record, too, show that we are down to five people, but that is still a quorum, so we're good. And so -- Fred, if you'll have a seat for a minute. MR. HOOD: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ***Item 9C and Item 9D are companion items. 9C is the Vanderbilt Collier Boulevard subdistrict, and it's the -- this one is the -- yeah, this is the Growth Management Plan part of that. It's PL20150002167. And 9D is the same Carolina Village that I think they're renaming to Vanderbilt Commons PUD, and it's PL20150002166. Those two are companion items. They will be discussed together but voted on separately. So with that, all those in favor -- all those willing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise be to sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission; and we'll start with Ned since you're the last one -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Anchorman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- remaining on that side of the deck. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Nothing to disclose. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Just staff on this one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, of course, I've talked to staff. I think I've seen some emails. I know I met with representatives from the community, and I've talked to Fred Hood on the telephone. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Nothing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Nothing. I don't think I received any emails on this one, so nothing. I don't recall any emails on this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, Mr. Hood, it's all yours. MR. HOOD: Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, good afternoon. Frederick Hood with Davidson Engineering representing the applicant, Vanderbilt Commons, LLC, for the advertised PUD and Growth Management Plan amendment. Last time we were here before you for this property was for the Growth Management Plan amendment transmittal hearing. Tonight, or this afternoon, I'm sorry, we'll be discussing the detail more of the PUDA document. Just a general recap of where the property is. Vanderbilt Commons is located on Vanderbilt Road. It is bordered by Pristine Drive and Buckstone Drive. Pristine is to the west and Buckstone is to the east. It's about a quarter mile from the intersection of 951 and Vanderbilt Beach Road. The property is 14.492 acres in size. And I'll put up the master plan for you. Just to give you some more orientation, the Falls of Portofino residential development within the Wolf Creek PUD is to your west, left side of the screen. Black Bear Ridge residential development is to the north beyond their preserve area. To the west is the Mission Hills commercial PUD, also within the Vanderbilt -- Vanderbilt Beach Road/Collier Boulevard commercial subdistrict. The preserve between -- just for a point of reference, the preserve between Black Bear Ridge and the Vanderbilt Commons PUD is about 200 feet wide at its smallest depth. I just wanted to go over a list of changes that we were requesting that are identified in the staff report. The first is changing the MPUD's name from Carolina Village to Vanderbilt Commons. The second October 5, 2017 Page 71 of 98 is adding the 50,000 square feet of gross leasable area for a total of 200,000 square feet within Vanderbilt Commons PUD -- MPUD. The third is a reduction of the maximum number of dwelling units from 64 to 58. This update will retain the base density of four units per acre, and it's based on the reduction of the PUD's acreage from 15.88 down to the 14.492. And as I just spoke about, the next change, the fourth change is the reduction of the size of the PUD. The fifth change that is identified in the staff report is the change of the legal description for the same reason, the reduction of the size. I'd also like to make clear for the record that there are no new uses being requested for this PUD amendment. The main amendment to the PUD is a request for 50,000 square feet allocated in both Vanderbilt Beach -- Vanderbilt Beach Road/Collier Boulevard commercial subdistrict and the PUD collectively. Going back really quickly to the Growth Management Plan amendment, this was reviewed and heard by the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council and Department of Economic Opportunity for the state. I'll put this up here. The Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council, who was tasked with reviewing the proposed addition of this additional square footage found in this letter dated May 5th, 2017, that the proposed changes were found as not regionally significant and that the proposed changes are consistent with the Growth Management Plan. I'll just move on really quickly to the changes that were not identified in the staff report. In addition to the changes highlighted in the PUDA staff report, I'd like to identify the changes that were not graphically part of the application and a few changes that need to be made that were brought to our and staff's attention after the last review submittal. The graphical change comes in the form of the PUD master plan, which was just up on the visualizer. The previous approved master plan was outdated and did not reflect the existing and future development of the Vanderbilt Commons -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fred, you'll need to slow down a little bit. She's got to type. MR. HOOD: Sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you're talking rather fast. MR. HOOD: It's a bad habit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, by the way -- MR. HOOD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and I know you're -- I think you're trying to summarize this, but we're still going to need to go through it in the document. MR. HOOD: Absolutely. I just wanted to get it all on the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wouldn't you have done that going through it in the document? MR. HOOD: I would have, but I just had this prepared, so I was going through it. I'll be really quick. I've got one more page. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's no problem. I just thought -- we're going to do it twice is basically -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: That's why he's talking fast. MR. HOOD: Sorry. The previous master plan also made reference to the cross-sections to be followed with the construction and installation of common elements of the PUD. For instance, the proposed -- I'm doing it again. The proposed lake and berm, buffer and right-of-way sections. Because these items have already been constructed and/or installed per the approved Site Development Plans and the plat, the applicant sees no reason for these sections to remain in the PUD document attached to the master plan. Another change is the request for a deviation in order to remove the requirement to place a wall along Vanderbilt Beach Road. The requirement for a 6-foot wall located within the landscape buffer on Lots 5 and 6 within the Vanderbilt Beach -- Vanderbilt Commons PUD between the Black Bear Ridge preserve and the Vanderbilt Commons has also been added to the master plan. Additional changes are Page 12 of the PUD document, we removed the word "only" after the October 5, 2017 Page 72 of 98 word -- after the use for fast food drive-throughs. That was added as a clarification note. We discussed this with staff, and the word "only" was redundant, so we removed it. The final two changes -- and Fred Reischl's going to hand these to you. He's got a couple of copies so you will have them and they'll be for the record. The final two changes are within the transportation commitments section on Page 21 of the PUD document. These changes are for clarification of location, access drives, and clarification on responsibility. Finally, we are aware of the December 16th, 2000, letter -- 2016 letter to Growth Management Division that requested prohibition of certain uses. And with that, I will finish my presentation and answer any questions you may have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. It's an unusual way of doing it, but we still will have to walk through the document. MR. HOOD: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So why don't we -- any questions from the Planning Commission before -- Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Could -- and maybe you covered this and I just didn't understand it. Reduction in size of the property from 15.88 to 14.99. MR. HOOD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Would you please explain the rationale for that again. MR. HOOD: Yes. So Pristine Drive and Buckstone Drive were originally part of the PUD -- original PUD, and they were also part of the subdistrict, the Vanderbilt Beach Road/Collier Boulevard subdistrict. Those are since -- have since been -- they're either in the process of being turned over to Collier County or they have been turned over, so the acreage is no longer within the PUD. COMMISSIONER FRYER: By your client? MR. HOOD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. What was the reason why the client turned that acreage over? MR. HOOD: They were always supposed to be turned over to Collier County, Buckstone and Pristine Drive. It's for public right-of-way. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Does anybody else not understand that? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I understand. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Must be me then. Go ahead. MR. HOOD: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: They owned the property and they gave up the property for right-of-way. They built the road there, didn't they? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That means it's no longer their property so it doesn't compute. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Oh. So the entirety of the road came from that? MR. HOOD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That explains it. Thank you very much. Got it. At first blush, frankly, it looked like a contrivance of some sort. And now you've answered it. I understand. MR. HOOD: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fred, let's start with Page 1 of the PUD. MR. HOOD: All righty. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the one where you've got your cross-outs. You've introduced pages I have not seen before because you just put them on the overhead today. MR. HOOD: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I haven't got time to look at all those pages sitting here on this dias. Now, in order to understand what it is you're doing, we're going to have to take our time and walk through every single thing you mentioned, because the only thing we'll be voting on today is what we understand to be in October 5, 2017 Page 73 of 98 front of us. MR. HOOD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I don't want to -- I want to make sure it's complete. So if we take your first -- you've crossed out your cover page, and I know you made corrections on that. Well, I don't. If you turn to the page titled "Vanderbilt Commons," it's before your table of contents, you crossed everything out. What are you substituting that with? MR. HOOD: So this -- what we did here with this older PUD document is we were trying to do a strikethrough underline to make it more modernized to the Collier County standard for PUD documents. So when we coordinated with staff and we coordinated with the County Attorney's Office, this was the way that we moved forward with the document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Normally we take the existing document and do a strikethrough. Is that what this is supposed to represent? MR. HOOD: That's what this is supposed to represent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What are you replacing that page with? MR. HOOD: So this -- it's really just a title page that says "Vanderbilt Commons mixed-use planned unit development." We can get rid of it if it's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I'm just trying to understand how we got here because normally we keep a listing, as on the bottom, it talks about all the various dates, the filings, the different approval times. So if anybody wants to go back and check public records and minutes, it's all right there. It also usually tells the name of the current representative of the applicant, which now you've taken all that off the plate so we don't know that your company produced this. I'm just wondering -- Ray, is this something you -- your staff requested? MR. REISCHL: Fred Reischl. No, we didn't request it, but we have all the other older PUDs on file, so this information is accessible. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fred, so somebody walks up to the front counter -- you, Fred -- walks up to the front counter and says they want to check something in this PUD, the young person at the front counter is probably one of the newest people, looks up and looks at the most current PUD, and they don't see anything that gives them any indication on where to go. Everything needs to be in this version. So why would we want to rely on looking up multiple versions when this strikethrough is supposed to contain everything that the old one had that was relevant to whatever history we need to understand the zoning on the property? So I want to suggest you correct this cover page. It's good advertising for your company, too. I mean, why not? At least keep the data of revisions on there so we have a track and we have a history, and it helps us understand what's going on. You didn't change anything on the table of contents except for the page numbers, correct? MR. HOOD: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: List of exhibits. You changed the name from Carolina to Vanderbilt Commons. That's the only thing on that page? MR. HOOD: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, as you -- all those pages you talked fast and flashed in front of us, if any of those affect one of these pages, tell me, would you, as we're going through it. The statement of compliance, we've reduced the acreage to 14.49 and changed the name. And we talked about the expansion area. That's all I see as changes on this; is that correct? MR. HOOD: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The next page you crossed out the 15.88 acres of mixed use and referenced the Growth Management Plan for the density and the dwelling units. MR. HOOD: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The page after that, Section 1, property ownership, you went through and corrected the stuff there, and there you replaced some of the stuff that needed to be in there, and that's fine. That works great. MR. HOOD: Okay. October 5, 2017 Page 74 of 98 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The following page, 1.4 and 1.5, there were no changes. MR. HOOD: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 1.6, project description, here is where we've adjusted the acreage for the right-of-way, changed the name, and increased the square footage from 150,000 to 200,000. MR. HOOD: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then reduced the dwelling units based on the new computation to 58. MR. HOOD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Short title was changed because of the name of the -- the name has changed. MR. HOOD: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Section 2 project development, name changes only until you get to the bottom, and we get the redundancy with square footage and acreage. MR. HOOD: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The next page, you corrected 58 units up on top. Nothing else. 2.7 has no changes. And then we get into mixed use area plan, permitted uses. Now, here, in the second paragraph, we modified the square footage and went to 58 dwelling units. Under your permitted uses, you took out the group references and just said SIC, and I think that's a good thing. So I'm glad to see you did it, but that is extensive through that page, and it works. And you updated the Land Development Code reference on that page. Now, on the second page there was a different kind of change that I didn't find in any of your listing. Number 11, you struck 5,000 square feet as the maximum and you replaced it with 7,000. MR. HOOD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't see that anybody -- I didn't see it in the staff report. I didn't see it in the advertisement. I didn't see it in your synopsis you just presented. Is that intentional? MR. HOOD: It was intentional. What we were trying to do -- and this has been here since the beginning of the review cycle with this application. We increased it because we -- for certain uses that our client was looking at. They were -- they were looking at a use that needed about 6,000 square feet, so we added the 7,000 just to have that buffer there. That was our reasoning for adding that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. It just wasn't -- MR. HOOD: It wasn't in the staff report. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think any -- I can't see it discussed anywhere, because what that does is -- you've got a lot of C3 uses here. And you know in C3 the limitation is 5,000 square feet. Anything above that you've got to do a conditional use. So I think that by doing this, you would avoid the conditional use process. MR. HOOD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I understand what you did. I just don't know why it wasn't made relevant and, Fred, did you catch this before? Fred Reischl? MR. REISCHL: I read it. It didn't jump out of at me but, you're right, it's something that did increase by 2,000 square feet, the maximum. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maximum. Okay. I'm a little concerned about how that just popped up now, and it hasn't been discussed, nor did you disclose it in the papers that you just presented to us, Fred. We'll move forward and see how -- if there's any concerns from the public about that. The rest of the page is back to your SICs. The next page is, again, groups, crossed out, SIC, and that is a better way to define it. So that's an improvement. We go to the next page under prohibited uses, 3.4, and on that page it's No. 3, you crossed out the word "only." MR. HOOD: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that's taken care of. All the rest of it stays the same. And you've got a name change in 345, or 35, I'm sorry. And then we get to your Development Standards Table. When I talked with you, I suggested you didn't need to invent a new acronym SCU. You could just simply put the numbers in there. Did you do that? October 5, 2017 Page 75 of 98 MR. HOOD: Not in this version that you have in front of you. We -- at the time I didn't get a chance to do it, so this is something that will -- that has to be updated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll need to come back on consent to have this done then, so... MR. HOOD: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I noticed you've made some changes in your distances between structures for residential uses that -- I mean, that's if you do residential. Do you intend to do residential, by the way; do you know? MR. HOOD: It's still up in the air. The client's deciding what they want to do, but the option is there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then the reference to the -- on the next page to SCU, if you remove that and just put the numbers in, which actually will be less text than what you've got, you can take that reference out -- MR. HOOD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- or at least part of it. We go on to the deviations page. Can you explain the two deviations. MR. HOOD: Yes. So the first deviation was for a sign that's actually existing in the Pristine Drive right-of-way currently. It is for the Black Bear Ridge residential development. It was asked of the developer at the time of the original PUD to add that deviation. We've simply left it in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it's a sign that everybody going to kind of jointly involve themselves in? MR. HOOD: It is only for Black Bear Ridge. It's to show that their development is behind Vanderbilt Commons. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: The sign is already there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pardon me? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: There is a sign already there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That takes care of that then. On No. 2 -- MR. HOOD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- this has to do with a buffer. This has to do with a buffer along -- MR. HOOD: Vanderbilt Road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- Vanderbilt Road, right? MR. HOOD: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it's that 4-foot-high fence? MR. HOOD: That's correct. Between -- any time you have nonresidential uses across from residential uses, the code requires us to put in a 4-foot wall. We are just removing that regulation from this PUD because it's a commercial facility. We didn't think that a wall being in front of commercial facility was necessary, and that the Vanderbilt Road right-of-way and the landscape buffer that will have to be installed would be enough of a screening. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And your preserve area plan, there's no changes to that section, which takes us to the development commitments. You don't have any changes to the development commitments page, which is Section 5 on Page 17. We get into the monitoring report; you've incorporated the newer language that the County Attorney's Office requires, so then you've taken out the old, so that's standard. The engineering and water -- the engineering on that page did not change. The water management on Page 19 has not changed, but the traffic has changed considerably. I did talk with Michael Sawyer, and he indicated that he was aware and recommended approval on the changes there. He was comfortable with them. Although, I believe what you're doing here is different than what we've got in front of us. It's on the screen now; is that correct? MR. HOOD: Yes. So if you'd like me to go through that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, absolutely; sure. October 5, 2017 Page 76 of 98 MR. HOOD: So we had a conversation last night between my client, and we didn't get a chance to get this in front of staff last night, but I discussed it with them earlier today. I spoke with Heidi and I spoke with Trinity about these changes. The one change is in Section C. We originally -- in the original document it was referring to Lots 4 and 5. It was supposed to be referring to Lots 5 and 6. Lot 4 is where the existing self-storage facility is already constructed. The point of this section, of the commitment, was to make sure that the left-bound turn lane going east on Vanderbilt Beach Road would be constructed when 5 and 6 were developed, not for 4 and 5 and -- 4 and 5, but for 5 and 6. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So how would that read? Because your -- so it would read 4, comma, 5 and/or 5, comma, 6? MR. HOOD: No. It will read -- scratch out 4 and 5, then it will be 5 and 6. The reason we -- it's a mistake. The reason is we can't set transportation commitments on something that's already built. We're looking at if 5 and -- when 5 and 6 are completed or when 5 and 6 are ready to be constructed, that left-hand turn lane will be installed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The entity that owns 5 and 6 is the same entity the owns 4 and 5, or, I mean -- yeah, 6 owns -- all of them are owned by the same person? MR. HOOD: Not all, but they are all aware of these changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you're putting a burden on them by this, I believe, because basically they would have to -- they would be restricted by the construction of that turn lane. MR. HOOD: That's correct, and they've agreed to it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have that agreement? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: There was an affidavit of authorization from Midgard Self-Storage of Naples, and Lots 5 and 6 are owned by Vanderbilt Commons. And later on I'm going to want a commitment from the owners of Lots 1 and 2, but we can get there when you're ready. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's -- as long as legal says it's okay, we'll work with it. But now that we've mentioned Midgard Storage, I'd mentioned to you the concern I had from the neighbors that it's being used for a U-Haul truck rental and storage facility. And I checked with staff; it's not supposed to be. MR. HOOD: No, it's not. And so the reason for that was, it's actually related to Irma. So what happened was when Irma was descending upon us, a bunch of people grabbed their U-Hauls, packed their houses up, and went to the self-storage facility. If they couldn't get a unit inside the self-storage facility, they were allowed by the property owner to park their temporarily. It is not a use that is supposed to be there, and we have authorization from the owner of that property to stipulate that that is not a use there. There is a -- there is a -- how do I say this? There is a service where they can come to the Midgard Storage and write in the paperwork for the U-Haul, but they have to go to the North Naples U-Haul distribution center to get their truck. They can't do it here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the U-Haul leasing can be done -- you're actually doing the U-Haul leasing from this property? MR. HOOD: Paperwork. Yes, sir. That's my understanding. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, between now and consent I need staff to verify that's an allowed use on the property that we're talking about. So, anyway, that's something we'll have to check. When you get to Item -- D is not changed, E is not -- E is the one that you're changing as well, isn't it? No, F. MR. HOOD: No, it's F. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: F. Now, this language that you're introducing, has that been reviewed by legal and by staff? I know Mike Sawyer hasn't reviewed it, because he didn't tell me he had when I met -- he was standing by the language already in the PUD. MR. HOOD: Correct. This is language that this -- that discussion that I was talking about that was had last night between ourselves and the client post five o'clock, and so we brought it to staff's attention this morning. It's been handed to Heidi, and it was discussed with Trinity. They have to review it. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah, I was handed the document right before the hearing began. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. October 5, 2017 Page 77 of 98 MS. ASHTON-CICKO: However, as to the second sentence that's added to Item F, that says, this is not intended to prohibit vehicle drive aisles used for LDC code required circulation around future buildings or parking lots, they were previous reiterations of this type of language that I resisted in the prior drafts, and the reason is, this is going to -- I don't know if it's code required. This is different language than what I reviewed. But it's going to look like a road. You know, it's going to have a driveway behind there. I doubt it's going to say "not for public access." So I know that there was some commitments made to the residents, so that's why I resisted it in the past. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How is this consistent with any commitments you previously made to the residents? MR. HOOD: It's still consistent. What we were trying to accomplish here is if there's a fire in the back of the building, that a fire truck would be able to come back there and park and put the fire out. It's not for public area to come back there and park or to circulate around the building. That's the intent of this language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And doesn't the fire department require access when they come in for a permit? MR. HOOD: They do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So then why do we need this language? MR. HOOD: It was extra language just to make sure that we were being understood. So if it's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd rather leave it what your agreements are with the neighborhood and the fire department's requirements. And if you go beyond that, well, then you've got to figure out how to fix that. MR. HOOD: We're okay with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So I don't think that last sentence necessarily needs to be changed. MR. REISCHL: Strike that last? Is that what you're saying? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, strike the last sentence. And the prior highlighted before that says Wolf Creek PUD. Is this asking for a commitment? MR. HOOD: No. It's just -- it's for clarification just to say that we're talking about Black Bear Ridge, and Black Bear Ridge is in the Wolf Creek PUD. That's all. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: You might want to replace the slash with "in" for clarity. MR. HOOD: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, that would help. And then the last G, which has disappeared, what does G say? MR. HOOD: I'm sorry. Nothing in this -- nothing in this PUD shall have any effect upon obligations under any private agreements. So that's a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What is that for? MR. HOOD: That is a reference to cost-sharing agreement for the right-of-way improvements. That is between -- it's not -- it doesn't involve Collier County, but it involves the developers for Vanderbilt Commons, portions of Wolf Creek PUD, and so forth and so on. So there's transportation commitments in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Has legal staff reviewed that? I don't know if that really harms anybody. It probably helps to assure that if the residents do have private agreements, this document's not going to mix them up. MR. HOOD: That was the intent. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I don't have an objection to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Yeah, I don't think it hurts, so that's probably not problematic. Okay. The rest of that page doesn't have anything new on it. The next page has nothing new, which is Page 22. On Page 23 you've got an issue with additional screening. Five -- well, two things: Lighting and screening. Lighting, I think, is the -- that's the shielded mounted sconces. We talked about that the last time you were in here, so I'm glad to see that. I do believe there's been some concern about the height of that, so we may want to -- when we get public input, I think there was a request to make sure they aren't so high up in October 5, 2017 Page 78 of 98 the building they really don't accomplish what they're supposed to. We'll hear that in a minute. MR. HOOD: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The additional screening, can you show us on the master plan where that's located. MR. HOOD: Yes, sir. So we were requested to put in a 6-foot-high wall on Lots 5 and 6; here and here next to the preserve area. So what we tried to do is avoid cutting off access to that preserve area by putting a wall on either side of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What was the purpose of the wall? I mean, did you introduce that because the residents asked for it? MR. HOOD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What was their stated purpose for it? Visual? Sound? MR. HOOD: There were concerns about visual, sound, headlights, so forth and so on. And we were just trying to be good neighbors, and our client wanted to put up a wall anyway between 5 and 6, so it wasn't an issue for us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because the middle tract is a lake, so 5 and 6 are the only buildable lots on the north. MR. HOOD: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then how wide is that preserve? It doesn't look to be very wide. I'm not sure what it -- there's probably nothing there to help with the visual or the sound, so wouldn't -- MR. HOOD: So there's two things. This is -- the preserve that you're seeing on the master plan is just for the Vanderbilt Commons PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. HOOD: The preserve for Black Bear Ridge is to the north of that, and that's what I was discussing in the beginning of my presentation. At the smallest portion of that preserve, it is 200 feet wide, and that is -- I can show you. If you look here at the aerial, that 200 feet wide is basically from here to here. It gets wider here, and it gets wider here. So behind 5 and 6, we have a lake here and we have existing indigenous vegetation, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then you've got that little piece of preserve you're trying to connect to their preserve so it's contiguous as required by the code. MR. HOOD: And it's already there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you can't put a wall through it because then you'll be blocking off what the code -- okay. MR. HOOD: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, now that I understand it. On your master plan; you and I spoke about this. I know you've got your deviations on there. But I mentioned to you that the Exhibit B, the details for the right-of-way and the rest of it were not relevant; you couldn't tell what they sectioned to because you took the sections off the master plan. So I'm trying to figure out -- based on the things you slid on the overhead, it looked like you're still trying to say you want to drop this whole plan. MR. HOOD: Yeah. After the conversation that I had with you, I spoke with the engineers in my office to see if there was something that we could leave in and not have a problem with. And we could leave them in and not have a problem with them, but they're already constructed, they're already -- everything is built that is already in the section so we thought there's really no point to leave it there. This is one of those -- again, one of those older PUDs that used to put these sections in and whatnot. Unless there's something very specific that is different from LDC standards, we don't typically put these in anymore. So since everything is constructed by SDP or plat permit, we didn't see a reason to leave these in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. My concern is, if it's mostly already constructed and you take it out and what you've constructed is consistent with this but not from -- with the code, then you guys have created a problem for yourselves because you've got an inconformity on your process. For example, the lake banks, you notice you got 4-1 on one side, and you've got a pretty steep slope on the other side. I'm not sure the code allows both -- that steeper slope on that one side. I don't know if staff October 5, 2017 Page 79 of 98 checked all the details on this plan against the code. I would have if I'd known you were going to tell me today you wanted to take it out. When we spoke, you were simply going to show where it applies. So I say, okay, if it's already there, I'm not changing it. But, like, your road cross-section, I don't know if the pieces of that road cross-section on a clearer copy would be consistent with the 60-foot cross-section in the LDC. I just think you guys are making a mistake by taking it out. I think you'd be better off leaving it in just for your own protection. I mean, all I would ask is you put the reference sections like you and I talked about on the master plan. I think that would be simpler. MR. HOOD: We could do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Okay. If you could do that, that would -- and that takes us through the PUD. I didn't mean to dominate the discussion. I thought if I walked through this, at least we'd all get to understand the changes better. And is that satisfactory to everybody on the panel? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: No. You did a good job. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I did a good job? Oh, thank you, Diane. The one thing I would like to ask is I had also mentioned to you, similar to the GL Homes project on Logan and Immokalee Road, the residents there came up with a list of prohibited uses. The residents here have -- it looks like they've taken most of that list and produced it. I asked you to take a look at it to see if you had any objections to it so we could discuss it. And where did you guys stand on that list? MR. HOOD: There's a few of them that we don't have a problem taking out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, why don't we -- yeah. I'm more concerned with the problem with the ones that you want to leave in. So if you've got -- if you've got something on this list that you think is absolutely critical to your project and you want to go through a discussion on that, then those are the ones I'd like to focus on. The rest of them we'll assume you're going to incorporate into a consent, and we're going to have them taken out as prohibitions. MR. HOOD: So I think the -- because there's only a couple of them that we don't care about, don't want, it would probably be easier to go through those -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. HOOD: -- because the rest of them -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, that's -- MR. HOOD: Okay. So car wash was one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Car wash what? You want the car wash -- MR. HOOD: We can get rid of it. We don't mind having it there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no. Let's just do the opposite. Which ones do you want to -- MR. HOOD: That's what I was saying. There's less that we would get rid of than there are that we would like to keep. So if you look at this list -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh. So you don't agree that you can -- most of these prohibitions you are saying you need? MR. HOOD: We're saying that the existing approved permitted uses, we don't have a problem with them as they are in the PUD document right now. We are willing to look through this list and strike some of these that we don't have any intention of building. That's what I'm saying. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, let's start with that. MR. HOOD: Okay. So the first one -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hold on a second. Corby's suggesting -- not a bad idea -- put a copy on the overhead. Do you have an extra copy? Because if you don't, I do. It's two pages. Here's the first page. And, Corby, if you see anything out of line, just raise your hand or get my attention, because I know you've got a handle on it, so... We might as well start at the top. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Are we now into the GMP amendment or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, this is still the PUD. There's -- these are -- the neighborhood had sent October 5, 2017 Page 80 of 98 this out -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- in December of last year, but because it wasn't involving the actual uses requested in the PUD, it was kind of waiting for the PUD to come along. So now we're just walking through it. MR. HOOD: So going through from the top, single price point discount dollar store, for example, but not limited to Dollar Tree, Dollar General, Family Dollar, we'd like to leave that in. We're not sure, you know, what the end users -- what all of the end users are going to be in our PUD right now, and we don't think that that one should be removed. The same goes for -- we can put some standards to it like we've done for other projects, but establishments that include outdoor entertainment by means of live or recorded music sounds, I'd like to keep that one in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, now, this is only for outdoor entertainment and live and recorded sounds. It still means you can have restaurants and things like that. MR. HOOD: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The problem that's going to come in here is you're pretty close to the project that started all this trouble in Collier County to begin with. It's called Stevie Tomatoes, and we cannot repeat that episode. So if you're going to intend not to accept that language, there's going to have to be some language in your PUD to strengthen the amplified -- exterior amplified sound. MR. HOOD: That's what I was getting at. I think that we're all aware of the Stevie Tomatoes debacle/issue, whatever you want to call it, and if we have to add that language that we've added in the PUDs since then to our establishments, we're okay with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. HOOD: Facilities for purpose of sale, lease, or rental of any type of motor vehicle -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're on the one above it. MR. HOOD: Oh, I'm sorry. I skipped one. On-premises dry-cleaning or laundry type, whether it be coin operated or service provided, drop-off, pick up, is acceptable as long as the dry-cleaning or laundering is done off site. We would like to keep this because originally this PUD was supposed to be for services to the neighborhood around. So a dry-cleaning service, we think, is appropriate to leave in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do dry-cleaning companies customarily do the process on site? I thought they put -- you put your coat in that rack and it goes around in circles till your number comes up, and then they give it back to you. MR. HOOD: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought it was magical the way it goes around and comes back clean. But I didn't think they did that on site. I thought they did it off site. So what are you -- are you trying to actually build a processing plant for dry-cleaning? MR. HOOD: No, absolutely not. We're just saying, it seemed a little -- the last sentence I think we're okay with. We'll do it like a lot of dry-cleaners do around town. They have off-site processing centers, and we'll just leave the dry-cleaning use and laundry use there. MR. REISCHL: Mr. Chairman, I think you're correct, though, that that's what this says, that you can't have the actual industrial processing on this site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, but he's saying -- I think he saying he's okay not having that on the site. MR. REISCHL: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We've just got to make sure that when it comes out in the right language that fits into the PUD it's said correctly. That's all. This is language developed by the residents, so they're not really necessarily aware of the SIC rules and everything. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But if it's a coin-operated laundromat, I mean, that's typically a bank of washers and dryers on site. This, essentially, is prohibiting that if you comply with it. You agree with that? MR. HOOD: Yes, I do; yes, sir. October 5, 2017 Page 81 of 98 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next one, facility for the purpose of sale, lease -- THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry. Can you say that again? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Facility for the purpose of sale, lease, or rental of any type of motor vehicle or boat, and I will try to be slower. I just drank a large cup of coffee. And I didn't get it there, because they can't have a Starbucks. It's got a drive-through. MR. HOOD: Ouch. MR. REISCHL: Mr. Chairman, while I was following this discussion, Ray was looking up the U-Haul question previously, and Ray found that it is a permitted use in the PUD, so that would change the permitted uses that are in the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay, because previously when we talked you didn't think it was. Okay. That's fine. MR. BELLOWS: We just double-checked. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. No, I'm glad you're checking. But you've agreed not to have the U-Haul operation on the site? MR. HOOD: It's something that we can take out, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Thanks, Ray. Facilities. Let's go back to the rental and motor vehicle. You're not going to do any of that on this site, are you? MR. HOOD: Hang on two seconds, if you don't mind. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. One, two. MR. HOOD: The owner wants to speak to that last one that we were just discussing with the U-Haul. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The owner? MR. HOOD: Yes. The owner of that property, the Midgard Storage. Would you mind? MR. CIOFFI: I didn't swear myself in before, but I'll -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you can't swear yourself in, but she can do that for you. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. CIOFFI: And my name is Ralph Cioffi, and I'm one the owners of Midgard. The way we view it, and I think it was agreed to when we got our building permit, is not to store any rental equipment on premise. So we don't store U-Haul vehicles or trailers. We have a facility on Old 41 in North Naples where we do store rental equipment. Our employees at the Midgard location can do the paperwork, but the renters are supposed to pick the equipment up at the Old 41 site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think Ray's saying that's acceptable. If you could just help the applicant get the language right so when it comes back on consent, we've got it done the correct way so it doesn't interrupt what you've already got a right to do as a business. That will work out fine. MR. CIOFFI: Perfect. Because there is a lot of in and out traffic with people storing their, you know, home goods and what have you at the facility, but we'll get that language right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I imagine people are going to be driving up in trucks, U-Hauls, whatever just to drop stuff off, but they're not leaving them there indefinitely. MR. CIOFFI: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what we're looking for. Thank you. Okay. So you're not going to do motor vehicle or boat rentals or leases or sales there, are you? MR. HOOD: Outside of that U-Haul that he just discussed with paperwork. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Car wash? MR. HOOD: Car wash, we don't have a problem removing that one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Convenience store with -- well, you can't do that anyway. MR. HOOD: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tire stores and automobile repair shops or services selling gasoline or diesel fuel. You can't do that anyway. October 5, 2017 Page 82 of 98 MR. HOOD: Can't do those anyway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Donation drop-off. MR. HOOD: Well, I had a question on this one. Is this, like, the drop box -- are we looking to prohibit the drop boxes or is it -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When the folks come up, we'll get that clarified. MR. HOOD: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Surplus store selling under/overstock merchandise or liquidation outlet. I had -- you know, I had a question on some of these, and I've told the folks that. I don't know how you define that in the SIC and how we can address some of these, so I'm not sure what to do with that one. I'll see what kind of input we get. But again, it's something that -- if it's ambiguous, it's hard to control. MR. HOOD: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Amusement center? MR. HOOD: So when we looked at this one, I think someone brought up before they didn't want a Chuck E. Cheese on site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We can't limit anything by name, you know that, so... MR. HOOD: That was kind of our point, and we were trying to retain our permitted uses without having -- you know, we don't know if, let's say, a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know those arcades and things like that? MR. HOOD: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are intending -- I don't even know if -- I can't remember your list, but was anything like that proposed for this? MR. HOOD: It's not proposed at this time, but -- MR. VUKOBRATOVICH: It's too vague. MR. HOOD: You know, I mean, it's a little -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's leave that one for further discussion. MR. HOOD: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Massage parlor? MR. HOOD: We can exit. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Big of you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's good. That was -- that's been problems in other parts of the county. Any adult-focused realty facilities such as the -- MR. HOOD: Exit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I would hope so. Mortuary or funeral home? MR. HOOD: We're okay with getting rid of the mortuary or funeral home. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Cocktail lounge, bar, tavern, excluding the sale of alcoholic beverages in junction with the operation of a restaurant. MR. HOOD: I don't think we want to get rid of that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't even know if you have it. It's 5312, I believe. Do you have 5312 in your list of uses already? MR. HOOD: Let me double-check. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, you've -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: 5812. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 5812, I'm sorry. 5812, only cocktail lounges and on-premise consumption of beer, wine, and liquor in conjunction with a restaurant. Well, that's what this says. MR. HOOD: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I think you're already -- you've got that restriction, so that's not an issue. MR. HOOD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Entertainment facilities such as nightclub, cinema. I don't even think you have those, do you? MR. HOOD: We don't, but the theater was one of the approved uses already in the PUD, so we'd October 5, 2017 Page 83 of 98 like to just leave it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It is. MR. HOOD: But, to be honest, I don't know if it will ever be developed with the size of the project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was wondering, based on what I see -- and I pass this thing all day long. MR. HOOD: Something like a Paragon theater. Like, a small footprint like that. MR. REISCHL: Theaters are getting smaller and smaller, and they may not be around much longer anyway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you don't have a problem with the nightclub, the bowling alley, the pool hall or a skating rink? MR. HOOD: No, we don't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we're down to a cinema or theater, and we'll see where that goes. Animal breeding. I didn't think you had that to begin with. MR. HOOD: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Facilities for pawn shop, auction house, flea market, you're not going to be doing any of that, are you? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Did we miss one? COMMISSIONER EBERT: No. Second page, please. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I'm on the second page. COMMISSIONER FRYER: What about the -- oh, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So pawn shops, auction houses, flea markets? MR. HOOD: I don't think we have a problem getting rid of pawn shops or flea markets or auction houses, swap meets or junk yards. It's not the intent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Religious community, i.e., church, mosque, or synagogue? I'm not sure -- it can't be limited to those, but I'm not sure what that's in there for. But are you guys looking at renting out a cubicle to a church? MR. HOOD: Possible. Churches are getting smaller, too. So, I mean -- and we're looking at C3 type zoning, and I believe C3 allows -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it -- I'm not saying it doesn't. I'm just saying, it may -- unless you've already got it, it may be something we haven't even got to discuss. I don't see churches in here anywhere -- well, membership organizations, but that's usually not -- MR. HOOD: 5812, membership organizations? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 5812, I think, is -- MR. HOOD: That includes churches in the SIC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's eating -- 5812 is eating places. MR. HOOD: Eating places. Where -- here. Membership organizations. We were just looking at this for another project. I think it's 8611. I'd have to triple check that. But I think under membership organizations, churches are allowed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I don't see churches, though, listed anywhere, so... MR. HOOD: Yeah. There's a few PUDs. And Ray can speak to this one. We just had a look at Sun Gate, and it's under membership organizations for churches, and it goes to the SIC code, so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we'll just double-check it the next time. MR. HOOD: We'll double-check. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That may be one open. Facilities related to the -- MR. REISCHL: Mr. Chairman, before you go -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Are you eliminating it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. We're going to check to see if it's already allowed on the PUD, and we're hear -- then we'll see how big of a deal that is with the neighborhood as far as a store-front church goes. MR. REISCHL: Before you go on to the next one, on the facilities for pawn shop, that falls under used merchandise, which also includes antique shops. So I don't know if you want to exclude antique shops. October 5, 2017 Page 84 of 98 That's always a problem at the office. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we just exclude it as listed? MR. HOOD: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We've got them listed. We know what a pawn shop is. Just exclude pawn shops, auction houses, flea markets, swap meet -- MR. REISCHL: Okay. So not the entire SIC? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, just those -- we do that a lot. We except out certain elements. The facilities related to occult sciences. I never thought anybody would want to do that anyway. Are you going to be having a bunch of astrologers and fortune tellers in there? MR. HOOD: I don't think so, but I think it may fall under religious communities. I think we should probably check on that. It's not something that we need to keep. We can get rid of it. I'm just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Make your life easier, Fred. MR. HOOD: -- being cautious. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Gun range. Now, after all that's happened, I think that's something you want to steer away from, if I was you, so... MR. HOOD: I'm not touching it. Gone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Tobacco store, hookah lounge. What's a hookah? MR. REISCHL: There was one at Goodlette and Pine Ridge. MR. HOOD: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What is hookah? MR. REISCHL: People sit around -- it's those Turkish pipes. MR. KLATZKOW: It's a pipe that you -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Marijuana, I think. MR. KLATZKOW: It's a Turkish water pipe. MR. REISCHL: Essences. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fred, I hope you don't want to do that there. MR. HOOD: You can take that out. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You haven't traveled to the Middle East enough. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I haven't been -- I've never been to the Middle East. MR. KLATZKOW: You know, you've got the medical marijuana now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You're going to take -- that one's fine. MR. HOOD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Government facility other than post office. MR. HOOD: That would preclude the county from having an office there, so I don't think we want to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not too -- I mean, the county's offices aren't problematic. I'm not sure why that was, but we'll hear from the public. If they've got a real big issue with this, we'll discuss it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: This would preclude like an annex to the Tax Collector's Office -- MR. HOOD: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- or licensing or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Those are pretty harmless. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Harmless. MR. HOOD: That's what we think. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Or police subdistrict. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Police -- yeah, they do -- but they don't -- they wouldn't -- not in this -- this is not going to be that cheap. They usually look at the smaller, older storefronts that are less expensive, but -- okay, we'll leave that one open. And then any drive-through -- you already have that crossed out, so you can't do drive-through. So, really, it's not as bad as you got to to begin with. You actually have agreed to more cross-outs than not, and we're down to just a handful of ones that either need to be modified or there's some contention on them, and we'll hear from the folks and see where it goes. October 5, 2017 Page 85 of 98 So that -- I would assume, then, you would add that to that section of the code that we talked about where it says prohibited uses. So 3.4 will just have a continuation of these kind of references in it. Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Go back to the other page. The one on -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The first page? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: First page. The surplus store selling under/overstock merchandise. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We can't -- there's no way to -- that's too arbitrary. We can't take -- I don't know how to take -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Tuesday Morning store, that could be -- I mean, those are pretty harmless. I mean, a TJ Maxx. MR. REISCHL: Pier One. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I mean, I don't know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. We'll have to see where the concern is with that one, because I don't understand that one myself, so... Okay. Well, it looks like we got through that list, and I think that wraps up all the issues that I had to get through today before we hear public speakers. Do you have anything else, Fred? MR. HOOD: I don't at this time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Members of the Planning Commission, do you have anything you want to ask the applicant about? COMMISSIONER FRYER: No, but staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're going to get to staff next. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that brings us to Mr. Reischl. MR. REISCHL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Fred Reischl with Planning and Zoning. And with the changes discussed today, we have no objection and recommend approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You -- you're learning a lot from Nancy, huh? MR. REISCHL: That's what I was going for. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Never pass up the opportunity to say nothing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now -- but Ned's not going to let you go that easy. Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. On Page 15 of 425. MR. REISCHL: On the PUD? COMMISSIONER FRYER: No. I think it was part of staff's -- oh, on the GMP, I think. MR. REISCHL: Oh, that would be Corby. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So I can't ask that now? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, absolutely. This is -- we're doing them both at the same time. Corby, come on up. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Really, this is not substantive, Corby, but somehow the subsections, H, I, and J at the end of legal considerations, you might want to look at your template, because those got reversed. H is actually J, I is actually H, and J is actually I. So just for future reference you might want to align those with the numbering in the ordinance. MR. SCHMIDT: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. Also, then, on Page 29 of 425, it's a typographical error, really. The noun "effects" is used, and I think what it should be is the verb "affects." But not a biggie. MR. SCHMIDT: Okay. Could very well be. COMMISSIONER FRYER: All right. Then -- and if I'm the only one who has a problem with this, I'll yield and say no more about it. But "comprised of" is traditionally -- I mean, it's not -- it's not something that the elements of style, Strunk and White, approves of. Usually you would say composed of or comprises, and there are about a half a dozen references in there. So I just -- you know, you might look at it for your template going forward. October 5, 2017 Page 86 of 98 Then -- that is all I have for staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, sir. Corby, thank you. That was -- you weathered that very well, sir. MR. SCHMIDT: Thank you. And now, for the record, Corby Schmidt with the Comprehensive Planning Department. I do have something to mention. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. I thought with the transmittal being done, I didn't know if you had any more to do, but go ahead. MR. SCHMIDT: I do because staff already spoke, and since I still am, while I am, I thought I'd point out that on Page 12, your Section 3.4, you have the listing of prohibited uses, and under that listing you currently have three items or three listings. The third listing there is sort of an erroneous combination of two listings. It looks like food stores, SIC 5411, and then fast food restaurants seems to be a subset of that, and it's not. So it should be a fourth listing; there should be one, two, three, four here, and the food stores, convenience stores, et cetera, as the language would be, and then the fourth item would be, I believe it's 5812, whatever eating establishments is, and then fast food restaurants or drive-throughs for the SIC code for that fourth item only. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you put that on the overhead, or do you have it written up or not? MR. SCHMIDT: I do not. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Where are you at, Corby? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You said Page 12 of 425. I'm not finding that on Page 12 of -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It's in the -- MR. SCHMIDT: Oh, 12 of the PUD document, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I've been looking at your document. So you're helping Fred out? MR. SCHMIDT: As I am. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. I just didn't know that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, I'm on the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We see you, we think GMP. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: GMP. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well, I'm with you, Corby. I've been looking at the right paper. MR. SCHMIDT: Thank you. I'm glad you do, however. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, can you tell us what page we're on again? MR. SCHMIDT: If I only saw it, yes. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Page 12 of the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 3.45, yes. Those are the -- MR. SCHMIDT: It should look like that. Number three should end with something more like convenience stores only or however it is written in the FLUE, because there's specific language there in another part of the PUD already today, and then the remainder of that entry should be a fourth entry, eating establishments, 5812, or whatever the SIC code is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait. Where are you -- okay. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It's got the wrong code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Those prohibited uses were supposed to mimic the prohibited uses as listed in the GMP. MR. SCHMIDT: That is correct, and it's just a small error here that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- but you're adding -- MR. SCHMIDT: -- four looks like three. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you show me in the GMP where you're getting this from? MR. SCHMIDT: Sure can. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Give me that page. MR. SCHMIDT: I've just got to pull a different page. MR. BOSI: Excuse me, Chair. Mike Bosi, again. The clarification is -- what Corby's trying to convey is 5411 does not include the grouping of fast food restaurants. 5411 is an SIC code for food stores. October 5, 2017 Page 87 of 98 MR. REISCHL: 5812 is -- MR. BOSI: 5813 is the correct SIC code for -- MR. REISCHL: Eating. MR. BOSI: -- eating places. So when it's presented in the way that it's presented with food stores, SIC Code 5 -- SIC 5411, there's no end to that parens, and then it says fast food restaurants; so that's a different SIC code. That's the clarification that Corby was trying to make. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Boy, you guys know how to mess it up this late in the day. Come on now. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Just fix this page. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, actually, the 5812, which maybe is what Mr. Schmitt is getting at, is already listed as a permitted use, so you might want to cross-reference it on that page. Is that where you were going? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: We handed out a corrected page which took out the word "only," and it was highlighted. So we have to amend this page again if we're going to make a correction. MR. BOSI: Yes. MR. SCHMIDT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But let's back up. These prohibited uses, weren't they supposed to be mirroring the GMP? MR. SCHMIDT: Yes, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. In the GMP, can you show me where number three is -- exists. MR. SCHMIDT: On the screen in front of you now is the plan language or the subdistrict language that was approved in transmittal and continues to be part of your adoption. The individual listings are gas stations, convenience stores with gas pumps, fast food restaurants with drive-through lanes, and tire stores. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a reason we just can't take those uses and list them exactly as the language is in the GMP under 3.4? MR. SCHMIDT: In a different draft on another day, they were. This is simply an error in the version you have in front of you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Fred? Fred Hood? Are you following this train of thought for how to get this accomplished? MR. HOOD: I am, but I wanted to bring -- and maybe Corby will agree with me on this. On page 9 -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Of which document? MR. HOOD: The PUD document; sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, you guys. This is too late in the day to go doing this, fellows. MR. HOOD: So on Page 9, No. 8 at the bottom, we discussed that grouping, 5812, eating places. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. HOOD: There is no mention of fast food here. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Which is where you need to put it based on what Mr. Bosi just said. MR. HOOD: Right. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: So my recommendation would be after eating places group or SIC eight -- 5812, put except for fast food restaurants with drive-through lanes. You're going to want to put it there based on what Mr. Bosi said; otherwise, your document's going to be in conflict, potentially. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But then we do it -- how -- if the GMP is listing it as -- they list the following land uses shall not be permitted; if we just copy those four uses and put them under prohibited uses, wouldn't that do the same thing, but you'd go to the prohibited uses to see what's not allowed? MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. SCHMIDT: Perhaps I can shed some light on it. The language in the existing documents -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which existing documents? COMMISSIONER EBERT: GMP? October 5, 2017 Page 88 of 98 MR. SCHMIDT: The GMP. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SCHMIDT: All right. That phraseology isn't the terminology or the phraseology we use today. We don't call gas stations "gas stations," for example. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree with you. MR. SCHMIDT: Okay. We don't call some of these other items the same terminology as we did on that day. And so there has to be some nuance in the language, hence the relationship to SIC codes. That helps clarify everything. Now, the language doesn't change in the amendment that you have in front of you to the Comp Plan in the subdistrict language. It stays the same. That served all the purposes for the amendments that you've had with the neighbors and their concerns. And as you go through the details in the PUD, you add the SIC codes. So whether it is an exception to a permitted use or a fourth item on the list of prohibited uses, you still do need to address that fourth item. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So 3, if we go with your train of thought, we leave 1 and 2 alone. That covers some of them. Three, the fast -- the food stores, SIC Code 5411, what is it we're trying to do there, because this is not -- the GMP does not except out convenience stores. It excepts out convenience stores with pumps. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I think -- that's just a wrong number. That's just wrong, because on number -- Page 10, No. 10 says food stores with 5,000 square feet or less floor area, and that's the same number; 5411. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't know it, but I don't know what the intent of this prohibition was. That's what I'm trying to find out. What was the intent of prohibiting food stores when it's allowed as a permitted use? Maybe I can get the answer from the applicant. Okay. Is it a mistake? MR. HOOD: I think it was a mistake. I think it meant to be for fast food. It's not for food stores. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the only thing -- we're going to cross out the words "food stores" in SIC 5411 and just leave in fast food restaurant with drive-through lanes, period. MR. HOOD: And then add the SIC for fast food, which is 5812. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Eating places. MR. HOOD: Eating places. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, I think what you suggested in the beginning, which is just using the simple language from the GMP, I think would also work subject to any comments Ray would have with interpretation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd rather not use the -- I'd rather not use the SIC code. I'm not sure how restrictive it is. And this is pretty simple. Fast food restaurants with drive-through lanes. So anything that's classified as a fast food restaurant with a drive-through lane cannot be there. You put an SIC code, then it will only be those SIC number associated with drive-through lanes, and I'm not sure if that covers everything that everybody's been worried about. So anything wrong with that? I mean, it just mimics the GMP. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. There's nothing wrong with prohibiting it that way. We just want to make sure under the list of permitted uses where it does say "eating places" with that SIC, that regular restaurants without drive-throughs is still to remain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So I think we just cross out the reference to food stores, SIC 5411, and leave the rest like it is; drop the word "only," and everything should work just fine. MR. BELLOWS: The PUD also appears to allow drinking places. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, with limitations. They've got to be part of the restaurant, which is typical. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. There's a separate heading in there for -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, there is? MR. BELLOWS: -- drinking places, where it's specifically permitted. October 5, 2017 Page 89 of 98 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where? MR. BELLOWS: Number eight of the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it says drinking place, group -- I mean, 5413, only cocktail lounges and on premise consumption of beer, wine, and liquor in conjunction with a restaurant. That's what I was saying. MR. REISCHL: But a cocktail lounge is not a restaurant. That's what leads my reading to believe that you could have a cocktail lounge or you could have a restaurant that allows consumption of beer, wine, and liquor. It's not clearly written. MR. BELLOWS: I think we should clear it up more. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But only cocktail lounges and on premise consumption of alcohol, basically, in conjunction with a restaurant. So you can't have a cocktail lounge if you don't have a restaurant, and a restaurant would be defined as 51 percent. Do you remember Stevie Tomatoes? MR. BELLOWS: The typical restaurant use is allowed to have these same things. It doesn't make sense, in my mind, to list an SIC code for drinking establishments. It's only confusing. If the intent is to allow restaurants to have bars, then that's always been an accessory use, and that is what Stevie Tomatoes' issue was about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, because they were claiming they weren't a bar, but they were a restaurant, so... MR. BELLOWS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Somehow you guys get it cleaned up before it comes back on consent. MR. BELLOWS: We'll do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mark, one other one. Remember about 11, about the 7,000 -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We already brought that up. That's -- we're going to talk about that. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Corby. MR. SCHMIDT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there anybody else that wants to -- oh, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: You had asked earlier about religious organizations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. BELLOWS: That is also listed in the PUD under 16, membership organizations. The SIC for church is 8661, and that's the last of the SIC codes in that one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So it is already -- church is already allowed in the PUD? MR. BELLOWS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we have the staff reports and testimony -- I mean, applicant's presentation. We'll move to registered public speakers first. As you're called, please come up and use one of the mikes and identify yourself for the record. We ask that you limit your discussion to five minute, and please don't be redundant, but we have a lot of latitude, so... MR. REISCHL: The first speaker is Teresa Borgione followed by Terrie Abrams. MS. BORGIONE: I'm giving up my time to Terrie. Do I have to come up there? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Just tell the -- are you giving up your time? MS. BORGIONE: Yes, I am. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So she's providing her time to Terrie. MS. ABRAMS: Okay. I'm Terri Abrams, and I have to say, I'm fairly confused about everything that's just happened here with all these SIC codes. But, you know, basically I'm here today to support development compatible with Black Bear Ridge, and I adamantly oppose any development that is not. Again, we're talking about compatibility, and I think we've heard that multiple times today. The Planning Commission and Board of Commissioners have received our petitions and letters from our community, so -- I think we had maybe, like, 70 letters, and we had probably double that in signatures. October 5, 2017 Page 90 of 98 So we're aware that the traffic studies are intended to prevent over congestion of the area, so we're not going to talk about traffic. But it's really about compatibility with the lifestyle, property values of the surrounding areas and also about retail concentration. Collier County in our cost-share agreement have clearly stated the intent of Vanderbilt Commons. The property was to support the concept of creating a pedestrian-friendly atmosphere that encourages area residents to work and shop there. In just our immediate walkable area, we have over a thousand residents. Granting changes to square foot of storefronts and not limiting business types constitutes grant of special privilege to an individual as contrasted with public welfare. The changes -- some of the changes suggested are out of scale and unneeded and overabundance of retail concentration. That really doesn't help our neighborhood. Various businesses identified in our letter should not be allowed, as they are not compatible for a retail property that directly buffers residential communities. Any business that could be considered a regional entertainment center, such as an arcade or recreation facility, is not compatible in this type of soft retail development, nor is any type of anchor store. An anchor store is not compatible with the layout of this area. We have anchor-type developments in Mission Hills, which has many large services that support not only our area but those residents outside of our immediate PUD. There are many types of services available in Mission Hills: Grocery, restaurants, medical, fast food, gym, gas. Mission Hills is adequately buffered from the surrounding residential communities, and I think that's a big difference. Any type of fast food drive-through is already prohibited and not up for consideration. A couple clarifications here. So about those U-Haul trailers; they were there long before Irma, and they were parked up in front of the facility, and they're parked behind the facility of Midgard, which means if there was a fire or something, nobody could get through. So this wasn't something that just happened because of Irma. I have pictures that I have taken as well. And then another point that was brought up about our sign: We don't have our name on any sign. So we just had someone check because we thought we lost our minds, but our name's not on it. It's Raffia and Falls of Portofino. So our name is not on that sign on Pristine. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. I did have a picture of a project. I thought it was yours, but maybe -- MS. ABRAMS: Must have been a long time ago, probably. WCI took our name off because they wanted their name on it. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Oh, okay. MS. ABRAMS: Yeah. We are already experiencing lighting issues from the Midgard building. The lights are 30 feet high, and even though they are the shielded lights, they shine into our community. We believe they should be no more than 10 feet high, and that way they'll provide what is needed to provide without blaring into our preserve. And, again, our preserve took quite a hit with Irma. So it's not quite the same as it was. I just want you to consider the effect to our surrounding homes, homeowners of Naples, and help protect the reason that we live where we live, and please look at incompatible when we're looking at retail uses. So thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you step away, are you kind of like the leader of the group? MS. ABRAMS: No. We're all in this together. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'll start with you, because if anybody else wants to speak, they can hear your answer and decide. If they really dislike you, they can get up and say "we don't agree with that woman." We want -- and you heard us walk through the various -- MS. ABRAMS: Can I have Bev come up? Because she's going to talk to those individual things -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, well, then I'll just wait for her. I just wanted to make -- MS. ABRAMS: I was giving the general overview, and she's coming in with the details. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then that sounds fine. MS. ABRAMS: All right. Thank you very much. October 5, 2017 Page 91 of 98 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. REISCHL: Several speakers have ceded their time to Bev Smith: Michael Fuchs, Wendy Fuchs, and Dr. Fay Suhon. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. MR. REISCHL: And so the speaker is Beverly Smith. MS. SMITH: Hi. Good afternoon. Beverly Smith. I reside in Black Bear Ridge. I've been there for five years now, been familiar with Naples for many, many years. I've been here since the '70s. First I want to say that I'm very thankful that we've been able to work with the developer, with George, and I think we're coming to -- closer to an agreement. I'm very happy to see that he's gone along with a lot of the objections we had to the facilities that he was going to put in, especially the fast food with the drive-through. For those that don't know, Black Bear Ridge consists of a wonderful mix of working people, young families and retirees. We are a very nice mix of families in there, and we work very hard to make our community an asset to Collier County. So we ask that the same consideration be given to us with regards to the type of businesses that are permitted within the Vanderbilt Common development as our neighbor. The one area that we did bring up, that general merchandise, which is going from 5- to 7,000, which is a concern and we mentioned was a concern because of it being more of an anchor-type facility, being that large, and that came in to, you know, a Dollar General, a dollar-type of store, something of that nature. That, to us, does not fit into the concept and the vision of what we had or what even the county had for this development. Not that we object to that type of business. It's just that it doesn't fit into what this was supposed to be; a place where we could walk to restaurants, have, you know, a beauty salon, you know, maybe some retail offices. This type of anchor type of facility doesn't fit into that. We have two strip malls, basically, in the front of small individual stores. Having a very large anchor store just takes away from what the vision should be. Outdoor entertainment, I think we admit that -- you know, I think we've gone through that, the outdoor entertainment, similar to, like, Stevie's. It's just not acceptable, and I think everybody agrees with that. The dry-cleaning, of course, I think we've come to an agreement that if it's a drop-off/pick-up, that's fine. Just no coin laundry or processing being done. Amusement centers, that is a concern. And I understand that, you know, with an arcade or something, that it may be something that the developer may be looking at, but I think when you get that type of amusement center, I think the noise, I think the time is element, you know, how late is it going to be open? The noise that's going to be contributed from it. And, again, I don't think it's meant to be in this family-friendly type walk-up retail community. I think that belongs more in a large shopping complex, not in a small unit as we're building here. Other than that, I think that, you know, it just has to be something as -- even in the cost-share agreement, Item 4, on general development standard it says that the parcels shall be designed and developed to minimize any negative impacts on abutting and neighborhood parcels. And that's part of that cost-share agreement that we all had bought into years ago. So we just want to minimize any negative impacts on us. We're glad to work with the group. We're glad to come to the agreements we've come to this far. And we just ask that they be very conscientious of the type of business they go forth in putting. The other area that I am concerned with and many people are concerned with are the back two lots that are considered future development right now, and they are on the northeast corner of the -- northeast corner of the property on Buckstone. One thing that we do not want to see in those facilities are any type of food establishment. I mean, retail, whether they go up and have an office complex there, that's okay, but to have any kind of food establishment next to our property line or our preserve is something that we would like to see prohibited from them doing in the future. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, let me ask you just a few questions to kind of clarify, because -- and we got done talking with the developer's representative. It seems that they've agreed to most October 5, 2017 Page 92 of 98 of your prohibitions, really. The couple that they had problems with, I did do when we met. I didn't know how we could single out single price point discount dollar stores, but I think your concern of square footage will probably somewhat do that, because if they're small, they're really probably not going to be the problem that a large anchor store would be. Surplus store, selling of -- it's the same thing for that one, so those two I don't know how to fix your concern there. The laundry, they've accepted pickup and drop-off on site. The outdoor entertainment establishments and that, they're going to put the language in we typically use for amplified -- outdoor amplified sound, which I'm sure that will -- we'll have to check that on consent. The donation drop-off, they asked what you're talking about like that. Are you talking about -- MS. SMITH: A Goodwill type of facility where people are bringing in donations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- but some places have these little boxes -- MS. SMITH: Oh, so that would definitely be, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's yes or no? MS. SMITH: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, you don't like those boxes. So you don't like any kind of donation drop-off there. MS. SMITH: (Shakes head.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that's something we'll bring back to the developer, and we'll see where that goes. The amusement centers, I agree, it needs more clarification, because just by saying some -- a concept "such as" doesn't work. So if the amusement center concerns are carnivals and virtual reality and laser tag and jump trampoline, maybe it's amusement centers/outside activities, because I think you -- arcades, if they're limited to hours, wouldn't be a problem. Are you -- I thought you had said or indicated. MS. SMITH: Well, I think with the entertainment, when you get into, you know, even a bounce house or something, which is an indoor facility, I mean, that's -- that is -- you know, where the bounce house is, it's an indoor facility. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. They're those big rubber things that blow away in the storms. MS. SMITH: Right, right. Well, no, the indoor, the trampolines. The indoor trampoline houses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. MS. SMITH: Things of that. I think it's just a matter of we'd rather see businesses that are going to be compatible that are going to be something that we as neighbors will use and utilize; more stores, more retail stores, not entertainment facilities such as that. I think that's what we're more looking to have put into that facility. You know, I just don't see in these small units that are being built that they're going to put in a bounce house or a large arcade for children, and it's just something that we would not like to see happen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The limitation in their current PUD, 7993, only for indoor video, game arcade, and indoor coin-operated amusement machines. So that's one of the objections that you have? MS. SMITH: (Nods head.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then the other one, 7999, only for bicycle rental, ice skating rink operation, indoor slot car track, and miniature golf course. I'm not sure how they could even do an ice skating rink on that property. Maybe that's some language that the developer can take a look at and clean up to the -- and I would suggest you communicate with the neighborhood to see if you can get to an agreement. It sounds like not everything is trying to be excluded just some of the more -- MS. SMITH: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- maybe annoying things. Cinema and theater, they have the potential to want a small one of those. Do you think that's a deal breaker for your entertainment facilities? MS. SMITH: No. We just mentioned that about a small -- I guess a theater of -- would you call, a October 5, 2017 Page 93 of 98 hometown group, a theater group, having a little playhouse. I mean, personally, I have no objection. I had one in a community I was in before, and it was very nice, and it allowed some nice entertainment at night. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, maybe if they come back with a maximum square footage that they could have what they're looking for, we're in good shape then. MS. SMITH: Yeah. That's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The religious community and government facilities, I'm not sure why you have those on the list. I mean, they generally operate at -- like, a religious community, if it's a church, it's going to be minimal operations on like a Sunday morning or something, and that's when most people aren't using the rest of the retail. And the government facilities, I can tell you, we're the quietest people in town. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Churches are not always on Sunday morning, and they're not always quiet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I forgot. You don't like parks either, so I forgot about that. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well, storefront churches, they are -- you know, they can be a problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I don't know if they -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well, that's what this is. These are storefronts, right? MS. SMITH: Yeah, storefronts, basically. Just a storefront strip mall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All right. MS. SMITH: I think when we talked about government facilities, we -- you know, even you were talking like a licensing, and I'm just thinking as -- you know, the type of traffic and the constant traffic in and out of licensing or Social Security office or something like that where we'd rather see more retail-type facility in there that we could use ourselves, you know, that type of thing, and the surrounding communities can take advantage of. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I think that's a perception. Retail probably has as much or more traffic than government office. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm thinking of the Tax Collector's Office out there on -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Orange Blossom. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- Eagle Creek and some of the others. They're small, just -- I don't know. MS. SMITH: I think we'd rather -- I think the point is we'd rather see a retail operation, a boutique, a nail salon, something that can be utilized by -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think overall we're so close -- MS. SMITH: We're so close. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to having everything taken care of. I think the final pieces -- if you guys had an opportunity to meet one more time with the developer. And I know George is more than amiable to work with. Sit down, see if you can iron these handful of things that are left out, and then we can wrap this up, and I think everybody would walk away feeling like they've got what they need. And even if he wants a use that you're concerned about, if he's willing to limit the hours or square footage, that may be the solution to it. We could spend another hour or more talking about it. I'm wondering if the best thing is not to just you-all get together another time, continue this to the next meeting, and at that meeting we'd guarantee to you, with Fred making the corrections he can, with the exception of what we'd have to make at that meeting, we could wrap this up without a consent hearing. We can do it all in one meeting so they wouldn't lose any time, you guys would have an opportunity to sit down and work these final details out that it's going to take a lot longer than we have here today probably. It would be better if you did it without a rush. I don't know, what does the rest of the Board think of that? COMMISSIONER EBERT: No, that sounds good. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I think it's a good idea. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I absolutely agree. I think your -- MS. SMITH: Address the lighting, too, with that time. October 5, 2017 Page 94 of 98 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, the lighting. And I think we've laid a whole pile of issues out for you. Our next meeting is real light. We only have what's called a PDI in the morning and a couple of staff-related issues after that. So we could handle it at the next meeting, which would normally be our consent. As long as Fred can get the document produced and get it to us in time for the packages, we'd be in good shape. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Don't they have a date already? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 19th. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning Director. That means next Wednesday we'd have to have the packages in our hands and be able to distribute to our -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's next Wednesday? MR. BOSI: Next Wednesday we would have to distribute -- distributing the packages to the Planning Commission. That means we'd have less than one week to get this done. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You can do it. What are you doing tonight, Mike? Come on. MR. BOSI: Riding my bike. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we've got to figure this out, because I don't know if the developer's got a month's worth of time. It would have to be the meeting in October -- meeting in November. George, you want to come up and address some of this now or -- MR. KLATZKOW: You know, everybody's here. If these people could, just right now, right here and right now, just bang this out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll tell you what. We need a break for the court reporter and for me, because I drank a big cup of coffee, and I've got to have a break. So let's take a 15-minute break, we'll come back at 4:30 and try to wrap everything up. If you guys can just get your heads together for the next 15 minutes. MR. VUKOBRATOVICH: We will. Thank you. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Everyone, it looks like we have got to the end of the break, and if you can all take your seats, we can see where we've got left to work on. Hopefully it's been resolved. COMMISSIONER EBERT: This gentleman wanted to speak. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. We've got the ticket over there. So where did we -- we left off with the community. George, did you have -- how'd you resolve all this, or I hope you did. Thank you. MR. VUKOBRATOVICH: Tried to. I can't resolve it. We have to do it together. My name is George Vukobratovich. I live at 4660 Fifth Avenue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll need to pull the mike closer to you, George. MR. VUKOBRATOVICH: My name is George Vukobratovich. I live at 4660 Fifth Avenue Northwest. I've lived there for 32 years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you get sworn in when we asked people to rise? MR. VUKOBRATOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, good. We're good. MR. VUKOBRATOVICH: I did. I am more than happy to work with this owner -- homeowners associations. I find these to be good people, my neighbors, and I want the same compatibility as they do. What I don't want to do is make restrictions that we have no definition of that make it difficult for us to do this in the future. I cannot take the time to tell you how retail is changing across the country. We have to be able to make this a financially viable center but yet compatible, and I am more than willing to do that. And I have found Beverly just fine and very good to work with, and I will continue to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. VUKOBRATOVICH: That's my commitment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great. And, Beverly, are you -- did you get some of your issues resolved, or how did you see this unfolding? You'll have to use the mike, Beverly. MS. SMITH: Yes. We went through the list of usages, and between Terrie and the other members that were here from the community, I think we've come across what we've agreed to -- October 5, 2017 Page 95 of 98 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. SMITH: -- that's acceptable. And the only other issue we had was with the lighting, which we're going to address. We're going to drop the lighting in any future buildings so that they're -- and the U-Haul we've addressed. Can you think of any other -- MS. ABRAMS: And we do have one other -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got to use the microphone. I'm sorry. MS. ABRAMS: We do have one other member after we're done with this; just wants some clarification on that whole debacle. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. We have a person listed yet we're going to be talking to. So what I need to know is, do you have enough information amongst you to have the resolution done and in staff's hands by the first part of next week? I guess that's more Fred's work than anybody else. MR. VUKOBRATOVICH: We believe we do. The parties believe we do. The biggest thing that we did is work through -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Use the mike. MR. VUKOBRATOVICH: The biggest thing we did is work through the traffic and the cost-sharing agreement that you heard last. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, yeah, I agree. MR. VUKOBRATOVICH: And I totally understood their position, and we took care of that. So, yes, I believe these things we can do, and I think, Mr. Strain, your suggestion, the limiting by square footage, that's a really good suggestion. That does that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. VUKOBRATOVICH: So that error, whatever you want to call it, the 5- to 7-, we will commit to the 5,000, and we think that's compatible with one another. So I believe we've done all that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Excellent. Well, that will simplify everything. MR. VUKOBRATOVICH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then I -- we're going to hear another speaker. What we're going to do is probably continue this to the -- for two weeks, and then in that two-week period, you guys resolve everything, come back with a clean document the first part of next week. We'll finish it at the next meeting so there will be no consent, so you'll stay on your time frame. MR. VUKOBRATOVICH: Thank you so much for what this county has done for us, too, in the last three or four weeks. It's been admirable how this county has responded to Hurricane Irma. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree with you there. MR. VUKOBRATOVICH: Thank you very much. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: And Mr -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, Mr. Vukobratovich, Heidi had one question about substance involving -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah. Since we're adding prohibitions and it will relate to Parcels 1 and 2 as well, I'll either need, in writing or testimony at the next hearing, that you agree on behalf of them to the prohibitions. MR. VUKOBRATOVICH: I understand. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's the -- 1 and 2 is the Midgard project, isn't it? Oh, that's the -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: No. That's Vanderbilt Commons One Land Trust dated August 1st, 2016. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then we're good. MR. VUKOBRATOVICH: Thank you so much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. And, Bev, did you have something you want to add? MS. SMITH: I just want to thank everyone for hearing us, listening to us, being open to our suggestions, and for your help in this, and we thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're welcome. I'm glad it's looking like it's going to work out, so that's October 5, 2017 Page 96 of 98 all better for everyone. MS. ABRAMS: The clarification on the date is what? When is the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The 19th of October. MS. ABRAMS: Nineteenth. That's when we have to be here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And this will be a continued item, so it will be the first thing up. So it will be 9:00 in the morning on the 19th. MR. VUKOBRATOVICH: Promise. COMMISSIONER FRYER: But that's not your deadline. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Unless there's a hurricane. I can't help that. I won't be here, so you can -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Your deadline is a week earlier, though. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they know that. Yeah, they've got to get it into staff the first part of next week. Fred, did you have -- could you call the remaining -- how many -- MR. REISCHL: Since I talked to you, another lady came up to me and said she wanted to say something, and I have a speaker slip from Cam -- Kim Anstutz, who gave me a written two sentences. I don't know if you wanted me to read that into the record or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: She hasn't heard the -- MR. BELLOWS: She asked to have it read. MR. REISCHL: She had to leave. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did she ask to have it read into the record? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, she did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Please read it into the record. MR. REISCHL: I support the Vanderbilt Commons PUD. As a resident of Wilshire Lakes, this development will ease traffic congestion to the western part of the county. It also gives the residents in the eastern part of the county places to eat, shop, and get services that are local and close to their homes, which builds a sense of community. It also will bring jobs to Naples, period. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Then you want to call the next registered speaker. MR. REISCHL: I don't -- it's that lady right there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You don't have any other registered speaker, right? MR. REISCHL: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then is there any members of the public that want to speak who haven't? Come on up, sir. Identify yourself for the record; we'll be good. MR. FUCHS: Thank you. Mike Fuchs, resident of Black Bear Ridge. I just wanted to make one comment and one clarification. It came up earlier about the sign that said Black Bear Ridge leading from Vanderbilt Beach onto Pristine. It did say Black Bear Ridge about four years ago. I was contacted by WCI, since I was on the board and maintenance chair, and they requested that since that side was not our main gate and it was the only reference from Vanderbilt Beach to their property, that Raffia Preserve north on Pristine, that they would repaint the sign in conjunction with working with Falls of Portofino and put their name on and take ours off. And that's how that sign got changed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great. Thank you. MR. FUCHS: The other thing I just want to mention is the lighting. I've talked to Josh with Davidson Engineering, and I can't remember the gentleman -- Ralph of Midgard. We're going to work that out on the existing Midgard building to solve that problem so it's not visible from the backyard of our home. And I'm very pleased to note that, you know, we're working on getting it lowered and taken care of for future building along that edge. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's good news, because the more you guys are working together, the longer you'll be better neighbors, and everything will work out better for everybody. So it's real good, this outcome. October 5, 2017 Page 97 of 98 And did you have something you wanted to address, this young lady? MS. FUCHS: Yes. Wendy Fuchs, and I am at Black Bear Ridge also. And just a couple of, like, notations. On the food store and fast food listing, we just feel really uncomfortable as a community on all that's tried to be done to change SIC codes or classifications to somehow or another get a drive-through window put into one of those strip centers. And so there's some talk about changing names from food store, but you can have a food store with a drive-through window, like a Honey Baked Ham, and you're still going to have somebody over a microphone, you know, yelling out the windows, which is going to reverberate into our community. So, basically, you know, whatever is going to be done with this language is our community does not want any type of drive-through anything regarding coffee or muffins or honey baked hams or pickup food prep. Whatever is, you know, the -- you know, whatever's trying to be switched around and said, different classifications, makes me very uncomfortable. Okay. And other than that, thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think if you communicate that to George that somehow the language could get modified to even cover things that you all might agree on. For example, it could be food stores and fast food restaurants with drive-through lanes only or that covers anything, preparation of food or anything. I didn't envision that, so that's something -- I didn't even know they did those kind of things, but I understand what you're saying, so... Okay. Anybody else who hasn't addressed us want to come up and talk? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, then we've had all the comments. Right now I think the best thing to do is turn to the Planning Commission, ask the Planning Commission if they'd be willing to continue this to 9 a.m. on the 19th of October, at which time we'll both do consent and we'll do the -- finish the hearing with the vote. Fred, did you have something? MR. REISCHL: For both petitions, GMPA -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, GMPA and -- both of them together. We'll finish it all up on that morning. First up on the agenda, so I can assure you we'll be here at nine o'clock and we'll be ready to go, unless there's a hurricane. We can't be here -- won't be here for that. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I make that motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Diane. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Karen. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-0. I want to thank all of you for working together on this. It's going to provide a really good outcome, and I appreciate it very much. MR. HOOD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that takes us to the end of our agenda. The items have been continued, the remainder of them. We don't have any new business. Is there any members of the public here that want to comment on any general item? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Motion to adjourn. October 5, 2017 Page 98 of 98 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Joe. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Diane. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We are out of here. Thank you, all. ******* There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:39 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION _____________________________________ MARK STRAIN, CHAIRMAN ATTEST DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on ____________, as presented ______ or as corrected _____. TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. October 19, 2017 Page 1 of 73 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, October 19, 2017 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Stan Chrzanowski Patrick Dearborn Diane Ebert Edwin Fryer Karen Homiak Joe Schmitt ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney Scott Stone, Assistant County Attorney Tom Eastman, School District Representative October 19, 2017 Page 2 of 73 P R O C E E D I N G S CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody. Good morning. Welcome to the October 19th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If everybody will please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Will the secretary please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. Good morning. Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Chrzanowski? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Fryer? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ms. Ebert is here. Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ms. Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Schmitt? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Present here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And, Mr. Dearborn? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Addenda to the agenda. We have a couple of changes. The last item on today's agenda is 9E. It's called Livingston Village, but it's also known as Marbella Lakes. That's a PDI, and it needs to be moved to our next meeting. There were some problems with getting it scheduled for today. And our next meeting would be the 11 -- or 11/2, the 2nd of November. So with that in mind, is there -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I thought it was supposed to be for the 16th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pardon me? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I thought it was supposed to be for the 16th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray? Does it -- what do you -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Our email. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 16th or 2nd. Does it matter to staff? Or what has staff looked at as far as timing goes for Marbella? MR. BELLOWS: 16th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 16th, I'm sorry then. It will be -- we need to continue -- a motion to continue to the 16th of November. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So moved. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Ned. Seconded by Karen. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? October 19, 2017 Page 3 of 73 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. Next item I want to add, under new business, every year in October I ask for a confirmation of CCPC officers or nominations, if someone is so inclined. So I want to add that under No. 11 -- or 10A as the only item under new business that we have at this point. And then I have a -- I had a discussion with the court reporter during the beginning of the meeting, and her office needs to know approximately what we think time frame today so they can potentially reroute her if she's not going to be here. The problem is I can't figure out how much time we would need for the AUIR. I think the cases we have and the other issues can be resolved this morning. The AUIR has sometimes taken us half a day or more, and sometimes it's been very short. I, myself, have reviewed it all. Most of the issues I have are rather short in nature, so I don't think I'll be taking a lot of time, but I don't know how the rest of you have looked at the AUIR. Does anybody think they're going to need -- because if we have questions of every department, that means there's going to be a lot of presentations, and it will take a considerable amount of time, and that's okay. But I just need to let the court reporter know. So what do you all think? Anybody want to spend a lot of time on the AUIR? Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mine are few. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Joe, you're new -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Likewise. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- you and Patrick. You guys okay -- yours are few, Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I was here last year, and we did it, and this year is -- most of the things that came up last year have been fixed this year, so I don't have many questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then, as we go through the morning, we might want to consider, if we're getting into the AUIR and we can finish it up before 2:00 by working through lunch or just taking a short break for lunch, maybe that's the solution we can look at at that time as well. But, Terri, I think the consensus is we could probably be done by 2 o'clock, unless something extraordinary happens this morning. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's 2 a.m., right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 2 a.m., yeah. It will be like last week. Okay. That will take us to Planning Commission absences. And, Ray, do we have a meeting on the 2nd of November? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that's why I was wondering, since Marbella went to the 16th, if there was a reason. If not, then, does anybody know if they're not going to be here on November 2nd? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'll be here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Looks likes we'll have a quorum. That's what we're mostly concerned about. Yeah. MR. BELLOWS: We did some checking, and there are no items tentatively scheduled. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh. Well, "tentatively" means you can't have anything because you've got to advertise 35 days in advance. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. Well, 15 days. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you've got to -- MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, we start earlier. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The process starts 35 days in advance, so that means you've not advertised anything. So we don't have a meeting on the 2nd? MR. BELLOWS: Correct. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Without discussion, there was a second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So our next regular meeting is November 16th, and so we've got a quorum for the 16th? Everybody know if they're not going to -- anybody know if they're not going to be here? You October 19, 2017 Page 4 of 73 don't have your calendar? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I think I will be absent on the 16th. Let me check. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you think that, still leaves six of us, so we're still good. It's okay, Joe. Okay. Approval of minutes. Ray, there were no minutes electronically distributed that I saw. I don't see any in the agenda, so we don't have any to approve. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: BCC report and recaps. Do you have anything, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. On the Board of County Commissioners October 10th meeting, the Briarwood PUD amendment was continued to the 10/24 BCC, and the PUD amendment for Cirrus Pointe RPUD was withdrawn. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And while you mentioned the Briarwood, I might as well fill in the Planning Commission, what happened with that one, a very interesting turn of events. There apparently is an eagle's nest being made or constructed by an eagle on the north part of the site, and that may have some impact on Briarwood. It's already passed us to the Board, so I'm not sure how the Board's going to weigh in on that, but that is a new twist that happened on that particular project. I just got the information on that last week. That brings us down to the Chairman's report. I don't have anything other than what we've already talked about on the agenda. So No. 8A is our consent agenda. Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, with Briarwood, if there's an eagle's nest, it just simply impacts the U.S. Fish and Wildlife and whether they're going to pursue a take permit or not. It wouldn't have any impact on the zoning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, it would, because according to the LDC, if you have an eagle's nest, it's got to be heard by the EAC. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Oh, correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We didn't hear it as the EAC. So -- and I'm not sure if it means an eagle's nest that's completed and occupied or one that's started and maybe not finished. So I think they'll know that by the time they get to the Board hearing. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, regardless, even if it's started, they'll need a Section 7 consultation, and the listed species analysis is part of their 404 permit process. So that will determine whether the government's going to step in and require a take permit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And our part's only to meet the intent of the LDC, and that's what -- I'm sure the Board will weigh in on that. ***So the consent agenda, the first item up and the only item under consent is Item 8A. It's PUDZ-PL20160001985. It's consent for the Cleary RPUD. On consent it's just a discussion by the Board or any questions and it's to assure that the document finished by staff is consistent with what the Planning Commission provided as recommendations. I'm assuming everybody has read the document. Does anybody have any comments, questions, or anything at this point? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have a question or two. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Am I correct that the blue underlining is what was added? It's not green, but blue? For instance, on Page 6 of 12, there's a footnote, "structures such as gatehouses, walls," is that new, that language? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 6 of 12, let me see what my notes say. COMMISSIONER FRYER: It would be Footnote 1. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you know, it's interesting. I saw that, too, and it is the same footnote that was on the table that was originally included in the document. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Correct. October 19, 2017 Page 5 of 73 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think they just repeated it there. So at that point -- it is new because they added, I believe, all those accessory standards at the request of this board. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I just really have a question about the word "walls," and that is, what kind of walls are we talking about, and do we need to further clarify the meaning of that word in that context? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I'm not sure it's something we discussed at the original hearing. Consent can only be to elaborate on issues directed at the original hearing that may not have come out as we expected. So do you recall if that came up during discussion? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I don't recall, and I'll withdraw it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does anybody have anything with the language that was discussed and changes that were made? Because I had a -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have another one also. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pardon me? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have another one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Go ahead, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Under -- let's see, on Page 11 of 12, this is also in blue underlining. 7B, it says, roofs shall be cement or slate tile materials or other approved equivalent. Now, I think I know who the approving authority is, but shouldn't we clarify that further? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, should that be County Manager or designee for clarification? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you mind making that clarification -- or the applicant will be making that application. Staff will verify it when it goes to the Board. MS. GUNDLACH: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anything else, Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I thought I did, but I don't. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I had a little problems trying to understand what to do with this. When the motion was made, there weren't any stipulations other than the discussions we had during the meeting. There was a second; there was some discussion about various issues. I know I voted in the dissent, but in doing so I listed a bunch of issues that we typically look at -- and some weren't but some were -- that we look at when we deal with these kinds of projects. And I think Ned said that we ought to add language to "encourage," and I think that's the word that came out in the end; the applicant to use as many of those as feasible. Now, that's pretty ambiguous, but I notice the consent didn't follow what I had provided, and they were -- there were some of those that were more feasible than others. So I don't know from the panel, those that voted in the affirmation, voted for this action, whether they feel the ones that were addressed were consistent enough or should more have been addressed. And I don't really know how to approach it because this was an anomaly. It was a motion made without stipulations, and then they were -- they were added as an encouragement, not as we normally do. So I'm not sure how to look at this today. I didn't -- I read the document. I found problems with quite a few issues. For example, we typically look for dumpster locations because they are noisy operations they come at 5:30 or 6:00 in the morning and they wake people up. I suggested, as part of the stipulations, a dumpster location and the potential for a generator location be shown on the master plan so that the people next door don't get disturbed by it. I didn't see those notations on the master plan. I also noticed that the generator will be equipped with a noise attenuation device or shall be enclosed. Well, if you all experienced Collier County during Hurricane Irma and afterwards, noise attenuation on a generator is a simple little muffler, and you can still hear it a block away, so I'm not sure that's going to accomplish the goal that this board intended for those that voted in the affirmative. I'm willing to go along with it. I'm just telling you I don't think it was -- it wasn't as tight as I would suggest we would have wanted to keep it. I also noticed that the 30-foot buffer got include -- it was expanded to 30 feet -- but there was no mention of additional vegetation. So when you take a buffer and you go from 15 to 30 feet, it increases your setback, but if the vegetation remains the same, it actually may be sparser -- there may be more distance October 19, 2017 Page 6 of 73 between the vegetation than if it was a narrower buffer. Likewise, the applicant had volunteered to supplement the buffer over in Saturnia Lakes when they apparently met with the people over there, and they said the reason they didn't bring it up is because no one asked them to. Those things weren't addressed. And, again, I'm asking this panel what your thoughts are on it. And if you're satisfied with it, I'll go along with it on consent. But because I wasn't part of the affirmative side of this argument, I wanted to make sure that those that were are satisfied with the product they got. So anyway -- and, Richard, if you don't mind, this is a discussion amongst us. I know you're standing at the podium for a reason, but I'm not sure we're going to need to get to you. So -- anyway, Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Ordinarily, I would think those items are covered during the Site Development Plan, like the noise attenuation at the generator, the siting of the dumpster. That's usually part of SDP review. They look at it and they say, this is a bad spot for it. Please move it. I don't remember ever having to put that into a PUD document, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the only reason -- I thought we had -- they typically show them, so it's not that much of a discussion. But if you have a -- there's no -- there's no code that says during an SDP they've got to move a dumpster location where staff thinks it's best. They can put it anywhere the code allows, which is basically the setbacks you have here. So it could go as close to that side of the property where the houses are as the setbacks would allow, in this case 30 feet. The only thing I'm suggesting, when you have a PUD and it's wide enough, you'd put everything on the opposite side of the project away from the existing residential. But again, I'm pointing this out because I think next time I will try to stress a better way of approaching it. If you guys are comfortable with this consent document, then I will go along with it. Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, I made the motion, and then after you clarified, I thought -- and I'd have to go back and look at the minutes, but I thought I agreed with the additional comments you made and asked to have those included in the final PUD document; the discussion about -- I don't recall about the dumpsters but definitely recall the issue with the quiet generator, and that certainly could be stipulated. It should be stipulated in the document clearly stating the location or that they would have to install a quiet generator, which certainly is available on the market today. You can -- those type of generators are available. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- and I -- had you accepted all my stipu -- I would have voted in the affirmative, and I know you didn't part -- two of them I know the applicant wouldn't agree to. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Although I know previously -- I thought they would compromise there, but they didn't when it actually got down to the hearing. One is that deviation for the FAR, and the other is the density for the single-family. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Those were the two -- the FAR that you disagreed with. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the density for the single-family. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Density for the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Those are two I didn't expect to see. The encouragement was for the rest of them. And if you all feel, as the affirmative parties, that the encouragement is sufficiently met, I'm fine with it. I wanted to point that out to you, though, because that was a point of discussion last time. I just wanted to be on record as at least pointing it out, so... COMMISSIONER FRYER: I noticed the absence of that as well, and if memory serves, I had made a motion to encourage something, and it was approved the first time. Then the second time I guess I got out a little ahead of my skis, and I think the County Attorney began having some acid indigestion over hortatory language like "encourage" in these documents, and so I didn't pursue it. And I think it just either failed for a lack of second or a lack of vote. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I mean, I'm fine with the classification as you stated. I just wanted to make sure that we discussed it. So does anybody, then, have any further corrections or changes to the consent document? October 19, 2017 Page 7 of 73 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, is there a motion to approve the consent as consistent with what we recommended at the last meeting? COMMISSIONER FRYER: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Ned. And seconded by? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Stan. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. That takes us to the first two items up on today's regular agenda, and both are a continuation from the October 5th meeting. The fist one -- and we'll hear them -- we'll discuss them and hear them simultaneous, but we'll vote on them separately. ***The first one is the Growth Management Plan amendment for the Vanderbilt Beach Road/Collier Boulevard commercial subdistrict. It's PL20150002167, and the second one is the PUD for that same subdistrict. It's PL20150002166. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. If you're here to address us on this item, please stand up. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Disclosures from the Planning Commission. Tom, we'll start way down there with you. MR. EASTMAN: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Other than that last email from Fred -- and my memory doesn't go back real far -- but I don't remember talking to anybody about anything about this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: The exact same answer other than the email from Fred. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: No one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And for me, I have had meetings with staff. I talked to the applicant, various parties with the applicant. I've received emails. I've also received emails from the community itself. I talked to Terrie and Bev by email; copied that stuff to the staff so everybody basically has it. And we'll be discussing the items that all the parties brought up today. I did receive changes from Fred yesterday. I did not have time to review them against what was supplied by staff. I suggested to him that we need to walk through every single change item by item today to make sure everybody understands it, and that's what we will do. Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Nothing. Just emails from Fred. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe? October 19, 2017 Page 8 of 73 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No additional conversation other than riding up in the elevator just now with the entire crew that is with us today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Patrick? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, Fred, I'll let you start out then. I mean, I'm assuming most of us are going to be focusing on the PUD, so that's probably the document we ought to stay with until there's a question from the GMP. MR. HOOD: Yes, sir. And we'll just dive right in. I actually have copies to hand out to you all, so we can just follow along with the updated changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. HOOD: Just a quick question. I have two versions, and it's whatever your pleasure is. I've got the redline version, and then I've got the clean strikethrough/underline version. Which would you rather? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think the redline underline/strikethrough is the one we ought to work off of, then we can readily see the changes, so... COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Agreed. MR. HOOD: Perfect. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Did these come in an email? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: These came in an email yesterday, but I didn't have time, from the time they came in, to cross-reference them to all the new material we received from staff, because Fred indicated -- Fred Hood indicated some of these he wasn't sure whether they were consistent with the staff package or not, so that's why we have to walk through them all. MR. HOOD: Also, we met with Black Bear Ridge last night just to make sure we had everything perfect, so there are some changes from last night that are in this document. So anything that you would have received from me via email -- anything that you would have received from me via email gets replaced with this document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. HOOD: Okay. Let's start on the first page, and this was -- this change was from the county attorney's comments. The addition of the words "successor" and "trustee" on the one, two, three -- the fourth paragraph, if you will. "George Vukobratovich, as successor trustee of Vanderbilt Commons." That has been completed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. HOOD: So I've circled the word "trustee." That was the addition and will -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Actually a reinsertion, right? MR. HOOD: Reinsertion, correct; yes, sir. Second page, Roman Numeral II on the table of contents. We changed -- this is for the redline version. When you get the clean copy, the page numbers will change again because we have some formatting that happens when you're in the Word program. So in this version the page numbers are 17 -- 16 and 17 for the preserve area plan and these development commitments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And you said the second page. It's really the third page of the document you handed out, right? MR. HOOD: Yeah. Roman Numeral II; sorry about that. Our next change is on Page 3, and it is, again, the reinsertion of the word "trustee." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. It's on your Page 3 of changes but -- okay. That's several pages in on the document. MR. HOOD: Correct. So I was going with the -- from the beginning from the cover and then all of the table of contents and so forth. So now we're actually on No. 3. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. HOOD: Okay. The next change is -- and this is where we start getting some of the big changes is on actual Page 9. This is Section 3 for the mixed-use area plan. So there's two things here. When we met with Black Bear Ridge, they agreed with us for two uses to be added. We've had conversations with the County Attorney and with staff about adding SIC codes at this point. I have placed them in this document for October 19, 2017 Page 9 of 73 us to review. They wanted us to leave them in so we could go over them. So the first change that you will see highlighted in green. 7922, we had a discussion with Black Bear Ridge. They wanted to be able to have a community theater. That's what that SIC code is for. I've added it here for discussion purposes. If you all want to have a discussion about that, great. The next change -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait a minute. So 7299 -- MR. HOOD: 7922. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 7922 -- MR. HOOD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- is to add the -- MR. HOOD: To add the community theater use that they wanted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't have my SIC code because I didn't know this was coming up. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I do. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: And we told him that they could not add uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we can add uses here at this meeting. I mean, we have in the past. You're telling us -- this is what the meeting's for. I don't think -- I don't think it would have been appropriate to do it ahead of time, but -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, we didn't advertise for adding any uses at all. So I'd advised Mr. Hood that he could not add uses unless -- we didn't advertise for adding uses at all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So when the advertisement -- there's no generic language in the advertisement that said they are -- I mean, obviously it's a PUDA -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- instead of a PUDI. So as a PUDA it wasn't advertised as a rezone? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: No, we didn't -- I didn't put anything. They were adding square footage, but none of the uses were changing, which I would ordinarily mention that uses were added in the advertisement. That was not the proposal. So we told them, if you would like to readvertise, he may add uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Because there are people who might be here if there were additional uses being added. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then in that case, if we were to consider this and try to add it without the proper advertisement, are we prohibited from legally doing that? Would it be considered not valid? MR. KLATZKOW: You're subject to a challenge. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So we'd continue it then or withdraw? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. It just depends. If the applicant wants to accept the risk of a challenge in regards to adding this on the fly, that's one opportunity. If the applicant wants to withdraw just that one item and continue on with the rest of it, as long as it's not considered a rezone in the eyes of the Attorney's Office, then we're probably okay. And then, again, I'll turn to this board, if you're okay with that. I mean, I don't -- to be honest with you, under amusement and recreation in some of these items that are so comparable, I'm not sure it's going to be -- they're in -- it's in conformity. If the residents in the area don't have an objection, I'm not sure why it's a problem. So it's a risk that the applicant may want to take, and it may not be one that concerns us too much. I'll ask you all what you'd like to do. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Who is it that wants to add this? MR. HOOD: It's the applicant and Black Bear Ridge. MS. ABRAMS: We agree. MS. SMITH: We agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry. We have to wait till you get up to the microphone. Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Who on behalf of Black Bear Ridge agreed? Is it the HOA? October 19, 2017 Page 10 of 73 MR. HOOD: It is the HOA, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay with me. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It was in there before, though. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 7299 is the one -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It was crossed out from the last one we had, so it was -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's been -- MR. HOOD: It wasn't one of the original ones in the original PUD. So since we're making an amendment to the entire PUD, if that SIC code was not in the original, it's an addition now this in this amendment. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Getting back to a previous hearing when a whole bunch of people showed up and said the HOA doesn't represent us, who does the HOA represent? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Abrams, you or Beverly, one of you want to come up and address that question, if you could address that question. You'll have to identify yourself for the record. MS. SMITH: Beverly Smith, 7278 Acorn Way. We have -- we are here. We are both board members. Terrie's president; I'm a director; however, we have made this very public to our community. Everything we have done, we have notified our homeowners what we're doing, how we're doing it, and the issues. The -- when we went through this to discuss possible uses, the applicant did ask for a possible playhouse, community playhouse. We had no objections to it, and that's why they added it to this use today, along with the other one which is the hardware store. We have -- like I say, we have been very open with our community, not like the issue with the other community I know you're talking about from the last meeting. We've had public meetings within the community, and they're aware of everything we do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does that answer your question; Ned, Stan? Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Will you take it then -- could you say, then, that there was a consensus among the homeowners to approve this or not to oppose it? MS. SMITH: I would say they would not oppose it. COMMISSIONER FRYER: There was a consensus to that effect? MS. SMITH: Consensus. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd be hard pressed to say the community that you live in doesn't know about this action. You guys have been working this for quite a while. So I feel comfortable putting it in as long as the applicant understands the ramifications and the challenge -- MR. HOOD: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and we'll just go from there. MR. KLATZKOW: Could we get the applicant just to state on the record that they understand the risk involved here and that they prefer to proceed anyway? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: George, you'll have to identify yourself, and spell your last name, George. MR. VUKOBRATOVICH: George Vukobratovich. V-u-k-o-b-r-a-t-o-v-i-c-h. Yes, I understand the risks, and we worked diligently with Black Bear Ridge in the community, and I mean diligently, so this is public notice. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The mike's not picking you up. MR. VUKOBRATOVICH: This has been public notice, and we worked hand in hand with the HOA to achieve this today. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So you're acknowledging your understanding on behalf of the applicant? MR. VUKOBRATOVICH: Yes, sir. MR. KLATZKOW: When we advertise this before the Board of County Commissioners, it's going to include changes of uses. October 19, 2017 Page 11 of 73 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Good. Then we're covered. Thank you. And let's move on, then, through the issues. Fred, as you take each one of these -- you're on number one right now. I think if the panel has any questions about any of the numbers as we go through them, just bring it up. And number one does pose a couple of questions, and I was going to rely on Ned to pick this up, but since he hasn't brought it up, I think I will. Under the first line where it says "except of all dance halls and discotheque," you don't need the words "of all," do you? MR. HOOD: No, we don't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And under 79999 (sic) where it says, "only for bicycle rental," you don't need the word "for." MR. HOOD: Yeah. We can take that out. That's a grammatical one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I mean, they're not going to change anything. I just thought -- MR. HOOD: Fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought we'd clean it up. And I thought Ned was going to pick that one up. MR. HOOD: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's go on with -- walk us through the rest of this thing. MR. HOOD: Okay. And still on number one, we -- it's highlighted here in yellow, you can see we added gymnastic instruction, judo instruction, karate instruction, and yoga instruction, and all of those are found under 7999. We were just being very specific of what we wanted to have allowed there. Moving on to No. 2, the same thing. In -- there was a deletion of the 5611 through 5699; it is now only 5611 and 5699. And then we also added except thrift stores -- thrift and surplus stores, also highlighted in yellow. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it's not 5611 through 5699. There's supposed to be a comma? MR. HOOD: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 5611 comma 5699. MR. HOOD: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The except thrift stores and surplus stores applies to which one of those numbers? MR. HOOD: I believe it is the second one, the 5699. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then you wouldn't want a comma after 5699? MR. HOOD: No, sir. The comma is in the wrong spot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, just so we get it right. MR. HOOD: Yeah. This was me doing this at about four o'clock this morning, so I'm sorry if that didn't make it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I want to make sure somebody from staff is making sure they're accurately getting all this. MR. REISCHL: Got it; thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. HOOD: Just a -- Fred has a copy of this, but in the clean version, it does show up that way. It's just the nature of the beast when we were doing redline documents, some things, when they're underlined, don't show up correctly. So I'm sorry about that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, just so you -- I mean, redline is what we mostly try to use. It helps us a lot, so that's the only thing I was -- MR. HOOD: Okay. Next change, we removed Nos. 3 and 4, auto supply stores, with all of the additional SIC codes that are under there, and then automobile parking. This was a request from Black Bear, and we agreed to it. So we'll have some renumbering after this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. HOOD: Moving on down to number -- renumbered No. 4, we struck 7322 SIC group, and then just renumbered the SICs, because before it was 7322 through 7331. So now we have taken out 7322 and the next available one was 7323. So that's why you see those highlighted and underlined. It's just the removal of October 19, 2017 Page 12 of 73 7322. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. HOOD: Number 5, this was a scrivener's error from the original. There is no 6199, and that was in the original PUD document. So we were going to do 6021 through 6099. We were asked by Black Bear Ridge to take out 6099, so we are just doing 6021 through 6091. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who caught that? MR. HOOD: Which part? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That 6199 isn't -- MR. HOOD: That 6199, I did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you? Good job. MR. HOOD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. HOOD: Our next change happens on Page -- next changes happens on Page 10. Under eating places, No. 6, we added the language "no free-standing food stands and/or kiosks are permitted," and that was a direct request from Black Bear Ridge. And then we also changed the subsections. We originally had A through D that talked about sound and hours of operation. We discussed this with Black Bear last night. And what you see in front of you is the product of that meeting. So what the second change is in A, 6A, no televisions, outdoor amplified sound, devices, or live entertainment shall be permitted in outdoor seating areas. The next one is B, Lots 5 and 6 as shown on the Vanderbilt Commons subdivision plat recorded in Plat Book 60, Page 31 of the public records of Collier County shall have the following limitations: Roman Numeral I, no outdoor seating shall be permitted; Roman Numeral II, the hours of operation for any eating place shall be limited to 6 a.m. and 4 p.m.; Roman Numeral III, loading and deliveries shall be from the front entrance only, and the consumption -- and, Roman Numeral IV, the consumption of alcohol is not permitted on these lots. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. HOOD: Okay. That was, again, all from our meeting with Black Bear last night. B through -- the original B through D were stricken. They didn't want those in there. Going on to No. 7, this was, again, kind of a reorganization of the SIC codes. Some were taken out; 8231, specifically, and no regional libraries. So the change you see there highlighted in yellow, 8222 comma 8243 through 8249 comma 8299. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, we're in the same situation with these as far as adding uses that weren't there before, so -- MR. HOOD: So this one, I don't think -- this one wasn't an addition. It was a deletion of one use, but the way that it was previously stated in the PUD -- and I can show you that in the PUD document as soon as I grab it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because the last version we have it was 8211 through 8231, and it ended there, and with no regional libraries. MR. HOOD: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, some of these were back in the original October 5th or whatever date we had, the original one? Okay. MR. HOOD: So if you look here on the original PUD document, in No. 9 we had 8211 through 8231. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. HOOD: So we're still within the same number grouping. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no. You added 8243 through 8249 and 8299, didn't you? MR. HOOD: Oh, I'm sorry. You are correct. That is one that I did miss; again, from lack of sleep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that's going to have the same issue -- MR. HOOD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- with noticing that the County Attorney's Office is going to have to do October 19, 2017 Page 13 of 73 when they take care of it for the board level, and it's at risk for you guys because of the way it's being added on the fly here. MR. HOOD: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have the SIC book that tells us what 8243 through 8249 and 8299 are? MR. HOOD: I do not have it on me right now, but Bruce does. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So does Karen. I borrowed hers. I want the rest of the panel to understand and the public -- I'm sure the public does. I know that they've been working this up with you guys for some time, and they've been very detailed. 8243 is data processing schools and computer training; 8244, which is one of the only other numbers, business and secretarial schools; 8249 is vocational schools not elsewhere classified. That includes aviation schools, banking schools, construction equipment operation schools, correspondence schools, nursing schools, restaurant operation schools, trade schools, truck driving schools, vocational apprentice training. Some of those may be a little intense for here. You may want to -- I'm not sure 8249 is appropriate in all of its manner. 8299 is schools and educational services not elsewhere classified, and this gets into automobile driving instruction, ceramics, charm schools, civil service schools. I'm looking at any that might be -- flying instruction, finishing schools, hypnosis schools, public speaking schools, speed reading schools, tutorial and survival schools. So with that in mind, when the public comes up and speaks, if you have any concerns -- I don't know how detailed you looked at all those uses, but we certainly will look forward to hearing from you. MR. HOOD: Yeah. And Terrie and/or Bev will come and speak to those. Those were direct additions from Black Bear. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Could I ask a question about one of the previous items? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: The one above that, 6B and C. So I understand now they are allowed amplified sound after 10:00 and live entertainment? MR. HOOD: No, sir. What we were trying to do there in 6A, for all eating places throughout Vanderbilt -- I'm sorry. Was the questions to him or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, but I think he's -- it's a good question, but A takes care of it. It's encompassing the whole site. MR. HOOD: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But specifically 5 and 6 you've got a little more restrictions, because that's the northernmost sites adjacent to the neighboring Black Bear Ridge. MR. HOOD: Correct. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, let's move on. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I was just wondering what the logic was, but now I see it. MR. HOOD: Okay. Moving on to No. 9. This is -- I'm sorry. This is where we removed the dash between 5311 and 5399. We have limited it to just 5311 and 5399 except any variety stores, single price point discount, surplus, overstock and liquidation outlets. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See the comma after 5399? MR. HOOD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think it should be there. MR. HOOD: Get rid of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I know that's a little thing, but there have been times that commas mean a lot. MR. HOOD: We're doing it now. We may as well get them all out. Okay. No. 10, this falls under our original green added uses. Hardware stores, 5251, and the applicant has acknowledged that they'll take the risk in adding it now. So that was a desire from the applicant October 19, 2017 Page 14 of 73 and for Black Bear Ridge. And 5251 is specific to hardware stores. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, 5251 is builders hardware retail; chainsaws retail; door locks and locksets retail; hand tools retail; hardware stores retail; tools, power and hand, retail. So it's more -- it's hardware stores, but it also could be various tool stores; retail not rental. MR. HOOD: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's no limitation on size. So you could -- theoretically, you have 150,000 square feet to play with. I know you're building a strip mall out there, but you're looking at a store of a sizable magnitude if it's all hardware. Did they expect a Home Depot or a Lowe's there? MR. HOOD: No, we don't expect a Home Depot or Lowe's. It's more of a neighborhood hardware store. So I think we'd be okay with 10,000. No more than that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The other green was 7922, and while I have the opportunity to borrow Karen's book, I'd just like everybody to know what -- 7922, which is where the motion pictures issue came in. 792 (sic) is for theatrical producers except motion picture, bands, orchestra, and entertainers. So I'm wondering if we have the right one there. MR. HOOD: There's a lot more in that list, as I recall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Agents and managers; ballet production; booking agencies; burlesque companies; casting agencies; community theater productions; concert management service; costume design; employment agencies; legitimate theater producers -- I guess there's an illegitimate group out there -- opera companies; performing art center productions, plays; radio programs; rental and theatrical scenery; repertory stock companies; road companies; scenery design; stock companies; summer theaters; television programs; and a whole bunch of theatrical things and vaudeville companies. Now, that sounds like a lot of things when all they're trying to say is you could have a neighborhood -- like a -- what's that silver screen or something like that. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Silverspot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Silverspot. MR. HOOD: Paragon. But those fall under motion picture theaters. They're not community theaters. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're not trying to do a motion picture theater? MR. HOOD: Correct. It's under -- it was under the first one for amusement and recreation, so that's why we placed it there. The actual motion picture -- and we'll get to that in the next couple here -- was actually removed, and we have limited it to, I think it was, rental for videotape stores or something like that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. As long as everybody knows what uses we're talking about. MR. HOOD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. HOOD: And, again, just -- you know, just to reiterate, these were directly from our meetings with Black Bear. So I'm sure they'll have a conversation with you when they get up to speak about this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: While we're on No. 9 -- MR. HOOD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- after 5399 we took out the comma, but then you say, except any variety stores. You can take the word "any" out. MR. HOOD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. HOOD: We don't have any changes to 11, 12, 13, or 14. The next change is for 15, membership organizations. We took out 8641, so we only are left 8611, 8621, and 8661, and 8661 has been limited to only for offices related to religious organizations, so we won't -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As long as you take the comma out. MR. HOOD: Yes, sir. I was on a comma spree, apparently. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I just -- we've run into commas before, and they've caused trouble, so -- but only 8661 is the one that then reflects the limitation to offices related to religious organizations? MR. HOOD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. October 19, 2017 Page 15 of 73 MR. HOOD: On to Page 11. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, since you -- No. 16, 7699 but only -- just take the word "but" out. MR. HOOD: Gotcha. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't mean butt out. Just take the word "but" out. Okay. MR. HOOD: On to Page 11. And excuse my notes on the side. No. 17, we took out SIC 5962, and we -- hold on two seconds. Get the clean copy out. Something looks odd. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You took out the span of all the uses between 5992 and 5999 and just -- MR. HOOD: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- put in 5994. So without -- and then -- so between 5992 and 5994 -- MR. HOOD: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- there's nothing now allowed except those two numbers. MR. HOOD: Exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. HOOD: And then took out -- because we took out the SIC for tobacco stores and stands, we removed the language that was previously in there in your packets that referred to tobacco stores and stands. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. HOOD: No. 18, we -- on the previous version that you received that was dated October 12th, we had stricken motion picture theaters and videotape rental completely. We were asked to put it back in and just limited it to SIC 7841, and then add the language -- and we'll remove that comma -- except any free-standing kiosk rental boxes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What will -- what's a videotape rental? I mean -- MR. HOOD: Blockbuster. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- it's nice you want to add that as a use, but do you really think you're going to have videotape rental? MR. HOOD: I just added it because they wanted it added. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. HOOD: So we can get rid of it. So let's just take that one and just remove it like it was originally removed? MR. KLATZKOW: Well, you want a Red Box out there? MR. HOOD: That's what they were trying to get rid of is a Red Box. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a CD. That's not a videotape. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, I understand that, but if that's what they want, just say it. MR. HOOD: No, no, no. That's exactly what they don't want; except for a free-standing kiosk and rental boxes was -- MR. KLATZKOW: All right. But that's the only one out there right now. MR. HOOD: Exactly. That is it. So we'll just remove 18 completely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're taking out motion pictures and videotape rental? MR. HOOD: Yes, sir. No changes to No. 19. The next change is in No. 20 for personal service. We added -- previously it was just -- it just said pickup stations, so we added drop-off and pickup stations. And there was an addition of 7251. And, actually, I think that was an addition because of a deletion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a difference between the way you've said 7212, which says dry-cleaning and laundry drop-off and pickup stations only, but then at 7299 the parenthetical is kind of separating it, but it says only car title, tag service, diet. The word "only" you've moved to a different location. Is there a reason specifically for that? MR. HOOD: So that one, 7299, was the original language. I didn't touch that language. It was just -- that's how it was written. That's how it was represented in the PUD. So it was 7299, parenthetical, only car title and tag services. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it doesn't mean we can't clean it up. MR. HOOD: Yeah. We can change it; yeah, absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're cleaning everything else up. MR. HOOD: I just left it alone, but we can change that, definitely. October 19, 2017 Page 16 of 73 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just -- I think the parenthetical just confuses it, because you're only referring to 7299. MR. HOOD: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think the "only" -- there it's correct, but maybe the "only" at the end of the definition for 7212 should go in the beginning. MR. HOOD: Okay. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I have a question -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: -- back on No. 17. MR. HOOD: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: The exceptions are meant to be inclusive with all the codes or just -- because 5932 includes pawn shops, not 5999. MR. HOOD: Yeah. This was, again -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So is this meant to be all inclusive of all the codes? MR. HOOD: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Because it says antiques only after the -- MR. HOOD: I think this is another instance where we can clean up the original language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- but if you're going to clean it up, let's clean it up here today, because we're going to try to resolve issues today, and I don't want everybody walking away with a different idea of what the outcome's going to be, so... And Karen's got a good point. Under the 5932, you don't need the parenthetical, because it only applies to that number. But at the end of 5999, putting the parenthetical there applies to all the numbers, I would think. Is that how the County Attorney's Office would take a look at it? MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So I think that's fine there, but I think the ones under -- after 5932 you can strike those two parentheticals. MR. HOOD: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know this is getting into minutiae, but I don't know how else to fix it unless we fix it on the fly here today, so... COMMISSIONER EBERT: Thank you, Jeff. MR. HOOD: I understand. Okay. Where did I leave off? Oh, No. 21, there were no changes. No. 22 was the removal of SIC code 9541, and because we were removing 9541, it was no longer 9411 through 9511, so we had to add in 9431 within that range. That was the next one after -- or before; I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Is there to be a comma after 9411? MR. HOOD: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah, okay. I see; okay. MR. HOOD: No changes to 23, 24, 25, 26 or 27. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In 25, the parenthetical, you've got a bunch of them in here. The two in the middle, before the word "only" and after the word "associations," because it just pertains to 8322, so you don't need them there, I don't think. MR. HOOD: Okay. We'll remove those. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, yeah, that's about it. Okay. MR. HOOD: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 27? MR. HOOD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 27 was the reason that the storage facility was there. Now, I still think it's a better use than the 300-space parking lot to serve as 100,000 square feet of office, but I know the residents have had some concern over it. 27 opens the door for uses that have not been so intricately discussed here today and, unfortunately, over the years the use of comparable/compatible has gotten broader than what it started out to be. So out of October 19, 2017 Page 17 of 73 an abundance of caution, maybe 27 is something we need to consider not having there, because as close as this neighborhood is monitoring things, I would hate to see another problem arise that they didn't expect because of that paragraph that doesn't really define things. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I agree. Also, Mr. Chairman, I'm -- I continue to be concerned about use of the word "comparable" without a consistency or compatibility reference, because in universe any two things can be compared with one another. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's supposed to read, generally comparable and compatible. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the standards for that use to have three separate standards at the -- that had to be met, they've gotten a little bit more flexible, and they've expanded. So right now under comparable/compatible, a lot's going through that probably should be considered under a PUDA, and for that reason I agree with you. And I think 27 would be best not left in. I think it's going to potentially cause some problems down the road if it's exercised. George, did you -- you're standing there for a reason. Did you have a comment? MR. VUKOBRATOVICH: Yes. May I approach the Board, please? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to bring the mike close to you. MR. VUKOBRATOVICH: May I approach the Board? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MR. VUKOBRATOVICH: I think we worked diligently to make this compatible. We do not know what's coming in the future. Just as well as we eliminated a lot of the uses that were in this original PUD, to restrict us to what we don't even know yet is coming for uses is very difficult to make an applicant to go through a GMPA revision again. This took a year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would be a PUDA. MR. VUKOBRATOVICH: PUDA. It took a year. So I would ask consideration of language that is compatible/comparable. You know, in the spirit of what we're trying to do here, to go through a GMPA, a year and a half, I think, is a burden that is just a bit excessive. MR. KLATZKOW: Mr. Chair, I understand the issue here. But just for clarification, for the record, who makes the determination? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the determination is initially made by staff, and then it comes to my office for a review. I'm telling you at my office for review, I have been concerned about it because as it's coming through as a comparable/compatible, it's not a zoning action, although it is changing the uses on a property. They're considered close enough to the uses that are there that it's okay, but there's no advertisement other than a notice in the paper. So the people in the neighborhood immediately surrounding it don't know the change is coming. Looking back at how these happen and the flexibility that has been requested of staff when this process started several years ago, it's become much more flexible than I think should be allowed, and that's my concern with No. 27. Now, if you have some criteria that you would want to put so that if something comes in and it fits some strict criteria, that might be a different way to approach it. But right now it's up to the criteria that staff's historically used. And I can tell you, that has changed dramatically over time, and I'm not sure it's right. MR. VUKOBRATOVICH: I've been here dramatically over a period of time, too, and watched the change. And I think you're -- Chairman -- Mr. Chairman, I think you're describing a staff issue. That's what we're talking about. And I'm open to any other language that the Board may suggest to make this more compatible. So I'm open to that, and I think I'm open to working with the community, too. But to restrict someone for things that we don't even know are coming yet, I'm not sure. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yesterday I did a word search in the applicable GMP sections and found that numerous times this "comparability" language appears, but it's much tighter, and it has more to do with similarity, compatibility, consistency. And I would suggest that if we're going to use this language at all, we just pick up the tighter language in the GMP and put it in 27. October 19, 2017 Page 18 of 73 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's wait, and that might be -- that's what I kind of suggested, give us some criteria that could be used that the community could then comment on and we know we've got some protection, because right now I'm not sure we've got enough. MR. VUKOBRATOVICH: My esteemed counsel gave me some advice here, and if we use the same advertising that would be involved, maybe that would help in the situation. I think that's something that we should -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You mean public notice -- MR. VUKOBRATOVICH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- through NIMs and all the rest of it? MR. VUKOBRATOVICH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that would certainly help. I mean, any change you make, if it goes through the right notification to the parties involved, helps us understand the thoughts. MR. VUKOBRATOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just don't want a surprise, because right now it's -- comparables/compatibles are not openly -- they're advertised but they're not noticed in a -- MR. VUKOBRATOVICH: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- good way, so... MR. VUKOBRATOVICH: And I want to advertise, too, so I think -- I think that is the point, you know, that I would request that kind of language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I like that idea, and I would like to get the Planning Commission's direction to pursue an LDC amendment to make that universal for all PUDs; that is hold a neighborhood information meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll add that little note to the agenda. We'll bring it up under new business. MR. BELLOWS: Very good. MR. VUKOBRATOVICH: Thank you for your consideration. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I still -- what are we doing with 27, because I still have -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, right now I think what we've put on the table is there's a possibility of it being left if we can provide either proper notice and/or criteria, proper notice being the key, because proper notice to match the PUDA notifications would then let the neighborhood know exactly what you're attempting to change on the site, and I think that's a much more open process. That helps a lot, but I think we need to hear from the public before we resolve it -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and see what they're thinking. MR. HOOD: Okay. I've made that note. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. HOOD: Okay. Let's move on to -- there are no changes on Page 12, so we're moving on to Page 13. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have some questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. MR. HOOD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: First of all, I see, looking back at the subsection under permitted uses, 8A talks about televisions, outdoor amplified sound devices, et cetera, but that, of course, is limited to the subject -- 6, rather, new 6A, that's limited to eating places and drinking places. So shouldn't we have a prohibited use about television and amplified and video that would apply in the case of an event that wasn't serving food or liquor or any kind of drink? MR. HOOD: Can you give me an example of a type of use that that would be? I'm just curious. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, some kind of a festival or fair or public event that is not serving food or drink. MR. HOOD: So those would -- as I understand, like, if we were to have a festival or, like, a street October 19, 2017 Page 19 of 73 fair or, you know, restaurant week or something like that, would be under a temporary use permit or special events permit, and that would have to be reviewed, if I'm correct. It wouldn't be a use that would be principally allowed in this PUD to happen every day of the year. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, I'm not sure that I have successfully described the entire universe of situations where this could apply, but I think the neighbors would prefer -- I shouldn't speak for them, but I think they might prefer seeing a prohibition against loud activities whether they're associated with food and drink or not. MR. HOOD: Sure. I think that's something we can definitely talk about right now. I was just trying to find a place to specifically put it in, and it may just be in the prohibition area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 3.45. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'd take 6A and repeat it as a prohibited use. 6A nails it. The only problem with 6A is it's limited to food and drink serving places. MR. HOOD: Okay. So we'll take -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: We're just remove outdoor seating areas. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Move that section and remove the phrase at the end. MR. HOOD: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Joe, did you have something? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I was just going to bring up what was already raised, that anything like that would require a temporary use permit, which would then have to be reviewed by staff to ensure that it complies with the standards. But I want to go back. Where did -- Heidi, where did you say, now, you're going to make the change to what? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: So we would just add under 3.4, No. 5, under prohibited uses, no televisions, outdoor amplified sound devices, or outdoor live entertainment shall be permitted. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's what I would see. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MR. HOOD: We can definitely add that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I also had another point under prohibited uses. And my recollection is it's vague on this, but it has to do with the question of stores that might be fronting on the north boundary of the property. And that came up, and I'm not sure if it came up here or in front of the Board of County Commissioners, but it was -- maybe a resident raised it. Is there to be a prohibition against stores that front toward the residential boundary of this property? MR. HOOD: Yes, we can add that, and it wasn't -- it was kind of implied that we wouldn't have a front door facing Black Bear Ridge because the address would be off of Vanderbilt Way. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I think it would be good -- MR. HOOD: But we could add that prohibition there. COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- to have something in there, if you wouldn't mind doing so. MR. HOOD: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe, did you have something you wanted to -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, I just want to make sure with that language that states that that would certainly deny any opportunity for a temporary use permit with that language. MR. HOOD: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: If they were going to have some kind of event with amplified sound or music; you know, a fair or a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we all -- and I'll throw this on the table for input from the public. We all could -- under that prohibition under 3.4, except -- we could use the words, except for temporary use -- authorized permitted temporary uses. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'd be fine with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then we'll hear the public on that one, but that means they can come in for an event as the code allows -- October 19, 2017 Page 20 of 73 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: They wanted a community book fair or they wanted whatever they may have, that it would be a temporary use permit, and it may -- it does give the provision that that type, if it's approved, would be allowable. I mean -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah, I'm fine with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. We'll just -- we'll keep it as discussion for when the public comes up. MR. HOOD: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Can we also add -- and I know you had a list last time. I'm assuming it was from the neighborhood -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: -- that you were reading off of, and it also included no adult-oriented sales or rentals. So could we add that to the prohibited uses then? MR. HOOD: It was -- I believe it was -- since we don't have the use permitted and since we're limiting the comparable/compatible in No. 27, it would fall under that prohibition, that defect or prohibition because it's not an allowed use in the PUD, but then we would also have to come through -- if we were to go look at something comparable and compatible, if we get this language in about notification like we do for PUDAs and PUDRs and so forth and so on, that -- these would not be allowed. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: That could be under apparel. MR. HOOD: I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: That could be under apparel or rental of any kind of recording. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The motion pictures theater and videotape rental, those groups, so the SIC code, they've agreed to remove. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yeah, but general merchandise has the same thing underneath. MR. HOOD: Like an adult book store or something that -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yeah. There's a lot of other places that could be included in the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's ask the members of -- when the members of the public come up -- they had suggested that. Let's see where they -- how they want to -- what they're thinking. Anything else while we're on this page? Fred -- or Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Subject to what the public brings out on that, following up on Karen's point, which I agree with, the prohibited uses, it seems to me -- if we get good comparable/compatible language for 27 under permitted uses, it seems to me that there should be a prohibited use that says uses that are not permitted under permitted uses are prohibited so as to cover the entire universe of possibilities. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's kind of how the code's written. I think anything not specifically allowed is prohibited. It says that in the preamble to the code. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Which almost begs the question of why we need to list prohibited uses. MR. HOOD: Except for the ones that are prohibited by the Growth Management Plan. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, the prohibited uses also helps if there's a later request for a specific amendment to add a use, we could say it was once prohibited, or if somebody applied for a comparable use we could say, no, it's listed as a prohibited use. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So is that -- this is the way that the Board has always done it? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yep. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else while we're -- Fred, I have a question on the top of Page 12. You have drinking places, No. 2, listed as an accessory commercial use, but that's the same use that's listed on No. 6 under principal uses. So am I -- why do we have it both as a principal and as accessory? I know it was in the original one, but since we're making all these changes and corrections, I'm just curious what was the intent. MR. HOOD: We can -- hold on. Let me -- yeah, I don't see a problem with striking that since it's already in No. 6. That was just the original language. We can pull it. October 19, 2017 Page 21 of 73 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 6 actually says it a lot better. MR. HOOD: Yeah. We can strike No. 2 on the accessory uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now we're back to wherever you left off. MR. HOOD: Page 13. The -- we cleaned up the language from the last hearing for No. 3, so it just states fast-food restaurants with drive-through lanes, simple, and then the addition of No. 4, any free-standing donation boxes or kiosk. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. HOOD: Our next and last change is on Page 22, and this one was commented on from the County Attorney, and it didn't get in before we sent you your packets. The removal of the dash between Black Bear Ridge and Wolf Creek PUD and then the addition of the words "of the" between Black Bear Ridge and Wolf Creek PUD. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: While we're on that page, could I ask a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: D, maximum trip generation allowed by proposed uses not to exceed 547 p.m. peak hour. MR. HOOD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: How are you going to measure that, and how are you going to enforce that? MR. HOOD: So with every one of our developments that come in, they're -- well, any of our SDPs that come in, they're going to have to have a TIS presented with it. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: So it's a theoretical? MR. HOOD: It is a civil engineering theoretical, I'm sure, yes. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. That's all. Thanks. COMMISSIONER FRYER: How is it enforced, though? I wondered the same thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The SDP is -- MR. HOOD: Do you want me to speak to it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. MR. HOOD: Okay. Your -- when you apply for an SDP permit for your construction without going vertical, it gets reviewed from the Transportation Planning Department, and they review how many trips are within that PUD based on the SDPs that have already been approved or are within review. So if you -- for instance, Lots 1 through 2 right now has an SDP on it; it has a specific amount of trips attributed to it. So when Lot 3 and 5 and 6 and/or 4 are developed -- No. 4 is already developed -- they have to have that TIS for their specific development. So there's a tally that's being kept by county staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got three remaining questions, Fred. MR. HOOD: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 14. That's your Development Standards Table. MR. HOOD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I guess the best place to look at this is an example, is where it says distance between principal structures. MR. HOOD: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You see you have all the numbers, 12, 13.5, 15, 17, and you have that little apostrophe, the little nick there. That represents feet. MR. HOOD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, go up further on top of that column. Everywhere else you spell out the word "feet." MR. HOOD: It says feet. We'll add "feet." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you do that on both columns back and forth in different locations. Maybe we could just use the word "feet" everywhere? MR. HOOD: Pick one and just use "feet" everywhere. October 19, 2017 Page 22 of 73 COMMISSIONER FRYER: Pick one and go with it. MR. HOOD: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I recommend we stay with the word "feet" and not the dash indication. That's very clear. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Agreed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we need to change that. Now, if we turn to Page 21, Deviation 2, I was reading your deviation, and I thought, well, this is odd. We've never, that I can recall, had someone have to install a 4-foot-high wall along a 6-foot arterial road. And I couldn't figure out why you wanted the deviation. So I pulled the code and looked at it again, and it does say local streets. So I got Mr. Sawyer to clarify, I said, am I missing something, or is a 200-foot-wide right-of-way a local street or not? And he said, no, it's not a local street; it's an arterial road. So you don't need Deviation No. 2. MR. HOOD: We don't need Deviation No. 2. I spoke with Mr. Sawyer as well about that, and it was an interpretation that was interpreted wrong. When it said local street or roadway, instead of just looking at it to say local street/roadway, I looked at it and saw local street or roadway. So that was my mistake. We can remove Deviation No. 2. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is on Page 16. MR. HOOD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So Deviation 2 goes away. The previous deviation, the second to the last sentence, and it reads: The signage shall be perpetually maintained by the homeowners associations of the developments named on the sign. And my question for that one was, how can this PUD document for Carolina Village make commitments on behalf of those other HOAs that they'd have to be bound to? Because they don't sign this PUD. MR. HOOD: That language was -- and I believe -- that was a coordination with the County Attorney's Office for that language. So we, as requested, placed that language in the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then I did -- I had to -- unfortunately, Heidi just got back today, so she hasn't had an opportunity to talk to me about this. I would have brought it up so she'd been prepared. So, Heidi, I guess, then, the question goes to you: Is this something that's enforceable, or how do we make that work? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, it's going to be addressed through a right-of-way permit. There was a sign there that staff showed me that had Black Bear Ridge on it. I was corrected at the last meeting that that sign is down. I don't know if there's a sign there or not. Maybe someone from staff can let us know. That's why we addressed it, because there was a sign that was already there. And we can take the language out if you would like and address it through a right-of-way permit. But my understanding was at the time there was an existing sign. It did not have a right-of-way permit because when it was installed it was private, and then it became public. So this part of road I understand is public now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, what I would rather do is put a sentence in there that says, this road -- this sign will be required to go through the right-of-way permit process, and then we can cover it. But to bind another outfit or another HOA through this document doesn't seem like we can do that. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So why don't we modify that, that this, then, will be changed, that the signage will be perpetually -- will be permitted through -- MR. KLATZKOW: Well, this is enforceable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pardon me? MR. KLATZKOW: This is an ordinance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pardon me? MR. KLATZKOW: This is an ordinance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. KLATZKOW: It is enforceable. The question is whether you think it's fair that it's enforceable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. The question is, we're saying that anybody that uses that sign that is not part of this PUD, they have to be -- they have to agree to perpetually maintain the sign. October 19, 2017 Page 23 of 73 MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How can we bind them to that when they're not part of this PUD? MR. KLATZKOW: Because this is an ordinance. Now, you may not think this is fair that there's not enough notice given, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I'm not -- I wasn't even getting to the fair. I'm trying to get to practicality. MR. KLATZKOW: Practicality, we can enforce this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if Black Bear puts their name on that sign, we can go to Black Bear Ridge and make them pay the maintenance of that sign? MR. KLATZKOW: Well, the sign is for their benefit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then that brings up another question. How do they get an off-premise sign if their PUD didn't allow for an off-premise sign? MR. KLATZKOW: Well, it's in here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it doesn't say which group can use that sign. Generally an off-premise sign means they have to come in for a sign variance or a sign exception. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, they got it through here. I mean, the existing language allows for signage, and that's why we tried to correct it, so... MR. BELLOWS: Mr. Chairman, if I may. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. BELLOWS: Historically, staff has required the zoning district of the off-premise development to amend their PUD to allow an off-premise sign and then the PUD location where the sign is to be placed to make provisions for it as well as, so there's normally two companion amendments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So this would only be allowed if they've already got the language in their PUD to allow it? MR. BELLOWS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if they haven't, they've got to come in and get it done, and we can make the commitment at that time? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then that works. That's what I was trying to get to. MR. KLATZKOW: No. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: There is something in their PUD, because we had checked it at that time. So the language fit with what was prior. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. If it's in there already, then we're good. MR. KLATZKOW: And if it's not in there already, you're good. This is an ordinance. Chairman, I understand what you're saying, but this is still an ordinance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm just following up on -- I mean, I've been doing this for a while, and we've brought this up as a problem in the past. I just thought it was odd it wasn't a problem now. But if you guys are okay with it, I'm fine with it, too. I just wanted clarification. MR. KLATZKOW: I'm not saying it's not a problem. I'm not entirely sure this is the appropriate way of doing it. I'm just telling you it's enforceable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's the last of my questions. Anybody else have any? Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I actually had the same question, or a similar one. On Deviation No. 1, the last sentence that allows the -- or requires that the sign be relocated in the case of capacity or safety issues. Those two qualifiers, does that make it broad enough? For instance, what about a more general term like "public welfare," "public good," or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe "safety" because it's covered by that? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Safety -- well, maybe, but what about -- well, aesthetic. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's in the eyes of the beholder. COMMISSIONER EBERT: You're right. COMMISSIONER FRYER: You know it when you see it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. They could -- I mean, what one development might think is a nice October 19, 2017 Page 24 of 73 sign, another -- somebody driving by may not. I'm not sure we even want to open that can of worms. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, I just wanted to raise it. It seemed to me like that was kind of narrow, but if no one else is uncomfortable with it, that's okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: County Attorney says it's enforceable, so I think we're good. MR. KLATZKOW: What I'm saying is this: What it's saying is if you're going to have your name on that sign, you're going to help maintain that sign. If the HOA doesn't want to pay to maintain that sign, their name doesn't have to be on that sign. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. They won't get their name on the sign unless they've got an off-premise sign -- MR. KLATZKOW: Exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- provision, so I guess that covers it all. Okay. That's -- anybody else have any questions of the applicant at this time? MR. REISCHL: I just want to clarify, is your -- do you mean to retain that now? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, we might as well leave it in. MR. REISCHL: Leave it in? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Everything's been clarified, yeah. MR. REISCHL: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have one more. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. Go ahead, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: 5.4, the successor entity -- and I realize this is a practice of longstanding in the county, but it surprises me that there are no criteria that are applied to a successor managing entity to ensure that it's more than just a shell, but I guess that this is steeped in precedent and custom and practice. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Actually, this language has been refined, and it just came about not too long ago with this standardization, and that was something Heidi wrote up. So she'd probably be the best person to respond to it. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah. We had addressed concerns of the administrator several years ago who requested that this be placed in all PUDs because we were having a problem when the property changes hands and having someone responsible to make sure that all the commitments in the PUD are met. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Understood, but there are no requirements that the successor have any financial heft or presence. It could be a shell that was organized simply to receive these responsibilities and thereby let the original managing entity off the hook. MR. KLATZKOW: But that would imply we have the ability to block the transaction. So if there's a sale from one developer to the other, if we're going to get involved in the PUD that you must be financially sound, I mean, it's -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: No, I understand. MR. KLATZKOW: It's a private transaction. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I get that. Just I think it's worth pointing out, though, so that we understand that when we permit this to happen, we're allowing the managing entity to basically get out from under the requirements -- they're not only assigned the rights, but they disconnect themselves from the liabilities as well in favor of a completely unknown entity which, I understand if that's the practice -- and I'm not saying it shouldn't be, but I just think we all ought to recognize that that's what could happen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, anything else of the applicant at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll go to a staff report before we go to break. Fred? MR. REISCHL: Fred Reischl, Planning and Zoning. I went through the changes, same as you, and have no objection to anything that was mentioned. We continue to recommend approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Get a little closer to the mike, Fred. Thank you. Continue to recommend approval, right? MR. REISCHL: Yes. October 19, 2017 Page 25 of 73 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any questions of staff? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Sorry, I had one more; I apologize. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Under 5.15, lighting, the last -- or the second to last sentence says, these shielded structures shall be placed no higher than 10 feet; 10 feet from what? You mean ground level? 5.15. MR. HOOD: I'm getting there so I can put it on the visualizer for you. Okay. 5.15. Yes, from the finished floor elevation of the building, so -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Could we say that? MR. HOOD: Yeah, we can put finished floor in there. That's fine. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anything else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not -- well, it's a good time for a break before we start public participation. We'll come back at 10:30 and -- or 10:35 and resume. Thank you. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your seats, we'll resume the meeting. And we left off with a presentation finished by staff, and we'll now turn to public speakers. As each member of the public's called, please come up to either one of the microphones. How many speakers do we have registered? MR. REISCHL: Four registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Would you call the first speaker. MR. REISCHL: Sure. They are numbered. The first -- there's two number ones. Terrie Abrams and Steve Abrams. I'm not sure which person truly wants to be 1. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we'll start with Terrie Abrams, if she'd like to come up, and we'll go to the next one from there. MS. ABRAMS: He assigned his time to me, my husband. That's why. There's only two speakers. MR. REISCHL: Giving minutes to Terrie Abrams. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Terrie, when you speak, you have to use the microphone, even though it's stuff like that. Thank you. MS. ABRAMS: Okay. I'm Terrie Abrams. There was a lot of discussion this morning. I just want to clarify something in regards to the concern about is the community behind the changes. Way back when, when this started, we had petitions and letters that you all have received from way back when, and that listed all of those prohibited usages, and so that was what the community was really concerned about. So that was one thing I wanted to clarify. The second thing, we just talked about adult usages. So we don't know how to get that wording in there, but we are against any sort of adult bookstores, adult video stores, adult paraphernalia stores, adult apparel stores. So we look to you to help us get the correct verbiage in there so that it's locked and loaded. So now I'll get into what I originally had planned to say. I'm a resident of Black Bear Ridge, and I'm concerned about the business usages that will be allowed in Vanderbilt Commons. Vanderbilt Commons' lot line and Black Bear Ridge lot lines -- slow? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Slower. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Terri has to type -- that Terri has to type as fast as you talk. MS. ABRAMS: Okay -- because our lot lines buffer each other directly. In addition, Pristine Drive is the only separation between Vanderbilt Commons and the development to the west. They're not here, but we can see what will happen to them as well. It is critical that the usages allowed are compatible with not only Black Bear Ridge but the surrounding developments. We have reviewed each and every SIC code under discussion, met with the developer, and we've made some pretty significant compromises. The agreed usages give the developer a wide range of businesses and, in fact, looking at the SIC October 19, 2017 Page 26 of 73 codes, we identified additional ones that we felt would be beneficial to the developer as well to us, and we thought it would be a good fit with the community. We want the developer to be successful but not at the detriment of our community or requiring a burden placed on the residents to be the watchdog for non-advertised changes. So we have had that discussion as well. We do ask that Line 28 be removed. Line 28, I'm not going to read it again, because I think we all know what it is, but leaving that line in provides opportunity for noncompatible usages to be approved -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: You mean 27? MS. ABRAMS: I'm sorry. It got changed. It was 28, and it got changed to 27. Leaving in that line provides opportunity for noncompatible usages to be approved without our knowledge. This will be an unfair burden placed on us, and we have already been the recipients of a storage unit, which really is incompatible and, in our minds, have sort of lowered or dummied down the development of that strip. Just because this is standard language, it doesn't make it right, and it should stop here. I'm aware there's a cost to the developer to request a change, but that's really the cost of doing business. The burden and cost should not be placed on the residents to prevent noncompatible businesses butted up to residential areas. We really do need to stop this. A couple other things in the application that we saw. It indicates that the residential area can be as small as 500 square feet. We heard just two weeks ago on another project that that's really too small of a living space, so we'd like to see that increased to 700 square feet, which is compatible with other rentals in the area. I have another, and we talked about this temporary permit for outside noise and variance. How often is that allowed? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, you might -- do you remember how often we allow temporary events on a site? MR. BELLOWS: Fourteen days twice a year. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: We'd have to check the code on that, but I thought it's twice a year. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, it's 28 days total. MS. ABRAMS: Okay. So for, like, a sidewalk sale or something like that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. MS. ABRAMS: Absolutely fine. We just didn't understand how frequent it could happen. So we really appreciate your consideration. You guys have been listening to us, and that's wonderful, so thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Terrie, while you're up there, since you and, I know, Beverly are probably the point people -- MS. ABRAMS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- I'd like to walk through some issues that we discussed to make sure you're comfortable -- MS. ABRAMS: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and if you have an objection we know it so we can weigh in on it. MS. ABRAMS: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The changes to 6 regarding eating places and drinking places, we suggested expanding the amplified sound in that language to across the whole site. I'm sure you're fine with that. The hardware stores, I know that you all talked about hardware stores coming in. Does the 10,000 square feet have any -- are you guys fine with that? MS. ABRAMS: We really didn't talk about the size of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which is why I'm bringing it up. MS. ABRAMS: Exactly. So we really hadn't -- it seems rather large. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, actually, the hardware stores are much, much bigger than that. In fact, the Sunshine Ace Hardware that recently went up on the East Trail was 23,000 square feet. So you're looking at -- MS. ABRAMS: We're fine. October 19, 2017 Page 27 of 73 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- half the size of that hardware store. MS. ABRAMS: We're fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought that was appropriate, but I wanted to make sure you understood it. The issue about the motion -- 7922, I read you the uses there. Was that not for -- it wasn't for a motion theater. It was for, like, an arts production type place, right? MS. ABRAMS: Yeah. We were all for having a small neighborhood playhouse of some sort. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ABRAMS: So that's really where we wanted to open that up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. This issue about doors facing the residential, what is that about; do you know? I tried to understand it. I mean, right now, I drive by -- I live down the road from this place, so I see they've got the first strip area going up close to Vanderbilt. There's going to be doors on the north side of that thing. So how can we say they can't have doors on the north side of the lots? MS. ABRAMS: I don't know where that came from. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because I don't either. It doesn't make sense. MS. ABRAMS: Unless it's about the back 5 and 6 parcels which butt up against our property. Then I could understand no front doors facing that. I think that's what the intent was -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Mark, would it be better to say main entrances? Because I think that's what they're trying to preclude. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- but main entrances can't be disallowed because that south side, they've got to face the road, the internal road. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I'm thinking that somehow we've got to narrow this down -- MS. ABRAMS: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and maybe public access doors facing residential only along the north lots -- MS. ABRAMS: Five and six? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that remain to be built? MS. ABRAMS: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But you're stating you wanted to eliminate doors completely. I mean, they're going to have to allow for access to meet the fire code's ingress/egress requirements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, public doors. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Public doors. Well, that's a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Public doors aren't for your egress doors. They can be anywhere. You can have a sign up that says emergency access, and you can still go out it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. I just want to make sure -- I mean, they're going to require doors somewhere in those buildings, and they may have to go out that north side to -- MS. ABRAMS: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- meet the ingress/egress requirements. MS. ABRAMS: Correct. But it's just the main public access. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Makes sense. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And, Terrie, we've had -- we've had language before about adult restrictions. I'm going to suggest we try to figure that out, what the language was in one of the other PUDs. I remember, Karen, you've brought it up yourself. I think even the PUD where the Wawa's going on Price Street. So maybe you could check and, before we go too far, finish today, and see what that Price Street language was, because I know you had a list of prohibited uses there, and that was listed as well. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: We've used that language, I believe, a lot of times. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Quite a few times, yeah. So whatever that typical language is, that's what I think everybody's on the same page for. MR. BELLOWS: We'll start looking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'll try to get to it sometime, too. I think that's all -- that's all the questions I had for clarification. October 19, 2017 Page 28 of 73 MS. ABRAMS: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Terrie. Next speaker, Fred? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Thank you, Terrie. MR. REISCHL: Rick Smith has ceded his time to Bev Smith. MS. SMITH: Hello, again. Beverly Smith, 7278 Acorn Way. I wanted to go along with everything that Terrie has just mentioned. Again, thank you, for your time, and thank you for your concern for our concerns regarding this matter. We've worked very diligently with the developer, and we think we've given him a very large range of establishments that he can put in this development. Other than what we've -- you've gone through again, again, I just want to say that Items 27, Line 27, is something that we are very concerned with, and that it doesn't give us an opportunity to address any future changes in this PUD and, along with what Mr. Strain said, I think that is a major concern at this point. I think we're down to about -- that is the only concern at this point that we have and the square usage on the dwellings. But as far as the usage there, I think that -- that's our only point, and we're really concerned about that, and we appreciate your remarks, Mr. Strain. And we hope that maybe this is the time that something like that should be changed and should be approached. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And along that train of thought, if 27 were to be modified that those would be -- could be requested subject to the same advertising process used for the PUDA, which is what you're experiencing today, would that cure your concern? Because they could do that anyway. I mean, if they want to do a PUDA, they could come in and do a PUDA -- MS. SMITH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and the process is the same as far as public advertising goes. You guys would be notified, you'd have a NIM, you do all that. I think that would cover your involvement, and if you didn't like it, you could -- MS. SMITH: We just want an opportunity to readdress it if it happens, and that's what this is prohibiting us from. If that were to be the language, we'd be happy with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that would get you where you want to go. You'd be notified and -- MS. SMITH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- you could do the same thing you're doing here today. MS. SMITH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So... MS. SMITH: The other item that was brought up is on Table 1 of the development standards about the minimum floor area for a dwelling for the residential, and it is listed here as 500 square feet, and we have discussed it with the developer. We would like to see that changed to 700. I think that 500, as has been discussed with other areas and other developments, is a little -- is a little small, and we would request that that be amended to 700. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll -- I will bring that up to the developer during rebuttal, and thank you. MS. SMITH: And I think -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And just -- I did check the Price Street PUD, and it says the following: Prohibited uses: Adult entertainment and sexually orientated businesses. So that's the language we would add, and that would -- as long as -- everybody's nodding their head, so we'll just get acknowledgments as we go forward. MS. SMITH: Right. We can just add that language, and that would be acceptable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anything else? MS. SMITH: So many lists here. No, I think that was the only -- everything else has been covered. Just for a note so you know, the Black Bear Ridge name is not on the sign, on the public sign right now. The only thing there is Raffia Preserve and Falls of Portofino, just for the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you very much. MS. SMITH: Okay. Thank you again. October 19, 2017 Page 29 of 73 COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have a question that this witness might want to weigh in on. When we devise language to change 27 and we insert a provision to the effect that there would have to be notice and a hearing, if we don't change the comparable language, leave that as the only standard, am I correct that the -- that whether it's the Hearing Examiner or this board, when they hear it, the comparability is the only standard that they can refer to, or what about consistency and compatibility? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- and I'll let Ray -- Ray, generally it's comparable/compatible. There's -- one of the terms is missing from this line. But, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. The various PUDs have various forms of this language. The LDC is what prevails in how we treat these PUDs with similar language, and it's all of those forms of comparable/compatible. And we can further address more stringent guidelines in regards to that process in regard to also including requirement for neighborhood information meetings, also maybe put a requirement for public notice sign like we do for a PUD amendment. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. All that is good, and I think the public notice and hearing is an important step forward, but by just having this comparable language by itself, that's saying nothing. MR. BELLOWS: I agree, and various PUDs have various forms of this language. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. But we're here now talking about this one. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. That's why I think -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: It seems to me -- MR. BELLOWS: -- to apply everything universally, the LDC should be clear in what is meant by that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: It seems to me that what we're going after here is really a two-pronged standard consistent with permitted uses and compatible with the character of the neighborhood, not comparable. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. And I wouldn't mind having clarifying language as well put in this PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think before the day is over, we ought to at least zero in and get as much of it more accurately stated to meet some of the concerns you've heard. MR. BELLOWS: I agree. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Mr. Chair, I do have proposed language, if you'd like me to add a sentence regarding notice. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: It could be something like, prior to the addition of any uses, public notice shall include neighborhood information meeting mailings and signage in the same manner as that for a substantial amendment to the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's part of it. I think what -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Part of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- Ned's focusing on, the criteria by which the comparable/compatible analysis has to be determined. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah. I'm just giving you the notice -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: That sounds fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, the notice requirement seems fine. Now we need to make sure we have the right phraseology so the criteria that you use can be comprehensive enough to address all the issues, because the staff has changed the way they look at comparable/compatible analysis over the last few years, and I think we need to go back and be a little more defined on the way we do it. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So at some point we've got to zero in on that language and resolve that to the best we can today with direction for the applicant, so... Okay. Anything else, Beverly? MS. SMITH: No, I'm good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? October 19, 2017 Page 30 of 73 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. MS. SMITH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next speaker, Fred. MR. REISCHL: No more registered speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the other doubled up -- they're all doubled up, okay. MR. REISCHL: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody from the public who has not spoken that would like to speak? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, that will be the end of the public speakers, and I can offer some rebuttal time to the applicant, but we certainly have some clarifications we need to first discuss. I made a few notes. Do you have any objection to the change in size to the minimum square footage for residential unit? MR. HOOD: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have any objection to the adult entertainment language that I read from the Price Street PUD? MR. HOOD: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The comparable/compatible, or however you want to word Line 27, do you have any objection to the notification language that Heidi read into the record? MR. HOOD: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, as far as the language goes to set the standards by which we have to review it, Ned has weighed in on quite a few opportunities. Have you thought about it yourself? Have you got any ideas on how you'd like to see it formatted, and we can then work off your suggestions? MR. HOOD: Yeah. I like the way -- the language that Heidi came up with for the public notification. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. HOOD: I was looking at changing or adding to the language that says any other use which is comparable and compatible in nature with the foregoing list of permitted principal uses, and then after that, I think it was those -- that decision will be required subject to the same notification processes of the PUDA application as Heidi read in. I think the only addition that we wanted to have there was that it would come back to this body to be reviewed, the additional use would come back to this body to be reviewed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, instead of my office? That's fine. I have no problem with that. It will probably come here anyway, so... MR. REISCHL: I think he means because it says in there Board of Zoning Appeals. MR. HOOD: So BCC? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh. Comparable/compatible right now is only assigned to two bodies, mine and the BCC. So we'd have to -- how can we -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Just put in Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Can we just assign it to the Planning Commission through the PUD process? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then that's fine. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pardon me? COMMISSIONER FRYER: My preference would be otherwise. I mean, we've got a Hearing Examiner Office in place. I would prefer to see, perhaps, a little tighter language but not necessarily have all of these have to ascend to the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Agreed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe we just don't assign it, and we just leave it like it is in the code, because my office does move it here based on concerns from the neighborhood to whatever heightened limit October 19, 2017 Page 31 of 73 they may have. So if you propose something and the neighborhood's visibly upset, my objective would be to find out their concerns and then probably meet with the commissioner from the district and decide which way it should go. MR. HOOD: That works for us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll just leave it like it is, then. Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I go back then, hoping that most of these could be reposed at the Hearing Examiner level, that the language that we give the Hearing Examiner as criteria for him to evaluate -- am I repeating myself? COMMISSIONER EBERT: No, no. You're complicating things to me. No, I think he's right, though. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The whole problem has been -- and, Ned, I'm sorry to interrupt, but I wanted to clarify for Diane. The problem is with these comparable/compatibles, Diane, they have gotten so flexible and the criteria's gotten so loose -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Loose. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that he's 100 percent right. This needs to be fixed. And this is the first example coming through. We could probably have an LDC amendment through before they'd have anything through under comparable/compatible analysis anyway. So, Ned, that's where we would probably want to adjust the criteria rather than trying to fix it today on the fly in the PUD -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- but rely on the changes to the LDC that we would recommend under new business, 11B, today. MR. BELLOWS: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I think that would be the best way. So we leave it in -- we make the changes we talked about, but the criteria will be subject to the LDC as it's amended, and we'll be amending it hopefully as soon as staff could focus on this -- MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and we'll talk about it today at 11B. MR. BELLOWS: We'll be meeting with Jeremy and make sure that that's -- are their expedited LDC amendment cycle. MR. HOOD: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That will work. And then last thing, I think everything else we've clarified, we've got -- we've addressed the issues I think the community just brought up to finish this off. I do, at the request of the County Attorney's Office, need George to acknowledge that he is representative as the successor trustee of the Vanderbilt Commons and Land Trust, that you are actually their representative here today. Is that -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, actually, I'd like him to agree to all the changes to the PUD, if he's in agreement, and any stipulations that then you're adding, because he's not an applicant. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you want to wait, then, till after the motion? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: That will be fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, George. We'll wait till after the motion, and we'll ask you to acknowledge that you've agreed to everything that we've -- MR. VUKOBRATOVICH: Yes, sir. One last comment, if I may. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MR. VUKOBRATOVICH: In an era when there doesn't seem to be civility anymore, when we don't talk to each other, I want to thank the Black Bear Ridge people, Terrie and Beverly, and this board for talking this through and making this a very civil and a very agreeable process. Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well said. October 19, 2017 Page 32 of 73 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay. Fred, did you have any rebuttal that you wanted to make other than what we've just talked about? MR. HOOD: Just talking about the main public access doors. Is that still something that you want to see in the prohibited uses, or is that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just along Lots 5 and 6. MR. HOOD: Just along Lots 5 and 6. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Public access doors -- main public access doors on the north side of the buildings on Lots 5 and 6. MR. HOOD: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because Midgard's already done, and the other lots of water management, so that just leaves two lots. MR. HOOD: I'm just looking through here real quick to make sure I don't have anything else. We got rid of Deviation 2. That's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. I appreciate your cooperation with the neighborhood. It doesn't always work out that way, but you-all got together, and I think we're 99 percent there. There might be a few things to tweak yet, which brings up the question of consent. There's a lot that needs to be fixed. What is your timetable necessities? Where are you -- how are you in the system right now? MR. HOOD: We want to retain our BCC date for the 14th of next month, so whatever I have -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Of December? MR. HOOD: Of November. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: November, I'm sorry. Yeah. MR. HOOD: Next month. So whatever I have to do to get staff -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. We don't have another meeting between now and then, so... COMMISSIONER FRYER: We could, though. I mean, we could meet on the 2nd. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- November 12th? MR. HOOD: I'm sorry. December 12th is the date. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: December 12th? MR. HOOD: December 12th is our hearing date. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, well, then, there's no reason we can't get the consent acknowledged -- MR. VUKOBRATOVICH: That's not right. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I thought we were doing both. We had told them before we were doing this and consent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's correct. We were going to try that, but there's an awful lot of changes -- MR. HOOD: I do have it on my calendar November 14th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- here. Do you feel that comfortable? If we can fit it in, it would be smarter to do it with an acknowledgment on consent. But if you guys don't think you need the consent -- well, I'll tell you what, as an option, I don't mind reviewing this in its final draft to match all the notes that I've made today, and I've made pretty thorough notes on everything that we've done. If the rest of this board is comfortable with that, we don't need to have it come back on consent. But that would be up to this board. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I totally agree. There's no need to have to come back. I think we can handle this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I agree. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm okay with that. Mr. Chairman, you're going to read your list so that we can hear it one more time? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, I could do that. October 19, 2017 Page 33 of 73 COMMISSIONER FRYER: Good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was just thinking, it's quite a list, but I could read it. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I mean, for instance, you've got the thing about the no north entries. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I'll read all that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Good. No, that's a fine way to do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Absolutely. When we stipulate, I'll -- you guys don't make a motion before I get to read it first this time, okay? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then that takes us through everything and you have -- are you finished now? MR. HOOD: I'm good. I'm just going to write down whatever you speak on, because I want to make sure I got it all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So with that, if there's no other questions of anybody, we will close the public hearing and open for discussion. And I'll go forward with the discussion items that we've talked about. It might take a few minutes, because they're over the pages that were handed out. They won't necessarily be in order, but I'll just give them to you as I have them on the pages. The unit size for residential will be changed to 700 square feet minimum. The adult entertainment and sexually oriented business prohibition that was in the Price Street PUD language will be the same as inserted -- used in the prohibition in this particular PUD; and that the Line 27, which involves the comparable/compatible analysis, will refer to comparable/compatible analysis and a process for public notification, should you utilize that line, as Heidi had read into the record previously. And as we get into the document, the various changes that we walked through we had some grammatical things; we're on the same page there. You are going to add 7922. You're going to be putting various commas and deleting parentheticals in different locations. The No. 6, eating places, that's a complete rewrite. 6A will not only be left in 6A, it will be added to the prohibition uses but not referencing the outdoor seating area. It will just be no televisions, outdoor amplified sound devices, or live entertainment shall be permitted, period. MR. HOOD: Got it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The hardware stores will be added, but you're going to use 10,000 square feet as a maximum square footage for any such use. There's some grammatical on the following page. Then we get into No. 27, which we already talked about, comparable/compatible. Under accessory commercial uses, C2 doesn't need to be there. It's the drinking places reference. Under the Development Standards Table, all the little tick marks for feet will be spelled out as "feet" to make it consistent. When we get to prohibited uses, there's been a new addition about free-standing donation boxes and kiosks. This is where we'll add 6A with the exception of the last few words. We'll also add the public doors facing the residential are prohibited along lots -- north -- along the north side of Lots 6 and 7, and then the adult restriction language will go there. Under the deviations section, there's no need for Deviation 2, so that will come out. And there's small grammaticals on the rest of it. The 5.15, lighting, Ned had brought up a measurement for the 10 feet. It will come from the finished floor of the building. And I think that's all of the substantial ones that -- other than the grammatical ones that we had talked about. Anybody think anything's missing or needs to be -- you're fine? COMMISSIONER FRYER: You've got it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. VUKOBRATOVICH: Your references, Mark, are to 5 and 6, not 6 and 7. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. I'm sorry; 5 and 6, you're right. MR. HOOD: One last change on the hours. I believe it was for 5 and 6 under No. 6A; it should be 6 a.m. through 4 p.m., not 6 a.m. and 4 p.m. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: And then if we could have Mr. Vukobratovich, come up. Did I say it October 19, 2017 Page 34 of 73 right -- MR. VUKOBRATOVICH: You did. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: -- as to the Vanderbilt Commons Land Trust. If you could let us know if you accept the PUD changes and stipulations. MR. VUKOBRATOVICH: My name is George Vukobratovich for the record. I live at 4660 5th Avenue Northwest. Yes, I accept the changes as we discussed today and is on the record. Thank you very much. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The changes have been read into the record. They've been accepted by the applicant. Is there any further discussion on the part of the Planning Commission? If not, is there a motion subject to those changes read? Go ahead, Joe. MR. SCHMITT: Don't we have to approve the GMP amendment first? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to approve them both. We can do that one first, if you'd like. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Simultaneously or two different motions? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, we have two motions. You can motion that one first if you'd like. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: All right. Well, I motion that we approve PL2015002167, which is the GMP amendment, and PUDA-PL20 -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got to do -- let's finish the GMP first. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. GMP. I motion that we approve the GMP amendment. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And there's no stipulations -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Subject to the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there's no stipulations in the PUD. (Multiple speakers speaking.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Patrick. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. Now the PUD. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Likewise, the PUDA-PL2015000002166, Carolina Village, and -- or -- well, it's the Vanderbilt Commons now, so I recommend subject to the stipulations and edits that you announced on the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Patrick. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. October 19, 2017 Page 35 of 73 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposes? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. And this will not come back for consent, so I don't need a vote on that. It only happens if we do vote on it. But I will be looking to get a copy of your document before it goes to the Board's agenda so we can make sure everything that we have on notes is up -- is up to snuff. MR. HOOD: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, thank you for your time today. MR. HOOD: Thank you, all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank all of you. ***And with that, we will move into 9C. 9C is a longstanding and long time to get to us LDC amendment for preservation standards regarding off-site preserves, and this is something that we've continued from July to August to September to October. So it's been continued many times. I don't believe this is -- we have -- disclosures are necessary for this, so we will just -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- move right into Jeremy's presentation, and then we'll go into questions and public testimony. Jeremy, it's all yours. MR. FRANTZ: Good morning. Jeremy Frantz with the Growth Management Department. So it's been a couple of months since we saw and talked about this last -- I'll run through the amendment and kind of explain what each section is doing. I'll put it up on the visualizer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. FRANTZ: We'll have it up there eventually. So the first section, the purpose and intent has not changed a whole lot over the course of this amendment. We have made some grammatical changes suggested by Commissioner Fryer, and then we have also amended the section to reference the 21,780 square feet or one-half acre. Moving on, the existing applicability section has been completely stricken, and we have added a new applicability above what were previously the restrictions. That applicability is specifying that the native vegetation requirement may be taken off site only when the actual requirement is a half acre or less. And also we've maintained the restrictions as prohibitions. We've made a couple of changes in the document on the visualizer. I'll try to zoom in a little bit more. So this is a change to the existing prohibition regarding some habitat types. We had received some comments from Tim Hall by way of Mark Strain, Commissioner Strain, and so we thought these were appropriate to clearly identify how that 40-foot width is measured. We have another minor change in B for grammar. At the end of those prohibitions, we've added a statement that the requirement -- if the requirement is greater than a half acre, that it can't be taken off site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, actually, on that page, in our packet we had a D that said "deviations or variances from this section are prohibited." That's been removed. MR. FRANTZ: Oh, yes. I'm sorry. I couldn't highlight the text that wasn't there. That will come at the end. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. MR. FRANTZ: Yeah. So there was a change there. We'll get to that later. And then the next two sections identified the methods or the process for getting approval. There's several instances when the off-site preserves can be approved administratively, and for any other instance the approval would be through either a PUD deviation or a variance, whichever is applicable. We've got a couple of statements here about how that preserve requirement is calculated. That has October 19, 2017 Page 36 of 73 not changed from previous iterations of the amendment. And then changes to this -- the off-site alternatives represent the Commission's recommendation to only allow for monetary payments. And, again, that monetary payment is based on the AUIR No. 4 Community Parklands. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There were some changes to that page that you don't have there. You're going to show us those separately? MR. FRANTZ: I don't believe I have any changes to this page other than that section that you mentioned was moved. That will come at the end. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But then let's go back to triple i. MR. FRANTZ: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There was supposed to have been an Item E considered there, and when we talked, projects where native vegetation does not meet dimensional standards. Did you -- how did you see that -- I mean, I know we talked about it. It's not added. Not that you need to add it. I'm just saying, you didn't even present it. So did you decide not to use it? MR. FRANTZ: Yeah. We had not intended to add that additional instance for administrative approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. See 4 where it says "off-site preserves approved through a public hearing except as limited"? Tim had suggested the word "prohibited," since that's what we use. No, keep going down. You took it off the page. See where the word "limited" is under 4, second line? MR. FRANTZ: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was to match up to be prohibited. Did you not think that was appropriate? MR. FRANTZ: Well, what we're referencing there is actually all of H1F2 which includes not only the list of prohibitions, but also the limitation to a half acre. So we were using the word "limited" to kind of capture all of those different prohibitions or limitations in that section. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under -- and I'm just trying to follow up as Tim and I had talked. MR. FRANTZ: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I told him we would at least discuss it, and I didn't hear the discussion, so I thought we'd discuss it. Under 5, for the purpose -- this is the issue about the PUD. He had suggested, and I passed it on to you that -- how do we treat expanded PUDs? MR. FRANTZ: If a PUD expands and the expansion results in a preserve requirement of greater than a half acre, then they would not be able to use the off-site preserves for that expansion. If the expansion doesn't result in a preserve requirement of less than a half acre or, sorry, of more than a half acre, then they could use the off-site alternative again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if they bring in an area to the PUD and they already have an acre in the PUD but they want to bring in another area of land that adds just under a half acre, they don't have to bring it in even though they already have an acre on the PUD? MR. FRANTZ: They wouldn't be able to utilize the off-site program, because we would be looking at the total native vegetation retention requirement for the entire project rather than just the new addition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What if it's not contiguous? What if the half acre or less is not contiguous to the original PUD because -- we have a PUD, by the way, that's coming in with a similar situation. So if you have a -- the only viable habitat or preserve area on the piece that's being added is on the opposite side of the PUD that the PUD it's being added to is at, you wouldn't have a contiguous preserve. So that stand-alone 20,000 square feet of preserve, can that be done off site, or would we still insist it be done on site? MR. FRANTZ: Well, I don't know without looking at the project that I could say exactly what would happen, but I can point to both the sections. So we would be looking at the preserve acreage for the entire site, but then when -- depending on how that works out; I don't know what the preserve acreage is. If it were -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's use your example of one acre. Say you have one acre on the original PUD. It's on site. They're bringing a comparable size -- another chunk to the PUD. That other chunk has a October 19, 2017 Page 37 of 73 noncontiguous additional 20,000 square feet of potential preservation. Would we require them to keep that less than half acre on that foreign piece that's now being brought in even though it's not contiguous, or is there provisions where they could take that off site? MR. FRANTZ: Yeah, I believe so, because that section that we're looking at stipulates that the preserve acreage will be calculated based on the entire project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But that doesn't answer my question. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, I think the preserve would be recalculated, so if they can fit it where the other preserve is and it's not already a developed parcel, they would probably put it there, but they would work with Summer. If not, yeah, it would be a stand-alone preserve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that's what I'm trying to find out. If it's a stand-alone preserve less than a half acre and it's not contiguous to the original PUD's preserve, what do we do with it? Summer? MS. ARAQUE: Well, I wanted to add in -- Summer Araque, Environmental Planning, for the record -- that this new -- this revision says that any existing preserves cannot be taken off site. So you have to consider that as well. So if you have an existing PUD -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not suggesting you take the existing PUD preserves off site. I'm asking, if you add another area to the PUD and it has a less-than-half-acre area that should be a preserve but it's not contiguous to the original PUD's one-acre-or-more preserve, let's say for discussion, what do we do with that less than half acre that's not contiguous, stand-alone island somewhere out in the distance? MS. ARAQUE: Okay. So the other area -- and you said it -- there was a project you had in mind. Has that area already been developed? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. The project -- the additional has not been developed; that's why they're coming in to do a PUDA. MS. ARAQUE: No, the original area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The original area's all built out except for the preservation area. MS. ARAQUE: Okay. So, I mean, it's something to consider, if you would like. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I was asked the question, how do we treat that, and I don't have an answer. I'm turning to you. And if you don't have an answer based on the language in front of us, maybe we need to have the answer if there's going to be something that's going to come up. MS. ARAQUE: Yeah. If it's something you want to consider including in here, then we can take a look at that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, you know, I would think that if you've got a noncontiguous piece that should be considered as a viable preserve but it's less than a half acre, we should allow the same flexibility to move it off site because it's going to be just a stand-alone useless piece of habitat, as we would consider the first half acre. MS. ARAQUE: I think that that should only be for in that particular case that you just described where it's an amendment and the original PUD has already been developed, because if you have a PUD that hasn't been developed and then they're adding more acreage in, you should be able to make it contiguous preserve, correct? Because it hasn't -- because the vegetation hasn't been impacted yet, so you would just add on to the existing preserve that was already identified. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But then you're saying that if you haven't developed the site, all the vegetation on the site is valuable vegetation, so any greater than half-acre requirement should be preserved wherever you want to put it on site, where I know that's not the truth. You guys specifically look for the best habitat on site, and that's where the preservation is usually applied to. So I'm not sure your example's going to work out the way you've suggested. MS. ARAQUE: Well, as you said, in that particular case, you could be looking at, that the new additional acreage being added on may have more valuable habitat; however, historically, the preserve area that was originally identified is usually the area that's kept. It has to be a very extreme case that it's like a xeric scrub and that you've got -- the other area is so low in criteria that we would say you have to move it over here. Generally speaking, you would just add on to that existing preserve that was already identified. October 19, 2017 Page 38 of 73 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you know what, Tim started this mess. I'll let him bring it up, because I'm sure he will have a better time -- he'll have a good example as well, so -- I thought it was a good point. I'll let him continue it when he comes and up and speaks, because he's here for a reason today. So I don't need to -- MS. ARAQUE: Yeah. I mean, all I can say is we can add it in, but it would probably be a little bit lengthy, more than one line, because we would want to be very specific to amendments where the PUD has already been developed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Mr. Chair? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I think there are a lot of variables here, because if the front parcel or the original parcel was developed, it's possible they could take the entire preserve and put it on the back. You know, it's all they negotiate and work it out with the environmental people depending on the value of the habitat, so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'm positive I've seen projects come through where they annex a piece that's not too developable because it's so environmentally sensitive and then want to develop something inside an existing buildout area that's already a preserve. I'm positive I've seen projects like that come through. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, and that's fine. I was looking at a different request but, yeah, you're right. I recall that, too, but... COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah, but I think that kind of falls in the same thing. Well... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, it may be fine as written. We'll just have to let Tim describe what trouble he got us into. I'm trying to interpret his hand signals. Go ahead, Jeremy. MR. FRANTZ: Okay. So, continuing on, I mentioned the monetary payments section and that the land donation portion has been completely stricken through. In the version here on the visualizer, this section titled "PUD zoning," we've removed the first sentence. It was a little bit duplicative of the sentence that comes after it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's your language. MR. FRANTZ: And then as you mentioned, we had removed that stipulation that deviations or variances are prohibited, and we've moved it down to the end just, kind of, for organizational reasons. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any questions of staff at this point? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I do. Jeremy, if my note is correct, back in July 20, I believe it was our consensus to prohibit off-site preservation whether by cash payment or land donation. Then your memo came through, maybe -- yeah, August 9, and you pointed out that Subdivisions 10 and 13 of the GMP, applicable GMP Element 6.1.1.10 and 13 require there to be provision made for land donation and cash payment. So right there there is a conflict between what our board expressed what it wanted to do and what it may do under the GMP. And so the approach that you have taken in your most recent proposal proceeds without regard to the sentiments that were expressed by this board on the grounds that we couldn't have done that without an amendment to the GMP. My question is, is why aren't we considering an amendment to the GMP? Because I stand by my point of view of July 20 that we should prohibit off-site preservation. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. Mr. Fryer, Commissioner Fryer, let me address that. That could most certainly be a recommendation that would come from this board if that's the collective feeling that the Growth Management Plan should be amended to prohibit off-site preserve allowances, but the GMP language speaks to that now and says we have to have that. So this amendment has been modified to recognize that requirement from our Growth Management Plan, which is the highest regulatory document that we have at the local level. October 19, 2017 Page 39 of 73 If there is the desire for this board collectively to go that way, it would be a direction for us to go amend the Growth Management Plan to remove that allowance. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And, Mike, I appreciate and am thankful that you guys caught that GMP requirement of 10 and 13 of 6.1.1. But it seems too me that the threshold question, before we get to much in the minutiae of the language that we've got displayed on the visualizer, the question is whether we would prefer to give effect to the sentiment we expressed -- and I think it was unanimous -- on July 20 that we want to prohibit off-site preservation which would take us down the GMP amendment route. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think that would have to be probably done in two steps. Right now to fix what is already probably problematic in the code, this can get done, and then we could also, if the majority felt, recommend to the BCC to initiate a GMP amendment to further remove that requirement of the GMP if that's the way the board -- this panel decides to recommend. Is that an appropriate -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: That would be. I guess I didn't understand that the problems with the current language were of such immediacy and seriousness that they had to be fixed right away before we could go the GMP amendment route. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I guess it depends on how serious you think they are. What's happened is the expansion of the off-site preserve has, let's say, badgered this board ever since we started allowing it quite a while ago, and it's grown substantially. The requests are greater. They're for more acreage. They're irregardless of what we have tried to set as a standard to stop it. And this was going to kind of put all that to bed so we would not -- not allow it as deviations, but simply prohibit it. Then you can't ask for a deviation. And then we're back to half acre. The half acre was more thought of as a necessity in regards to some places just aren't going to function, and an argument for a little bit off site is better, and prohibiting the rest would stop what we're into now, because we're getting sites coming in and asking for two, three, four, five acres off site, and that was never the intent. But we've opened the door, unfortunately. And I think right now we're trying to close it. Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. This goes back a long ways. When we prohibited -- back in the days when I was a part of the county staff and we prohibited off-site preservations, these small areas that were identified as preserves, oftentimes over the years, they just morphed into nothing more than a landscape buffer and the preserve was functionally useless as a preserve. I can cite examples. I choose not to on the record, but they -- frankly, we would send code enforcement out. We'd try and enforce these, but they were typically maintained almost like they were landscape rather than what they were supposed to be in a natural preserve. This allows for these small, essentially nonfunctional areas to try and create what I think is more beneficial is a cluster where we would cluster some of these off-site preserves into a larger preserve that becomes a useful environmental entity rather than just a landscape buffer. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That makes sense to me. I just hope we don't lose the original thought and sentiment expressed back in July 20 that we'd like to prohibit off-site expression or -- preservation, or if there needs to be a de minimus, we can consider that. The main problem I had with this was the land donation option anyway. But when we settled on an absolute prohibition in our vote, I was comfortable with that. So I hope there's some way that we can put this in the queue and not lose sight of it, so if we vote for this it doesn't go away forever for a long period of time without reconsideration at the appropriate level, which is GMP. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah, what we're trying to preserve is habitat. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And habitat is habitat for fauna not flora, although, you know, I guess maybe some people think habitat is just the flora that live there. What I would like to do is, whatever we do here, I would like to preface it with the consideration that we don't like off-site preserves, but -- and we would like it changed, but having to do something, this is what we choose to do. October 19, 2017 Page 40 of 73 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think we ought to proffer that to the Board with the recommendation like that -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: I like it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and at the same time ask the Board to consider direction on the GMP if they so desire, because in the end it's going to be the Board that's going to have to make that decision. So, Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I just have a question once you finish with that. My question, in regards to the cost. I was not at the meeting when the final approval was in regards to the AUIR community and regional land summary per-acre unit cost. When I first read that, I -- my perception was that that summary actually is an inflated value because it's typically park land in the urban area, which I think may be a higher price of land than typically what you would pay for preserve. But is it -- the Board agreed that that was the best pricing strategy? And the second piece of that is, I just, out of curiosity, as not part of this LDC amendment, but where does the money go and what will it be used for? MR. FRANTZ: Sure. So we went through several iterations in trying to determine what the value should be. The way that this amendment started was to try and work out not only the cost of purchasing land but also maintaining it in perpetuity. And so as we went through different iterations of how we would achieve that number, you can see some of the suggestions, the recommendations that we had from the Development Services Advisory Committee and the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Committee, advisory committee, they both had different methodologies for how to come up with that number. When it got to this Planning Commission's consideration, the attempt was to find a number that was more justifiable and that could be modified on a somewhat regular basis based on, you know, the cost of purchasing land. If it is a little bit higher than maybe what you would expect to pay to purchase the land, I think the -- you know, that kind of consideration was built in based or the need to also manage the land. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. I'm just curious. I mean, I missed that -- of course, I was involved in all the other iterations and the various pricing when we got this back in -- the last time we saw it was, what, back in September. And that was a new change that I noticed, and I was just curious as to how that -- MR. FRANTZ: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- how you came about that. But if that's what the Board agrees is the best benchmark, then fine, we'll move with that. I just think it may escalate the cost, but that's fine. And the money goes for, what, purchasing of land through the -- MR. FRANTZ: Through Conservation Collier. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Conservation collier. MR. FRANTZ: Right. Yeah, we're not changing that part of the process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We have some public speakers. Anybody else have any questions of staff before we go to public speakers? Mike, would you call the public speakers, please. MR. BOSI: I only have one submitted registered public speaker. It's Alison Westcott. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Tim's not going to get out of here without talking today. But, Alison, come on up. Ladies first. MS. WESTCOTT: Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: We will invite Tim up separately. Special invitation. MS. WESTCOTT: Okay. So Alison Westcott for the Conservancy of Southwest Florida. On behalf of the Conservation and its more than 6,000 supporting families, we support the Planning Commission's recommendation for the addition of a standard prohibition on off-site preserves when the on-site native vegetation requirement is greater than 21,780 square feet. We support prohibiting deviations or variances from this. Think of this as eight tennis courts or the size of half of a football field. This is a sizable October 19, 2017 Page 41 of 73 piece of property. We know that Collier County citizens care about preserving the environment, and it makes good economic sense. The county voted unani -- sorry -- overwhelmingly in favor of Conservation Collier in 2006, and in 2014 Amendment I passed by 75 percent statewide. There was a survey that just came out this week by Nielsen and the University of South Florida which showed that 56 percent of Floridians say that they favor a tax to support environmental issues. Among Millennials, the margin was 2-1, and in Collier County this included issues like beach replenishment and protection of endangered wildlife. We -- let's see. Florida's rapid growth and development in tourism revenues is driven by the value of its natural assets. We all know this. In 2016, 2.6 million people visited South Florida's national parks, and this added more than $313 million to the local economy and supported over 3,000 jobs. So we would like to see more emphasis on incorporating nature into the urban landscape, into urban development. Let's not forget Houston, a city without zoning laws. In one of their watersheds, 70 percent of the wetland preserves were replaced by impermeable pavements, including roads and other forms of development. Coastal wetlands provide storm protection valued at over $23 billion a year in the United States. So as we know, coastal wetlands blunt storm surges, they build up land and create shoreline barriers, and they reduce flooding and erosion to defend communities against rising tides. So this is natural infrastructure. It acts as self-maintaining in this case. Coastal wetlands act as horizontal levies, and they provide a host of other services that man-made vertical levies do not. Also, trees. Trees are real -- have real economic value, according to the Nature Conservancy study that appears in the recommendations. Most of us know that trees improve our air quality. They reduce our temperatures. They provide stormwater mitigation in urban areas. But let's think about their aesthetic value. The study tells us that this is 20 times greater than any of these other causes. So people, we know, will spend up to 20 percent more for generally comparable homes next to green parks and next to open space. In Collier County, this could be even higher. I've seen figures as high as 47 percent more for property next to a green space. We -- the studies show us that shoppers will pay 12 percent more for goods and services in central business districts under a high-quality tree canopy. So trees have real economic value. Native vegetation retention should be designed to promote on-site preserves whenever possible -- this is what we believe at the Conservancy -- because people need nature. It restores us -- small preserves of wood and wetland in urban neighborhoods for mosaic habitats for biodiversity which may not be present in large off-site preserves. Consider the Conservancy's Smith Preserve. This is only seven acres of land. It's highly urbanized, and yet it has four distinct habitats, and it's home to 965 different species of organisms. So coastal ecosystems preserves should be an integral part of our urban development but, since the late 1950s in Florida, has eliminated 50 percent of its historic mangrove habitat. So we believe all preserves, regardless of size, have ecological value. We would prefer no off-site preservations be allowed; however, we understand that in some cases the off-site preserves would be very small. So we do not oppose an exception for properties smaller than the 21,780 square feet. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Alison. Patrick? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tim, do you have time to go through your issues with us, or those that we haven't addressed? MR. HALL: Sure. For the record, Tim Hall with Turrell, Hall & Associates. And I saw that some of the changes have been made, and I appreciate you guys doing that. I had met with Mark before the prior Planning Commission meeting because I was going to be out of town and knew I wouldn't be able to attend, and so I apologize for the confusion with those comments and then these. To start off, I mean, my first question had to do with the consistency with the GMP. From the way I October 19, 2017 Page 42 of 73 read the Growth Management Plan and this current proposal, it seems like there's two issues that came up. One is, when I read the GMP the way I interpret it, it seems like I should have three choices in terms of if I want to go off site or if I want to do off-site preservation. Either the monetary payment, the land donation, or it gives you kind of a nebulous, you know, donation to another land entity. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Sir, excuse me. Others may know what your firm does, but I don't. MR. HALL: Oh, I'm sorry. I'm an ecologist, a wildlife ecologist. My firm does marine and environmental consulting here in town. We're based in Naples. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Sorry to interrupt. Thank you. MR. HALL: No, that's fine. The second issue is that the GM -- again, the way I read the GMP it says I can go -- it says that an owner should be able to go off site for all or a portion of the required preserve. And, again, this amendment is basically saying all or nothing. So those are just two issues that I saw in terms of the way I read the GMP versus what's being proposed in the preservation standard. To go through the language, Stan brought up viability in terms of habitat, and this is the ecologist in me speaking. I agree with you guys that there needs to be hard line, you know, over or above, but if you're talking about habitat viability, I think that that number should be two acres, not a half acre, and that just has to do with different habitat suitability indexes and buffers that are required for viability and habitats and all. And most of them call for 80 to 300 feet of area buffer from a core to maintain the viability of that habitat for the majority of the species associated with that habitat. And if you take a 300-by-300-foot square, it comes out to 90,000 square feet, which is right about two acres. That's where I come up with that. And that's just -- if you're looking at it in terms of viability, I think the number should be two acres instead of half, but I'm not going to argue with you guys about what the number is. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Does it matter what the nature of the native vegetation is? MR. HALL: In terms of that, it can, yeah. And, I mean, you're still -- a panther's not going to utilize a two-acre preserve, but a lot of your smaller mammals will. And the thing that that two acres does is it prevents you from having adverse interactions in your neighborhood -- in the neighborhoods they're adjacent to. If you've got a preserve that's right on that limit, an acre, and you've got raccoons and rabbits and armadillos and that kind of stuff coming into that preserve, they're going to be into your communities. They're going to be more susceptible to being hit by vehicles, to being harassed by pets, you know, to all of those different things. So that's one of the issues with small preserves. I agree with everything that the lady from the Conservancy said in terms of the value of trees and the value of green space, but that can be done through parks, through internal green spaces, internal greenways. It doesn't have to be native preserve. And the other thing with those types of green spaces is in my experience, a lot of times you get bigger buy-off from the residents because they can be more interactive in that. A lot of times you put a preserve in a development, and it's off limits. Everybody has the impression that you have to stay out of it and stay away from it. So it's a green space, but they don't have a good ability to interact with that green space. They can walk around the outside of it, but actually to get into it and experience it is more difficult sometimes. I'm sorry. I'm rambling. I'm going off topic here and giving you my personal things. But I appreciate the change to the measurement from the root line. That makes things a lot easier and a lot less able to be fudged. And now you can't go get a trimming permit to trim your mangroves and say, okay, well, now we trimmed them; they're less than 40 feet wide. You're not allowed to trim the root, so that's a good -- you know, a good standard. I wanted to clarify; again, Mark, brought up an item, Roman Numeral III and Roman Numeral VI where it says, except as limited. I read all of Roman Number II, and it just seems like it's straight prohibitions to me, so I just think the "limited" should be "prohibited" on both of those. They brought up the -- one of the requests that I had made under iii as well was to add an E, which was to allow for administrative approval where preserves don't meet the actual dimensional standards as well October 19, 2017 Page 43 of 73 but, I mean, if that has to go through the regular public hearing, that will just be the way it is. Mark had brought up the issue with regards to if a PUD expands, there could be issues associated with this. And one of them is the example he gave: If you have an existing on-site preserve, the property you're bringing in increases -- it's going to be based on what the overall PUD requirement is. So using the example, we have a one-acre preserve in a PUD, and when you bring the property in, your preserve requirement goes up to 1.2 acres or 1.1-acre. That extra .1 acre is going to have to be provided somewhere on the site. It's going to be very small. And if the existing PUD is already built out or the existing preserve can't be built upon, you're going to be left with a very small nonviable area in the new portion of the PUD. The other example that I had thought could come up was if you have an existing PUD that had less than a half-acre requirement and already provided off site, now you bring in a new portion, and the overall site requirement now is more than a half acre but you've already done a portion of it off site; you're in definite gray area here because this says you can't go off site for more than half, and it also says it's all or nothing. So it seems like you could then say that the new portion has to provide the preserve for the entire PUD even though it's already been done off site. So that's the other example that I thought could come up in the future. I don't have an example of it, but I was just trying to think through different iterations of what could come up with that. And then I just wanted to clarify under iii as well that all of those administrative approvals are still only valid for properties that are less than a half acre of off-site preservation. The way that I read this changes is before essential services could go off site for any amount of preserve, and it seems like now you're saying that your essential services are also limited. If they have more than a half acre of preserve requirement on site, they have to do it all on site. That's the way I'm reading this. So I just wanted to clarify that that is actually, in fact, what it's saying. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we'll get that clarification from Jeremy when you finish, Tim. MR. HALL: I think that's the -- I mean, that's the extent of my comments. If I wasn't clear on anything, I'd be happy to try to explain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I think I've got a couple questions from Jeremy as a result of the comments you made, but I do just want to tell you one thing that has pushed me to try to support this limitation. Your point about trees and green space is good, but I can tell you, if you have a developer come in here now, they want to take their preserves off site, and you say, well, fine, just give us some green space on the site, we're still going to have the same problems. They don't want to release a foot of land to anything but money-making development. And I have sat on this board so long and I've heard so many excuses why it's all got to go off site, and the value that they're looking at is, well, it's got to go off site because it's not viable habitat or not this, not that. Well, you know what, it's viable green space, and green space is needed -- we even got Conservation Collier here because people really are thinking green space, not so much conservation land. And this is an ability to keep green space as much as it is to keep habitat. It happens to function for both. It works great for the environmental community. But I can tell you, if we didn't have this, to go out and tell them to replace it with green space, it isn't going to happen. I have not seen it happen in 16 years. So I like your suggestion, but it's just not practical, and this -- when we can't deal reasonably with some of the community to get this to happen as it should happen to provide better atmosphere for our citizens, then the only alternative is to make it a little harder for this to change, and that's my emphasis for trying to go this way, from my perspective at least. MR. HALL: And I don't disagree with you. I mean, I'm in the position where I'm usually having those arguments with most of the clients before they get to you also. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. MR. HALL: One thing that I would say, if you want to make it a little bit easier, is allow for the ability to put in pathways within a preserve without having it count against your preserve requirement, because if you put in a half-acre preserve and then you want to come in later to put in a pathway through there, and you want to pave it so that your ADA, you know, accessibility is taken care of and all, that pathway has to come out of the preserve calculation the way it's calculated right now. October 19, 2017 Page 44 of 73 And any animal that's in a half-acre preserve is going to use that pathway. It's not taking away from that viability. So that would be a way to improve your access to those without penalizing the owners or the homeowner. A lot of time it's the homeowners associations that would like to come in and do that later. It's not the developer that does it up front, but the homeowners association would like to do it. Putting the pathways in gets people out there, gets people looking at it. It also, then -- they notice when the exotics are getting thick or when something is going wrong. So being able to have people out there more often also would help you in terms of the maintenance of that area. So if there could be some way to allow for a portion or something of pathways for access that didn't count against that requirement, that would help as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only -- and then you're strictly talking the pathways, because what happens with the preservations now? They have their own sections in most of the PUDs, and here are the standards, and they list the allowable uses, and they all seem benign, passive recreation uses, but they're including gazebos and conning towers so they can watch, supposedly, birdlife. And so it's always getting bigger. Every time we give an inch, it's two miles, three miles, four miles. It's huge. And that's what's happened with uses of preserves. We're adding so much now to the preserves, that I don't -- I can understand your argument about the pathways, but I can see the next alternative. They'll come in with pathways going crisscross across the whole preserve and say, well, we're allowed to put preserves -- the pathways and they don't count anymore. So I don't know how to -- I don't know how to stop what's happening in regards to the exaggeration of the rules, and that's gone -- and lately it's gotten even worse. And, Tim, I'm reluctant to think we need to be more flexible when every time we try to be strict, it turns out to be flexible when we don't intend it to be. So I'm -- you know, I'm a little concerned about it all. Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I would agree. So, that the old adage, you give an inch, they take a mile. But I think Tim is correct, could we not say like a 5 percent or 2 percent? No more than 2 percent -- MR. HALL: I would make the number even smaller than that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Make it -- I don't know what. MR. HALL: I mean, I haven't run the numbers in my head, but figure if you've got a half-acre preserve, that's roughly 100 by 200 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. MR. HALL: So if you go a short path through that, or let's say a long path. If you go a 200-foot pathway that's four-foot wide, that's 800 square feet. What's 800 divided by 2,100 (sic)? That's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: About 5 percent, something like that, I think, something like that. Yeah, less than 5. About 4 percent. MR. HALL: About 4 percent. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I mean, I would not have a problem -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: I wouldn't either. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- saying less than -- no less than 2 percent or 3 percent or whatever you want to say. MR. HALL: And if you do -- I mean, and I was going the long way. If you do the short way, it's less. I mean, I think if you said 2 percent or 3 percent, you would cover anything that would come up. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You know, if we get into gazebos and parking areas and raised pathways and ADA requirements. MR. HALL: And, again -- COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: That's the problem. MR. HALL: -- I'm talking about -- COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Boardwalks and stuff. MR. HALL: You know, it works good on small preserves. If you say 2 percent of a Mirasol preserve, which is 1,100 acres, then all of a sudden you're saying, well, we can do something on -- you know, on 20 acres out there. That becomes problematic. I understand your angst, but I just would like to see some kind of ability to utilize those areas. October 19, 2017 Page 45 of 73 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Go ahead. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mr. Chairman, I have one comment. So, Tim, I'm with you. I look around at a lot of communities, and I see some of these preserves and areas, and I agree wholeheartedly with also what Mark Strain was saying, and several other commissioners. When you mentioned pathways, and your idea is a good idea because you hit one key thing that I heard, which was the wildlife can potentially share a path you're talking about. How do we differentiate to make sure that path is accessible, unlike a boardwalk where humans can walk on it and I'm walking through a wooded area and it's beautiful, go to a gazebo, but none of the wildlife's going to get to enjoy that raised-up boardwalk area. See, my -- I mean, that's -- when you mentioned pathways, is there some differentiation where you're talking about on the ground where all little critters and armadillos and things and deer can use the same path, or if it's raised up, they can't? MR. HALL: Well, it would depend on the habitat, really. If you're going through scrub habitat, a boardwalk, you know, may be appropriate because there are some issues associated with people, you know, on -- walking off into scrub habitat. Some of the plants are really susceptible to compaction and all. So a boardwalk might not be a bad idea, and you'd want to elevate it a little bit so that your tortoises and everything can go under it. A deer is going to jump over, you know, most of them. If you're in wetlands or you have a swamp area, then an elevated boardwalk, you know, makes sense. It's the only way you're going to be able to do something like that. So they're all going to be very site specific and site dependent. And, actually, boardwalks -- I'm not sure. If you do an elevated boardwalk, I'm not sure if they count that against you or not. Summer could clarify that. But I know that if you do an actual on-ground pathway that limits the growth, the vegetation, then it is counted against you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anything else of Tim? Go ahead, Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. Just -- when I was talking about habitat, most scientist deal with hectares, 300 -- a 100 meter by 100 meter, 300 feet by 300 feet, 1,000 square feet, two-and-a-half acres, that's about a hectare. There was a study done a couple of decades ago where they took one hectare isolated parcel, a 10 hectare, 100 hectare, 1,000 hectare, and then they compared it to what was inside a forest of the same size. And the computer could always tell that they were dealing with an isolated parcel or inside the forest. So you're not really preserving habitat even at the very small areas. Now, what you do with the small area is the edge effect, which is you change the light and the humidity and the access. The edge effect goes partway into the parcel. So if you have a parcel that's only 50 feet wide and 400 feet long, you're going to lose the whole parcel to edge effect, which probably around here may go in 25 or 50 feet. You totally change the habitat. You change even the flora that's in there, not just the fauna. The fauna disappear completely, so... MR. HALL: Yeah. Even the bio/geo chemistry of the soils and all can change along those edges. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. So I see your point about the two acres, but I still go back to I don't think we should allow it at all. Just -- you know, all we're doing is preserving trees. Okay. So we're preserving trees. You know, it's green space, and I think by running paths through it, you're not going to disturb a whole lot of the native fauna, because it's just not going to be there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I would like to get this wrapped up. We have -- this is the sixth meeting on these few pages. I am tired of hearing it. Tim, you had five opportunities to come to us, and you wait to the eleventh hour, and we're going to be limited on what we can change today. MR. HALL: And I told you I have been out of town at every one of those meetings, so I do apologize. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got your priorities, you know? MR. HALL: I do. And I don't have an issue with this. There were some clarifications that I wanted to make. I understand why you guys are doing it and the direction you're trying to go. I just -- you know, like I said, I just wanted to -- the GMP question, I think, is important. That one, I think, does need to be October 19, 2017 Page 46 of 73 addressed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I've got some followup to your points, and I appreciate it, and I think we're done with your discussion, if you don't mind. Okay. Jeremy, three points. When you wrote this, did you have any input from the Comprehensive Planning Department, GMP Department? MR. FRANTZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're okay with what you've wrote? MR. FRANTZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have -- did you have any review by anybody that deals with some of the larger essential services needs, like Mike Sawyer in planning for transportation, or Trinity or somebody like that? Because this will affect essential services. And I'm not sure, based on the comment that Tim had, that that's been thought out or if they've weighed in on it. MR. FRANTZ: They may have had some input early -- maybe two years ago or something, I don't recall, but on this draft that you're looking at today, I don't believe we did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Did they have any input on the size of the preserve that could be taken off site? Because right now, how is essential services regulated in regards to off-site preserves? MR. FRANTZ: The existing language allows for essential service facilities other than parks for any size preserve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's my concern. I mean, basically we would be entrapping our essential services operations in Collier County if we -- and that's a good point that Tim brought out. If we left it in under triple i, like it is, they'd be restricted to half acre. And I'm not sure that's the right thing to do when we've got road systems and piping and everything going -- it's going to have to go out to the rural area to service all the new facilities and densities that are going to go out there. Summer, did you have something you want to add? MS. ARAQUE: Summer Araque, for the record. I don't think that roadways would even be included in this. I mean -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then roadways are not considered essential services? MS. ARAQUE: Right-of-way -- roads that are built -- public roads that are built don't have to provide a preserve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. Then what about the essential services for piping and things that -- utilities that go through -- that have to go alongside the roads in the utility easements outside the right-of-ways? MS. ARAQUE: Outside of the right-of-way that would be on some type of adjacent project? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you've got PUEs on most all your roadway systems on the sides of them, 10 feet outside the right-of-way. How are those addressed? MS. ARAQUE: That does not require a preserve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then we're good. MS. ARAQUE: So you're looking at a parcel -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then I don't have an issue. Tim, I don't think there's an issue. MS. ARAQUE: Yeah. I mean, you would be looking at a project, like some type of parcels that we think of typically not along the roadway, but an actual project like a sewer plant or -- MR. BOSI: Like a wastewater treatment. MS. ARAQUE: -- or something like that. What's that? MR. BOSI: Like a wastewater treatment facility. MS. ARAQUE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that's good. MS. ARAQUE: In those cases I think what they've typically done is they've provided the preserve on site. So if they wanted to do different, they would need a deviation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're telling me they don't come under this; I'm fine with that. That's all I needed to know. October 19, 2017 Page 47 of 73 This next thing is -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Go ahead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- the idea concerning the pathways that Tim brought up. Is there a desire for any, say, nonimpact for a certain percentage of pathways? I think it does have a problem when you get into the larger size preserves because we're not going to be doing a ratio. It's something brought up kind of late in the game, and maybe it could be looked at later on, but I don't know if it's that important for what we're dealing with today. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Can -- that's where I wanted to come in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER EBERT: It was with Summer, because I had talked to her about this. I believe Autumn Woods has a pathway through their woods. I'm finding people are more active. They're getting away from the golf. They would rather have walking paths in the preserve, not the gazebos and these boardwalks or everything, but for bird watching, animal watching, they -- they just seem -- would like to walk through some of these. So it's been brought to me several times, and I know I had talked to Summer on this, too. And I believe you're right, that they do take that away, and it really shouldn't be for these little ones. MR. FRANTZ: I think that regardless of what the Planning Commission's desire is regarding the use of preserves, it's probably a separate amendment. It wouldn't really belong in this section since we're only dealing with the off-site preserve program in this section. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. MR. FRANTZ: You know, we can always bring up that evaluation as a part of a separate amendment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. I'd rather take it off the table and not bog this thing down anymore. Okay. Anybody else had any questions of staff, anybody at all? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other members of the public who have not spoken on this matter that would like to? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we have reached a point where we have a series of changes made by Jeremy today. We've heard input from a couple different members of the public. They're basically based on some of the followup. I'm not sure there needs to be any changes. Does anybody on this panel have any suggested changes to any of the language? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, is there a motion to approve with the recommendations or changes made by -- presented to us today by Jeremy in the draft staff proposal? Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I make a motion that we approve as proffered to this panel. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Point of information. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Were we going to add language that we saw this as a short-term solution or some other language to assure that we come back with a full-fledged consideration of the GMP? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was a note I was going to bring up is that in the discussion we should include as part of the motion to the Board a recommendation to revisit the GMP language concerning this issue, and that will leave it open to anything we would want to do. Go ahead, Mike. MR. BOSI: And I guess what I'm looking for is consideration for a GMP amendment to the Board of County Commissioners regarding the prohibition of off-site preserve -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes. MR. BOSI: -- because I heard the Planning Commission recognize that there was viability of small -- of allowing off site when it -- under certain circumstances. There was a five-minute dialogue where October 19, 2017 Page 48 of 73 you had identified that in certain circumstances that it was justified to have off-site preserve. So what would we be asking the Board of County Commissioners we want to consider? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The Planning Commission would want them to look at the possibility of eliminating any off-site preserves. I think that's the direction -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that some of the members of the Planning Commission -- it's not something -- right now we're supporting this because there's a practical application that not all preserves are going to work. MR. BOSI: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So this provides some flexibility. But there are members of this panel that would like to suggest maybe we need to revisit the GMP to eliminate the possibility of off-site preserves and possibly clear up the language with a multitude of options that there seems to be by some people's interpretations. MR. BOSI: So the Planning Commission is making -- or voting on whether they want to eliminate that flexibility in the future at the GMP level? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know if we've weighed in on that. I just think we're asking the Board to consider it. Right now I don't think -- I think it would be impractical to eliminate 100 percent of preserves from going off site. I think you are going to have cases where we're going to need to say a half acre -- up to a half acre is allowed for various reasons that are stated here. If we say 100 percent no, that's taking a pretty hard stance. Now, I don't disagree that we need it. But when you take it to the development community and you say, no more, not at all, zero, zilch under any condition, that might be a hard sell. At least this provides some flexibility. So I'm not necessarily thinking we need to go that route, but it's a question brought up, and I'm trying to make sure everybody on this Planning Commission has a say before it goes to the Board. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I don't support any -- I think allowance for off-site preserve at a limited quantity is acceptable. I would not support a GMP amendment that would prohibit it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then as we -- the, motion, then, would be to support the language presented today and not make a recommendation on any changes to the GMP. Is that the -- and I think this panel needs to understand that so we get the right vote. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Yes. MR. BOSI: So we're asking the Board of County Commissioners for staff to bring back an evaluation of the current preservation requirements at the GMP level for consideration from the Planning Commission? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're not there yet. I'm trying to vocalize that. Your statements and our discussion is what we're getting to. I think Joe and Patrick have weighed in; what we're providing is what probably needs to be the minimum basis, and not eliminate it completely. I haven't heard from the rest of you. Then we'll -- Stan, do you have any -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Since I made the second, I would support prohibiting off-site preserves completely, but I will back Joe's -- I will still second Joe's motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I think Joe's motion had built into it a disapproval on the part of this board to consider GMP amendments. Did I mishear? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No. I made a motion to approve this amendment as written. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Just as written, okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: As written. And as far as any discussion on the GMP, I would prefer that be a separate -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Understood. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- vote -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. That's fine. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- because I don't think it has anything to do with this amendment. October 19, 2017 Page 49 of 73 COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, I agree. You're right, because of what we've heard in the past where we can either pay you, give you other land or something, it's getting to be too much of the "we just take it off site." I don't like that either, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'm good with just voting on this the way it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So I'd like to ask that the motion maker rephrase the motion and have the second affirm that the motion's phrased properly, and we'll take a vote on it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I make a motion that we approve as written with the modifications as discussed today, this LDC amendment, as proposed and presented to the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Motion made and seconded and, specifically, it does not mention any reference to the GMP, so it would not be part of the motion. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor of the motion as read, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. Jeremy, you're done. Mike, it's simpler. You're all set. Okay. Thank you. That gets us to the last item on today's agenda, which I need to have a discussion with this panel real quick on how you want to do -- what you want to do for lunch. It would be nice if we could finish up by two o'clock to help our court reporter, who is so patient with us most of the time. We have the AUIR to discuss. I'd like to suggest we take a shorter break for lunch, say till 12:30. That's like 20 minutes, 23 minutes. Then we come back at 12:30, and we just focus on and get done with the AUIR with the point of getting done by two o'clock. Is that okay with everybody? COMMISSIONER FRYER: There will still be one or two agenda items. Are we going to push those? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I'm sorry. You're right. We do -- we've got CCPC officers, the comparable/compatible discussion or direction to staff, and then your neighborhood information meeting stuff. So we will not make it by two o'clock, Terri. I can't see that happening now. We've got to give the court reporter a break for at least 10 minutes. So if we do that and we just keeping plugging away, I don't mind. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Keep plugging away. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So let's take a break. We'll come back at 20 after 12 and resume the meeting. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: We could always talk faster. (A brief recess was had.) MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mike. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Everybody, welcome back from the break. We are going to try to move through the AUIR in an efficient manner. It's Item 9D. It's PL20170000596/CPSP-2017-1. October 19, 2017 Page 50 of 73 This is a Comprehensive Planning Department's presentation. Mike Bosi's here. I have -- and I'm sure the Planning Commission has read all of the -- let me see how many pages this great little chapter was -- all 262 pages. I'm going to ask, unless someone on the Planning Commission specifically requests it, that the departments that are here not make a formal presentation, assume we've read it, and we'll focus on the questions. There are new people here, first time around, and if they want presentations, we will go forward with that. We are pressed for time, so as some of the planning staff has learned, short responses and staff presentations are sometimes greatly appreciated. Mike, it's all yours. MR. BOSI: Thank you, Chairman Strain. I appreciate those comments. Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning Director. What we are here to review is your Annual Update and Inventory Report as well as your update to your Capital Improvement Element. This is a process that is unique to this county in the sense that we not only talk about the facilities that make up our concurrency management system, which are our Category A facilities, but also our Category B facilities such as libraries, EMS, law enforcement, government buildings, which are non-regulatory in terms of your concurrency management system, but also important to the community, and that's what this document is designed to do. It's designed to protect the sense of place that Collier County has developed. Every single one of these infrastructure providers have a level of service associated with them, and those levels of service are designed to be maintained. The things that have attracted our residents to Collier County, the services that are available, this document ensures that those services will be maintained at a level that they're familiar with and what attracted them to the county in the first place. And how do we do that? Well, like I said, we've identified a level of service for each one of our providers, and those level of services are compared against our population. And it's our permanent population growth that maintains the rate in terms of which we have to provide for the expansion of our infrastructure in our services. And if you look at the visualizer, the last six years have provided a pretty consistent, steady predictable rate of growth, the lowest being 1.65 percent annual up to the current 1.97 percent. That just under 2 percent level of growth has allowed for a predictable, steady, measured expansion of our population, and the systems to service that population has followed suit. Within the -- within the capital improvement element, the AUIR today, you're going to see the major projects, and I'm going to give just an overview of the major projects that are coming through. Within your transportation component, in FY'18, Golden Gate Boulevard from 20th Street to Everglades Boulevard, and then starting in '20 -- or in '21, the Vanderbilt Beach extension. Those are the two major components. There's other projects that are identified, but those would be considered the major. From your stormwater management section, your Golden Gate City, Naples Park, and the Goodlette-Frank area are the three major areas of improvement. And for your park system, I think most people would be familiar with the sports -- sports complex that is being proposed within CityGate. It's a 110-acre addition. Within law enforcement, you have two substations, District 1 and District 5, that are in need of replacement for their existing facilities because of age. And then within libraries, we have our traditional yearly library collections which were individual materials, books, DVDs, and other materials. And then, finally, EMS. EMS has three proposed new substations: Hacienda Lakes, DeSoto Boulevard, and Immokalee and 951. Those are the major projects that are contained within the books. Also within the books, and the Planning Commission in the past has found value within it, is the usage, usage of our library facilities, of the parks, of the other facilities that gives us some documentation of how well in the -- how well the general public is providing access -- is provided access and services related to the infrastructure provider. And that helps evaluate whether you think that the level of service that we have established for any one of our infrastructure providers is adequate or maybe needs adjustment. October 19, 2017 Page 51 of 73 And that's another thing that we ask the Planning Commission: To review the proposal not only for the projects but whether we think that the level of service that we're providing to the community is at an adequate length -- or an adequate level. With that, that's my overview of the book. We do have five pages that have been changed out from the books that you received. And Corby will just give a real brief description. The changes are relatively minor, but just for clarity's sake, we just wanted to show that within Page 56 on the stormwater management system, it was a revised map to update the basin boundaries to coincide consistent with Figure 5; solid waste disposal facilities, Page 94, it was a slight description change in terms of the hazardous management -- hazardous waste and collection; and then coastal zone had three pages, 214, 215, and 216, in which the only change that's substantial is adding funding to the resiliency program. It doesn't alter or affect any of the projects or proposals being put forward, but we're just updating documentation of some of the information that's contained within the individual sections. As the Chair had stated, we had no planned presentations from any one of our providers, but we're here to answer any questions the Planning Commission would have on any of the sections or any of the content of the AUIR. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I would like to start the AUIR in order. That seems -- there's 262 pages and, basically, if we take each element in order for questions from the Planning Commission, that might be the most expeditious way to get through this. And so, Mike, I think either you or I, the first facility is transportation, and it's on page -- electronic Page 14. So let's start with that. And if anybody has any questions from the transportation aspect, now would be the time to bring it up. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I just have a general question. Has Irma affected the AUIR at all? MR. BOSI: Irma has had no bearing upon the AUIR. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay, thanks. MR. BOSI: Other than it was supposed to be heard October 5th. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Quick. MR. SCHMITT: How about -- in followup to that question, how about capacity at the landfill? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That will be under the solid waste discussion. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. But he asked a general question. I would assume there would, as an impact in the landfill. But we'll discuss it when we talk. MR. BOSI: Well, has Irma affected any of the facilities covered within the AUIR? Most certainly. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. MR. BOSI: The projects being proposed within this AUIR will have no material effects from the storm. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. But it will -- MR. BOSI: Understood, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: If it impacted the projections that we show for the landfill or some other things, then we ought to at least be aware of that. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else on transportation? COMMISSIONER EBERT: No. Could I make an observation, though? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's up to you. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Coming down Logan between Vanderbilt Beach Road and Pine Ridge Road, I believe the county has asked the people to put the debris out on Collier County property. That is an area that floods. And I see that most of the people threw it right in the swale. And that kind of bothers me because that area floods anyway. And they just plain just threw it out there, and they're blocking the swale area. It's just an observation that I've seen recently. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, which segues nicely into stormwater management. Does anybody have any transportation? Go ahead, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: When we hear applications for amendments of various kind, PUD amendments and the like, the capacity of the adjoining roadways is a very important consideration and, in October 19, 2017 Page 52 of 73 fact, I think there's a provision in the GMP and other documents to the effect that the Board of County Commissioners cannot approve applications unless certain criteria are met relating to the AUIR. As we -- when we hear these applications, frequently neighbors and property owners and others will stand up and, anecdotal though it might be, they nonetheless will report to us the extreme difficulties they have in morning rush hour and the like and the bottlenecks that occur adjoining these properties. My question is, is there a way, Mike, for your people to capture and evaluate these comments that are made in relation to the AUIR? I know that you capture and evaluate it in relation to the individual amendment that may be before us, but what about the broader thing, the AUIR? MR. BOSI: And at the rezoning level, there is a courtesy concurrency check against roadways, against all public facilities. And when the transportation planner reviews the individual PUD, they will check the influence of the trips that are being generated by that project against the available roadway capacity of all the roads that will be influenced by that project to extend out towards which it will reach. And then there's an evaluation as to whether it's going to create a level-of-service issue related to any one of those individual roadways. And if there is, then that's when they will let the Planning Commission know and the Board of County Commissioners and the developer know that a proportionate-share arrangement would have to be made to address whatever deficiency that that project would create against any one of the systems, in this case being the road system. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's project specific -- MR. BOSI: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- and I'm glad that happens. My question, though, is broader: Is there a point of connectivity between the comments that we hear from residents and neighbors in these project application meetings and the overall AUIR planning process? MR. BOSI: Oh, absolutely. COMMISSIONER FRYER: It's not project specific? MR. BOSI: No, absolutely. The AUIR establishes the checkbook for the road system for any one given year. And the projects that are being proposed dictate what the volume capacity is for any of the road systems, any one of those segments. So when a project comes in, it's reviewed against the overall system that's established by your Annual Update and Inventory Report. So it establishes the maximum amount of trips that are available within any one road segment, and then that project is reviewed against that overall system to see how it fits in terms of its capacity. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm maybe not asking this question properly, and I apologize. I'll try one more time. When 100 neighbors come in on a particular project and say that the traffic at a certain point on Logan or Vanderbilt or someplace else is just hideous in the morning and they offer time frame -- they say it takes me an hour and a half to do this and this and this, is there -- is there a point of connectivity between these comments and the AUIR process? MS. SCOTT: For the record, Trinity Scott, Transportation Planning manager. First and foremost the level of service that you see in your AUIR is based on the p.m. peak. So when we hear things come up from the developments, from the neighbors, certainly we go back, we take a look at it, and then they might become specific projects that come under line items that are within the AUIR, such as our traffic operations folks. So we certainly take that feedback back and take a look at it, because most of the time the issues that you're hearing about from the neighborhoods are operational in nature and not capacity in nature. Turn lanes need to be lengthened, turn lanes may need to be added, signal timing may need to be adjusted. So, yes, we take that back to our traffic operations folks and look at that. And it's analyzed again when they come in during their SDPs. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That does answer my questions, I think, that there is connectivity between the broader AUIR process and individual complaints or comments that are made before us at project meetings. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any transportation-related questions or October 19, 2017 Page 53 of 73 comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's move on to stormwater, which is on Page 29 of this packet, and it goes to about Page 56. It's more detailed this year than it has been in the past. I do appreciate that from the Stormwater Management Department. Does anybody have any questions about the stormwater section of this particular presentation? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I do notice there's a deficit. Go ahead, Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The only question I had, and I didn't see it in this, there is a discussion of a stormwater tax, but that's not included in any of these analyses other -- there is a deficit. That deficit is noted, but there's no calculations which anticipate any type of a tax revenue, stormwater management tax, I guess, or -- MR. BOSI: Yeah. The stormwater section has not been -- does not try to anticipate whether the Board of County Commissioners will adopt a stormwater utility or green tax, as it's been termed. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And my comment was similar to Joe's. I noticed a deficit shows up there. I notice that we didn't go to impact fees mostly because the stormwater systems that need to be repaired are those that are existing. We can't use impact fees for those. And I noticed that it hasn't been termed a tax in which the presentation was made to the Board. It's a stormwater fee. How do they word it? Utility -- yeah. They purposely said, oh, no, it's not a tax. Well, any time government charges, it's a tax. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, regardless, Amy, I don't want to get elaborate. Just, was it considered a tax, or did you guys word it as something else? MS. PATTERSON: No, specifically it's a fee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I thought. MS. PATTERSON: Stormwater utility fee. And the reason is the nexus, similar to impact fees. I know that there are people of the opinion that impact fees are a tax; however, in order for them to be a fee is because of that benefit relationship between the person that pays the fee and what they receive from the fee. MR. KLATZKOW: It's a disguised tax. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh. And I -- you know, there's so many of them, I just -- this is another one to add to the pile. MR. KLATZKOW: That's what it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that's all I needed to know. Thank you. MS. PATTERSON: No problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there anybody else that has any stormwater questions? Stan's resisting. He's holding back. The next item on Page 56 is county water/sewer district potable water system. I don't know if anybody has any questions on that. I don't have any. And then we move to the county water/sewer district wastewater treatment system. I think the only issue there is, can someone explain what the issue was during the hurricane with the issue of the lift stations not operating? We didn't have generators. We had some problem with the DEP because we didn't report something. I'd just like to know how that factors into any needs of the upcoming year so we don't have this every time we have a hurricane. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Can I explain something? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: After the last hurricane before this, we did a little calculation, and when you sum up the volume of all the pipe, all the manholes and the lift station and the number of people that are on each system, within 48 hours -- and you can correct me on this -- almost every one of them fills up totally. October 19, 2017 Page 54 of 73 And what happens is the road has a hump and sump design, so the sewage starts coming out the manhole at the lowest point, which is always the point nearest the catch basin. It goes right down the road and through a very short stretch of valley gutter because some of these systems are, you know, half of a mile long. It finds the very lowest catch basin, and it goes down into the catch basin and right into a retention area or a lake. I would stake my professional reputation that almost all 800 of your systems on lift stations probably passed some sewage during the event, and the only ones you know about are the ones that were reported. Now, during Charley they were reported -- well, they were fixed quickly because most of us were without power only about four days. This time I was without power 12 days. You guys had a generator out at our site for a long time. The original concept after that was you would take so many generators, and even though it takes two days to fill up, it only takes about three or four hours to empty the system down. So you would use the generator to empty it down, and then you would move the generator to the next area, and you would pump that one down, and you would have enough manpower in generators to keep doing that. But that -- I don't think that took into affect 800 lift stations and the manpower that it would take with the 24-hour shift, three times the number, you know, that would work any time during the day. So everybody was simply overwhelmed. In our division -- and they say there's no answer to that, and they're probably right. But in our subdivision, we've been looking at the Generac propane powered generators. Unless we can get some kind of liquefied natural gas or natural gas piped in, we were looking at the generator -- the Generac generators, which in the order of -- we have a one-phase station and a three-phase station. They're both less than 10 kilowatts, and we could put in two Generac stations for $75 a unit if we prorated it among everybody that lives there. We could service ourselves and actually pump our sewage off site. The problem is, you're manifolded with a bunch of other stations that might not be doing that, and our sewage might be coming out somebody else's manhole, which we may not care about, really, but somebody does. So that's the bottom-line problem. It is just there are too many systems, and you have to do something or else you can turn off the water, which is not a great idea. So I will let you talk. Did I say anything wrong? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you answer, though, apparently I must have misphrased my question, because it wouldn't have taken all that information to answer my question. We had a whole bunch of lift stations that weren't fired up with generators as they may have planned to have been. I don't know what the reason was, but I didn't see any money in here that specifically said we're going to need more generators and here is the number. Are you going to buy more generators? Are we going to have this problem again? That's all I need to know. MS. JOHNSSEN: I'm Beth Johnssen, the Waste Division director. The answer, or the short answer is yes, we will be purchasing some more generators; however, putting a generator on every lift station isn't the ultimate solution, as Stan pointed out. I couldn't have explained it any better than that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I wouldn't expect it to be. I just wanted to make sure that -- if we weren't as prepared as we could be, as your department figured into its budget, to be better prepared by whatever needs we need to be by the time this budget becomes realized. MS. JOHNSSEN: Well, we can always do things better. So, again, I think going into this after-action review and the workshop, we need to look at maybe a multi-pronged approach where the solution isn't just a generator at every station. It's the management of that and maybe some policies in place, how we're going to address that in the future. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think Stan's -- one of the points he brought up, I think, is well understood, that you don't need a generator full time at each lift station. You need to rotate them. So my assumption was just that because of the storm, you all have now taken into effect where our deficiencies are, and some of this budget is going to hopefully resolve those issues for the next reason. MS. JOHNSSEN: Well, best management practices dictate normally 10 percent of your stations October 19, 2017 Page 55 of 73 should have an alternative pumping supply of some sort. And we do currently have that. But, again, it's a number of practices that need to be employed at the same time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: So we are taking Irma into effect, into account? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what it sounds like. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the -- Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But just -- and, Beth, just to highlight. And, Dan, I think the email conversation you and I had, we were discussing just back and forth about the AUIR. 98 percent of the county was without power at a given point in time, which essentially says almost 100 percent of your system was down. MS. JOHNSSEN: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I just offer, we don't build the church for Easter Sunday. We build the church for what our normal capacity is. Using that analogy for lift stations, I think it would be cost prohibitive to try and plan for a 98 percent failure rate again and having generators. I know there's been very learned individuals who have been providing input in the paper about what the county should do, but it is cost prohibitive to try and have that many generators. MS. JOHNSSEN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I was involved when the federal response plan first came out in the Army Corps of Engineers, and we had the emergency power. Part of that requirement was FEMA set up a facility outside of Atlanta for generators, but that was to service the entire country and deploy generators. For you to stockpile -- how many lift stations do you have? MS. JOHNSSEN: We have 800 -- I believe it's 820 now. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So let's say you want to stockpile 200 generators. I mean, that's very costly, and there is a tradeoff between how long the system is down or do I have generators to power the system. And you guys can make that determination with the Board. MS. JOHNSSEN: Correct. And it really is more than just having a generator or thinking of it as a generator at every pump station, because just because we have a generator and we've powered that station, when the system is surcharged, as Stan was indicating and there's -- the pipe is full, hydraulics just aren't going to allow you to continue to pump it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. MS. JOHNSSEN: So it's a multi-faceted solution. It's not just going to be that simple. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And I know you deployed -- did they come from outside the county, the sewage trucks that were moving sewage? MS. JOHNSSEN: They did, yes. We have -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I mean, you don't have that many in the county. MS. JOHNSSEN: No, we have a regular emergency response contractor that is committed to producing 20 trucks within a certain time period. But we did, we deployed over 100 pumper trucks. They came from all over, as far away as New Jersey, to come down and work for us, and over 100 generators as well, so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I mean, it's a complicated issue, quite honestly, because -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I know. Just -- all I wanted to make -- people -- everybody has been aware there's been some issues with the lift stations. I just wanted acknowledgment for the record that you all were -- you realize that and your budget is being adjusted to accommodate where you can. COMMISSIONER EBERT: It's called a fee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's all I was looking for. MS. JOHNSSEN: Yes. We are looking at it, and it's a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't mean this. MS. JOHNSSEN: Again, it's something that's got to be cost effective as well, so... COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Beth? October 19, 2017 Page 56 of 73 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I wouldn't have doubted that a bit, but thank you. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Do you think our solution of installing two Generacs for $75 a unit is cost prohibitive? MS. JOHNSSEN: In the -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: If everyone of our size were to do it. To me that's not -- what would it take for us to be able to do that? Would you have to look at it? Would you have to review it? MS. JOHNSSEN: Certainly. Again, there's a number of stations that are private stations, and then there are the stations that we run as well. So, you know, as far as -- I think there are a lot of things that could be changed as far as requiring, for instance, a generator or a certain response at private stations, and then if a community is interested in -- you know, I don't know whether it be an MSBU or assessing themselves for a generator, we could certainly help you with that. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Again, I go back to the point, like even you said, if we start pumping against the system that's full, we're going to force it out somewhere else. MS. JOHNSSEN: Correct. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And unless the system systemwide is geared up for this, just doing one or two little changes is not -- it could cause other problems. MS. JOHNSSEN: It could. You solve the solution (sic) in one community, but as you indicated, that the system's manifolded together, so you could just be forcing it into some other place. So it's not a simple solution, and there will be a number of things that could contribute to, perhaps, better results next time. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions, comments on wastewater? Did you have something you want to add? MR. FEY: Yes, if you don't mind me. I'm just expanding on what Beth said. For the record, my name is Eric Fey. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not sure, what do you want to -- I don't know if we have any more questions. MR. FEY: Well, it was related to your question. I just wanted to mention our community pump station standards. We've got about 10 community pump stations in our ownership currently that have permanent standby power generation or permanent standby diesel pumps. And every new subdivision that comes in, or new development, is subject to these new standards that went into effect January 1st of 2015. So the situation is improving as time goes on, that those permanent measures are in place. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Do you think diesel is the way to go? MR. FEY: Well, Craig Pajer isn't here to speak to that, but we had quite a bit of discussion about that when the community pump station standards were developed, that natural gas isn't reliable because they can lose pressure, and then we don't have standby power. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah, but diesel means you have to keep the fuel so it doesn't start -- you know, we're a warm temperature down here. That fuel can start getting microscopic growth in it and things like that happening. You still think it's the way to go; okay. MR. FEY: That's part of the operations of those pump stations. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anything else before we move to solid waste? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Solid waste, Dan, I don't care what the letters to the editors say, I don't care about the emails I get. You guys are doing the best job ever, and we are so thankful you are in this county. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So, I mean, I'm so tired of hearing the complainers when all they've got to do is go across the water a little bit and see a country called Puerto Rico. They want to see what life's really tough like? We've got the best we could ever have in Collier County, and you're a big part of that, so thank you for all you and your department does. October 19, 2017 Page 57 of 73 And I don't have any questions of you other than to point out on your second page, estimated life of the landfill, 50 years. When I got here, it was impending doom. We were looking for a place out east, and you've turned it around, you and some of your predecessors, but mostly you guys. You guys just do a fabulous job. I can't think of anything we could have -- I could say better about you. So thank you for all you do for Collier County. MR. RODRIGUEZ: For the record, Dan Rodriguez, your deputy department head, Public Utilities. Chairman Strain, thank you for your support and comments. And it actually truly is a team effort, not only the team members in solid waste who get out and inspect businesses -- Delia's going to give you some -- if we may, some facts about how many businesses we inspected this year, but also to truly preserve that landfill airspace and look at it as a commodity and a resource, because it is, because once that landfill's filled up, where do we put our waste. Most importantly, what are we doing to stop filling it up, and that's the recycling that she's going to speak to. But if I may talk about those generators, deployments, lift stations, we all -- I think we have to put it in. A perspective a Category 4 hurricane, the flooding that was here in Collier County, remember those lift stations, the 820, as Beth stated, they have manholes that lead to those lift stations and those pipes. They were sucking in water from the flooding. They're under water. So to manage the deluge that were in those pipes, according to our contractor, who's one of the biggest in the industries, this was the largest deployment of generators of any storm that they've been engaged with, and they worked Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Sandy. So if you could understand the magnitude that it took to bring that under control, so it was a huge event, but thank you. With that, I'd like to introduce Delia Camacho. She is our interim solid waste director, and she prepared the AUIR this year, and she's just going to give you some facts, some really great milestones that we've achieved with recycling. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. CAMACHO: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Just brief highlights on the recycling initiatives for the department. We were certified 66 percent recycling rate from FDEP this year. That's three percentage points higher than what we had last year. Currently, we've also dedicated staff to concentrate on the recycling -- commercial recycling efforts, and we've actually inspected 3,700 businesses last year. We intend on increasing those inspections this year to get that recycling going for the commercial businesses. We've also worked really hard to develop advertising campaigns, digital ads for businesses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pull this a little closer to you. MS. CAMACHO: Sorry. We've also worked really hard to establish advertising campaigns for businesses. We did digital ads, and we also did -- we've done a couple of mail-outs with our inserts with the Public Utilities billing, and we've partnered with the Tax Collector's Office as well to go ahead and get the word out, spread the word on recycling and what they need to do. Our initiatives continue. They will continue to grow. Programs will continue to be enhanced this year going forward to continue to raise that recycling rate and reduce the amount of waste that goes into the landfill. Oh, we also have the northeast recycling center coming on board hopefully by February. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Again, I appreciate all you guys are doing. I'm sure we all do. And it's just great. So -- MS. CAMACHO: Thank you so much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- anybody else? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I just want to ask -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Dan, did -- and it has to do with debris pickup, since you already discussed it. Did you get approval for gated communities yet, or is -- just out of curiosity. We've already cleaned up our street. I'm taken care of. But I'm just curious, has that been approved and -- MR. RODRIGUEZ: We've got the initial approval, but we have to get some clarification. We put October 19, 2017 Page 58 of 73 the request in about three weeks ago. We got a response, and they stated we can go into private roads and gated communities. They didn't specifically state gated communities; however, there's language in there that allows us to go into those, and we're getting clarification from them on that. And as soon as we get it, within the next week, we'll plan to schedule those. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: There's gated community that have public roads. Typically they're funded by CDD bonds, so those -- MR. RODRIGUEZ: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- are essentially public streets -- MR. RODRIGUEZ: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- which is different than a private street in a gated community, and sometimes we don't delineate between the two. MR. RODRIGUEZ: That's correct. However, as you know, with the FEMA guidelines, there's about four different pieces of criteria that you have to meet. One, do you provide waste collection? Do you have fire, police service? Is access to the roadways free to the public or open to the public? That's the one area we want to get clarified from them. And we don't anticipate hearing a negative answer, but we'll get back to you on that. But to answer your question about the landfill and the impact from Hurricane Irma, we are actually diverting the waste out of the Collier County Landfill. The horticultural waste gets processed, and working with FDEP, our contractor finds farmlands where they can use that for soil stabilizer. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Most of that is horticulture then? MR. RODRIGUEZ: That's correct. And the C and D material, large amounts that we got from Everglades City, Goodland, and Chokoloskee, that was sent to Okeechobee landfill. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Again, probably with the power off you must have dealt with a significant increase in waste from refrigerators. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Refrigerators and freezers. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Absolutely. The week after the storm -- our normal collection per day -- as you know, we do about 39,000 collections a day here in Collier County to get to the 115,000 residents. Our normal collection is about 340 tons a day. We were averaging 1,200 tons -- I'm sorry -- 1,200 tons a day, which is substantial. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, the bottom line, really, it was an impact, but nothing to change your projections here? MR. RODRIGUEZ: No, absolutely. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I've got a question for Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Our community went in, and we're going to get assessed quite a bit for vegetation removal. You mean there's people in here that are going to get it for free? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It sounds like it. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Oh, that's annoying. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Huh? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I said that's annoying. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, I agree. A lot of communities have cleaned up themselves. I agree. We did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any solid waste questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Dan. Thank you, young lady. Appreciate it. Next item is on 94; it's the Collier County Capital Improvement Plan for the schools. This is an add-on. I mean, we added it on a few years ago, and Tom represents the school system, so I'm assuming if we have any questions, he'll be able to answer them and, if not, we'll move on to the next one. Does anybody have any questions on the school submittal? Tom, I've just got one. On the last page of the submittal, which is on Page 100, it's a green map, you October 19, 2017 Page 59 of 73 call out the schools in various locations in the county. You don't show Ave Maria's, and I was just wondering why. MR. EASTMAN: Ave Maria is a vacant site. And if vacant sites are included, it should be included. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you do have a school out there. On the north end of the town, there's a middle school that I believe is operating. Is that -- MR. EASTMAN: It's not a Collier County public school that's operating there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it's not a charter school and it's not an other? See your chart, it says, elementary, middle, high, then charter and other. I just thought under one of those categories all the schools would have been shown. MR. EASTMAN: I agree with you, and it's probably an oversight, but it is not a public school. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I didn't know if it was or not. MR. EASTMAN: And thank you for pointing that out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought it was an "other," though. MR. EASTMAN: Yeah, it certainly -- it seems like every category would be covered, so I think it's an oversight. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else, schools? That's -- Page 101 is the county parks and recreation facilities. Anybody have any questions on the county parks and recreation facilities? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mr. Chairman, my only comment is that I think our parks are phenomenal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And they are. I noticed that there's a deficit shown, and then there's five asterisks, reserve for future growth. How does the deficit -- what does that mean? And how do you factor in the cost of the future sports park that's going to come out of tourist development taxes? And I have one more after that. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. Barry Williams, Parks and Recreation director. Thank you for your comment, and I appreciate your appreciation of our parks, so... So I guess to answer the sports tourism question, the venue that's being constructed, as you mention, is financed by TDC funds. It is -- we're portraying it as being characterized as a regional park. It's got a twofold purpose, you know: Certainly the sports tourism aspect, and we've seen tremendous growth of that throughout our park system, North Collier Regional Park in particular, but it's also meant to serve as a resource for local sports teams to be able to use the facility. So it does fall into the category of regional park. I'm not sure I understood your first question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, your deficit, is your deficit created because of the funding for that park at all? And if -- how is that -- we've not had a deficit of that size before that I can recall. You have a 20 -- surplus or deficit revenues, and it's on Page 113. MR. WILLIAMS: I'm trying to follow those five asterisk marks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're the next page, and it says reserve for future growth. So I'm a little puzzled as to what all that means. MR. WILLIAMS: I am, too, actually. Let me see if I can look at my book and get a better handle on that. Honestly, I can't defend that. I'm not sure what that means as it relates to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only reason it came to my -- I spotted it is up on top you have a five-year surplus or deficit, and it shows that you're good. So something seems awry there, and I just couldn't figure out how to explain it. So maybe when you get a chance you could drop me an email or drop us all an email as to how to explain it. MR. BOSI: And that may be on Comprehensive Planning's side in terms of a -- if a -- left over from a previously submitted summary page that they provided. That maybe just didn't get cleaned up because, you're right, it doesn't have a context to any of the numbers that are presented in relationship to the finances and the revenues generated. So we will most certainly provide clarification on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And if the panel will indulge me just a moment, I've got a couple slides I want to put on, Barry, so I can explain to you my next question. MR. WILLIAMS: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In 2003 the Planning Commission recommended that we add a specific October 19, 2017 Page 60 of 73 section of the AUIR. COMMISSIONER EBERT: We don't see it on here, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, how do I -- COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: The page underneath is still -- the old page is still there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We specifically added a section to the AUIR to address county beaches, and there's a reason for this, and I'll explain that. And it did. This is a table of contents from the 2003 AUIR. This is the page that talked about beach access facilities Category B, actually formed a separate section. And this, most importantly, is a graphic showing how beaches can be managed and how we were looking out for beaches, because it is probably the biggest amenity we have in Collier County. Two thousand -- and that was 2003. Everything looked good. 2004, the long-term plan, 2004, all of sudden for the first year, showed up a deficit in '24/'25, meaning we're not going to have enough beaches for the population. That brings me to the question. As you know, we constantly are working with the City of Naples to try to establish access to their beaches. They have 33 locations. We have -- I don't know how many. I've got it written down somewhere. But I think it would help us in our discussion with them to show that we are keeping up with the growth in regards to beach access. Now, I know that it's incorporated into the parks and recs AUIR as another piece within the thing, but I think highlighting it and bringing it out and making boards aware of it through these kind of graphics would better help our situation. In 2004, the board at the time said, no, we don't want to show this anymore, and they discontinued it. I'd like to suggest that we bring this back up to this current board and see if they would like to have this additional information, because I do think it's valuable. That's what I wanted to show you. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So when we get finished today and we vote on the AUIR, I would like to suggest that we have a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners to reinstitute a basis under which to show graphically and keep track of our beach access against the growth specifically instead of lumping it in with all the other parks areas and trying to figure out, do we have enough beach access for the population that's here. It would help with tourism. It would help with everybody involved, so... COMMISSIONER FRYER: Do you want a motion? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As we get towards the end, I think that would be a better opportunity, so... And then, Barry, I'm not sure I have anything else. Does anybody else have anything while we're at it? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. Just one thing for Barry. I use the north county park all the time. I use all of your canoe and kayak access points, and I think you're doing a fantastic job. MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, thank you very much, Stan. Thank you, sir. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I have one -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree with that statement, so everything -- the parks system is good. I think we're doing a great job with it. I just would like to make sure that politically we have the arguments we need to stand on our own with beach access and show that we're trying to keep up with it and it helps justify our requests of the City of Naples to use theirs. MR. WILLIAMS: Absolutely. Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have anything on parks? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That takes us to Page 115, capital improvement, CIE, element for Category A facilities. Are there any questions from the Category A facilities? And, Mike, is this yours? Is this -- you do this? Who's -- Corby? MR. BOSI: Yeah, Corby Schmidt -- Mike Bosi, again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How are we -- and I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but the sports park, how would the sports park be factored into the capital improvement, CIE, element? The sports park is a, what, $70 million venture? So I just want to make sure that it, across the board, shows up where it needs to, October 19, 2017 Page 61 of 73 and I didn't -- I couldn't catch it in here, but I might have easily missed it, so... MR. SCHMIDT: If I draw your attention to Page 131, it does appear on that table. On the first line shows the amount there as part of the spending, and then -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Excellent. Okay. That's what I needed to know, Corby. I just wanted to make sure it was there. And there was so many pages of this, I just didn't catch it in detail, so that's what I needed to know. MR. SCHMIDT: All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions about the Capital Improvement Element? We'll move on, then, to the Category B facilities. These are non-concurrency regulated, and the first one is the county jails, Page 132. I don't know if there's any questions from anybody on those -- on the county jail section. Following the county jail section is law enforcement facilities. The only question I have, Mike, is on Page 140 under the law enforcement facilities, there's a current level-of-service standard referenced, and it's got a little asterisk one. If you go down and look at what asterisk one says, it says, adopted level-of-standard service proposed to be revised. What does that mean? I mean, I know what literally it means. But what is going on with that? MR. BOSI: We are trying to translate the current level of service, which was officers per thousand, to an actual population -- to a population-based number that translates to square footage. So we're translating the population needed for additional officers to population needed for the square footage, because this is about capital improvement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So they say 1.84 officers per 1,000, but the proposed level of service standard of .9, say, square feet per capita is the thing that's going to be revised? MR. BOSI: Yes. That's what's being proposed. The .9089 square foot per capita would be the level of service that is directly tied to the building space needed for the -- for the law enforcement needs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because the -- that's the only question I think I had, and I'm looking at the rest. Anybody else have anything while we're moving through this section? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then we get to county libraries, buildings and materials. This is one where we've had a longstanding excess space of libraries, and we still seem to. Anybody have any questions about libraries? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: After libraries we move into EMS, medical services. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have something on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: First of all, I'm very honored to be a member of the Emergency Medical Authority of the county, and I want to let everybody know what a fantastic job that Chief Tabitha Butcher and her staff do in providing EMS service to this county, and they are to be commended. We are really the best of class in the United States as far as I'm concerned. So my thanks to Chief Butcher and her staff. My question has to do with concurrency. I would suppose it would come under the subject. And it relates to fire districts. You've got North Collier and you've got Greater Naples. Frequently they will have a fire station that was designed for and equipped for rural agricultural areas that don't have a lot of structural improvements on them. So they've got brush trucks, and they have water tenders. Then in comes a large residential project, and all of sudden the need changes to pumpers and possibly hook and ladders. My question really has to do with -- and I know there's the impact fee structure that helps finance and fund that, but to what extent do the fire districts have a say in the development of applications for PUDs and PUDAs and that type of thing? And have -- in the past, have they said, well, we just can't support this in the near term? MR. BOSI: Thank you. That's an excellent question, Commissioner Fryer. And it's -- that is one of the things from the director of the Growth Management Plan I'm most proud of is the regulatory process that we adopted for the Rural Lands Stewardship Area, the RLSA area. The regulatory fabric that provided for October 19, 2017 Page 62 of 73 Ave Maria allows for each one of those new towns and villages that are proposed to be developed, each one of our infrastructure service providers are at the table at the entitlement stage in terms of how does this affect your level of service and what needs in terms of acreages would you need to be able to provide that level of service to expand to correspond to the amount of demand that's going to be associated with the households and as well as the commercial -- the nonresidential square footage that's being proposed within those. So right now Rural Lands West is in the entitlement process going through the review. The North Naples Fire District has indicated that they are satisfied with their current locations to be able to handle the demands, but the next town that comes in, they may have to provide an acre or two-acre site to be able to locate those type of services. So the regulatory process demands that each infrastructure service provider have a seat at the table before they can even move forward on their entitlement. So that's part of the process, and that's part of the review that goes through for each one of those new projects. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Great. Thank you. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I just have a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Go ahead, Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: About four or five maps down, I guess, there's a pink and blue map, shows advanced life support and basic life support only. It shows all of the Ochopee Fire District, which is places I go out into, and you are very far away from civilization. And it shows it as being 24-hour advanced life support, but Immokalee is a basic life support only. That doesn't seem right, because that's a heavily populated area. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's not the case. Immokalee has all kinds of advanced life support. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: What does this mean on the map then? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm just saying you've got Engine House 30, 31 up there. You've got Collier EMS up there. The engine houses have -- well, I'm just telling you from what I hear at the Emergency Medical Authority, that you've got certainly basic life support, which is -- some would say it's more essential to service delivery in the first 10 or 15 minutes of care than advanced life support, and the folks on those pumpers and squads and rescue vehicles all have basic life support capability. And then you've got two ambulances that are also in the Immokalee area, and they bring in advanced life support and transport capability. So I'm not saying that Immokalee is fully as served as it needs to be but, believe me, they've got basic and advanced life support. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'm just thinking it's probably better served than if I'm out on the Turner River. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Oh, yeah. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. It was just -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: And North Collier provides mutual aid all the time to the Immokalee area. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay, thanks. MR. BOSI: And, Stan, just for clarification on the map, what that is is there's -- the program towards where the fire departments go through, at least one individual within their truck will have advanced life support capabilities. It's just Immokalee has an interim agreement with EMS to provide for that arrangement. That's the only thing. That's not to say that there's not ambulance services and advanced life support isn't available in Immokalee. It's just not provided on the individual fire truck itself. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And there are -- if you include Ave Maria, there are actually three advanced life support ambulances: Engine House 30, 31 and 32 are EMS houses. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'm glad to hear that, because there are a lot of people out there. More than I usually see on the Turner River. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any EMS questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's move to county government buildings. It's on Page 178. This is a standard listing of all the county assets every year, or at least building-wise. Any questions on that one? (No response.) October 19, 2017 Page 63 of 73 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The last two sections of the AUIR are the Category C facilities, the coastal zone areas: Management, beaches and inlets. I don't know if there's any questions on that last section of the AUIR. COMMISSIONER EBERT: He left anyway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Gary waited all day and left. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Gary left. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah, he did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I only had one question, and that's on Page 225, Mike. There's a little chart there, and in the -- you've got to go up a bit; Page 225. Keep going. There's a colorful chart coming up. Keep going. Keep going. Keep going. Well, I don't know what you're -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You're in the appendix already. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. No, I'm on Page 225 out of 262, and it's right -- right after the beginning of the Coastal Zone Management stuff. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: The future attribute inventory? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, the future attribute inventory. That's what it's called. Mike, I can just walk down and put this under the -- MR. BOSI: Let me try to put this on the visualizer. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Toggle down, I think. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Is it this? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, that's that one. COMMISSIONER EBERT: 253 in the book. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, it's 225 electronically but 223 in the book. I'm sorry. I only have it electronically. There. Oh, keep going. There. You just passed it. Go back, 253. You're going the wrong direction. Keep going. Keep going. Five more pages. We'll get there. One more. Right there. Okay. Second line from the bottom, see where it says Clam Pass Beach, 22-23, then it says beach parking spaces, 350. I go to Clam -- Stan, you ever seen 350 parking spaces up at Clam Pass? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So what is it they've got planned that's going to take -- how are they going to -- what does that mean? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Poor Amy. MR. BOSI: And I believe this is a section that Parks and Recreation provides. I could find clarification in terms of -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you, please? Because if you're going to put 350 parking spaces up there and that property was provided to us under the covenants with the Pelican Bay DRI PUD, I'm probably thinking that that's an interesting number for them -- next to the hotels and the people across the water. MR. BOSI: Ms. Patterson believes that that may be a proposed future parking garage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So you -- wow, good luck on getting that. MR. BOSI: Well, I think you've highlighted the importance of beach access earlier in our presentation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. BOSI: So, I mean, that would be a reasonable solution to how you provide for more access to the beach. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. They'd wipe out the kayak launch, that's for sure. I can't drive my kayak into a parking garage. Anyway, okay. I just was curious. That was my only question on that. I'm sorry it took so long to get there. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And the proposed opening date is 2022? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, five years from now. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'll be 75 years old. What am I going to do? Jesus. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Bring your wheelchair. October 19, 2017 Page 64 of 73 COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't have any other questions. Does anybody have any questions on the remainder of the AUIR? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then I think we have reviewed the whole AUIR. We have two basic items that may want to be included in any motion made to recommend approval of the AUIR with the following comments: Staff will revisit and clean up the apparent discrepancy in the introductory page to the Parks and Recreation section; and that the Planning Commission would suggest recommending a separate graphic and accounting detail for beach access to be included within the Parks and Recreation section of the AUIR. Does anybody wish to make a motion and consider those, or how do you want to handle it? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'll make the motion. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Go ahead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned made the motion, subject to those two -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- recommendations, and, Karen, you second it? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. Joe's closing up shop, so we've got to rush. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm getting ready. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Getting ready, huh. ***That takes us to the end of our agenda. First item on new business is the confirmation of the CCPC officers. Every October of every year we ask for either confirmation or if there's -- someone desires changes, we look for that as well. I'm currently the chairman, Karen is the vice-chair, and Diane is the secretary. Does anybody either want to confirm that for the upcoming year or make recommendations that differ from that? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I make a motion -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I move the entire slate of officers remain the same. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made and seconded. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. October 19, 2017 Page 65 of 73 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. Thank you, all. I'll look forward to another year. You probably can tell I enjoy it. ***The second item is 10B. We were talking about the comparable/compatible analysis brought up earlier today, and staff said they would seek direction from us. I would suggest that we want to ask them to visit the standards and criteria for comparable/compatible analysis and provide this board with some recommendations so that we have definitive criteria to go forward, and even how -- and as Ned had suggested, alternatives to just simply comparable/compatible, other issues that may be warranted, but I think we need to tighten up that process, that system, and we would look to staff to start drafting something. Mike, does that give you enough direction? MR. BOSI: Oh, yes, Chair. Would you also like us to look at increasing the -- about the notification, or was that just subject to the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that would be part and parcel to the whole analysis, yes. I'm sorry. That's -- that was part of our motion with that PUD, so certainly we want to consider it going forward. It -- unfortunately, it's more like a rezone than it is just a -- what it's put forth to be. If everybody's satisfied with that -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. I am. I just would like to -- again, at the risk of being repetitious -- ask staff to consider the language consistent with permitted uses and compatible with the character of the neighborhoods, with the surrounding neighborhood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what we're looking for. And that brings us to old business. That's just direction to staff. I don't think you need a motion to get direction. It's a consensus from this board. Did Joe leave? Yeah, he sure did. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No, not really. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: His bag's still here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ***Oh, okay. Old business, 11A. It's the discussion on the NIM process that originated by Ned, and Mike had talked with one of the advisory panels, and we'll hear from both parties today. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director again. Two months ago we spoke with DSAC about the proposal to add the written transcript of the meeting, the neighborhood information meeting, to be provided as part of the application package that would be submitted. The DSAC had an alternative recommendation. They had felt that having a court reporter at the -- at the hearing would prohibit the public from being free in the questions that they ask. They had suggested just simply to provide a video recording of the neighborhood information meeting as a compromised solution. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I don't think -- I certainly haven't suggested that the court reporter be present. In fact, I think I've explicitly said on multiple occasions that I agree that would have a chilling effect on the meeting. So my solution did not involve the physical presence of a court reporter at the NIM. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then your suggestion would mean that the court reporter -- the audio from the NIM would go to the court reporters, and they would transcribe it off the audio? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Correct. MR. EASTMAN: Excuse me. Does it even require a court reporter? I think -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. MR. EASTMAN: -- we're just concerned with the transcript. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that could be, too, yeah. The problem -- and it's -- I'm not sure how to cure this part of it. If you rely on the applicant to do anything that is not done by an official professional, I can assure you -- because I listen to the audios. To me the audios are what I use. I don't use the -- I like to see the applicant's summaries, because if there's discrepancies between the summaries and the audios, it kind of makes me more alert to say, hmm, I wonder why that is. October 19, 2017 Page 66 of 73 But if you rely on the applicant to do the transcript, not done by a professional, you're going to get a summary like we have now, which is -- then you have to rely on the audio to back that up. I don't have a problem with it as it is today, but that's only because I listen to the audios, and it takes, you know, the length of a NIM to listen to the audio. So I'm willing to go whatever way this board's majority wants to go. I don't really have a dog in the fight. I'm still probably going to listen to the audios because it's easier for me than -- and I can get an accurate -- the tones on the audios help me understand the vehemence of the people involved and things like that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chairman, may I just reiterate the reasons why I brought this up. The basics of my proposal, first of all -- and I've handed some materials out to show what language I would insert in the administrative procedures and where, and the insertions appear on Page 2 of the handout, but at least one of those insertions relates to the preceding page. In any event, I call your attention to the fact that the administrative procedures -- administrative procedures already require the making of an audio or video recording, so that's already built in. I would ask, following Commissioner Ebert's suggestion, which I think is a good one, that we call for higher-quality equipment than just someone's cell phone to be used to capture the audio, if it's audio we're going for. I also -- the essence of my proposal is, is that we ask the applicant's agents to identify themselves each time they speak. Others don't need to do so. And, finally, to require that a written transcript of the proceedings be made after the fact, not during the NIM, by a court reporter who, although would be engaged by the applicant and paid for by the applicant -- and it's my understanding that the cost of that would be usually in low three figures, so it's not a bank-breaking operation -- but that the court reporter prepare a transcript, and it should be a more reliable thing if it's coming from better equipment. So my goals are to assure the adequacy and completeness of the NIMs, because I think the NIMs are essential and us to hear what is said both by the proponents and by the neighbors and residents, and there to be proper attribution particularly in the case of the proponent. From the standpoint of the proponent, what we want to try to capture are any representations that are made to the residents and any commitments made by the developer. I find the summary option that we see, and we saw in a couple of the materials or paperwork that was in front of us today, I found those summaries to be woefully lacking in accuracy and completeness and, in some cases, I would go as far as to say that they revealed some possible degree of bias. And so, although I take the Chairman's point that it's interesting to see when they conflict with listening to the transcription, that that is a red flag, to be sure. The reason why I'd like it to have a written transcription is because I would prefer not to have to go in and listen to the audio. I commend our chair for his willingness to do so, and that he does so is a source of comfort to all of us, but I think we all, as commissioners, should be knowing exactly what was said. And if this doesn't pass, I suppose I will -- and I know it's nothing that's up for vote today, but if eventually we can't get to a transcription being provided, I will find myself having to go in and listen to it the way the Chairman does, and I suppose I would urge others to do so because I think it's so important. And the only -- and the caveat that we've acknowledged, we don't want to be obtrusive at the NIM. Video is more intrusive than audio, but the administrative procedure already allows for both. In some cases I can think it would -- having the court reporter there, which I don't advocate, would be an intimidator of the timid, but it also, I think, would facilitate grandstanding by grandstanders. So I -- so for neither reason would I want the court reporter physically present. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'll have some comments. And, Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Let's go back to the purpose of the NIM. And I disagree with the proposal. This is not meant to be a public hearing. It's not meant to be a public vetting of a zoning action. It was -- and the NIM was developed back when I was the administrator, quite frankly. And I'm not defending October 19, 2017 Page 67 of 73 the action, but I'm just stating the facts. It was a way to informally -- and the term "informally" inform the public of what was being proposed and to allow for input. It has no statutory requirement. It has no mandatory requirement from a standpoint of anything that's said at that. It's simply meant to be nothing more than an informative meeting between the developer and the community to advise on what's being proposed. The public hearing process is what we're going through when they come through the Planning Commission and the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Board of County Commissioners. The NIM -- I think it would be -- in most cases NIMs are -- could be as early as two years prior to even -- a petition even coming before this board. And there are requirements to update those NIMs if, in fact, there's delays in zoning. But it was never meant to be any type of public meeting in regards to making firm commitments. It was meant to be nothing more than an information meeting and to provide an opportunity for the developer to receive input from the community prior to putting their package together and bringing it to the Board -- to the county. A verbatim transcript, I think, is -- I would not support it. If you all feel that way, that's fine, but I think it's overkill, and it's -- and it's just simply not required. What we're doing now, I think, meets -- more than meets the requirement of what the NIM was meant to be. COMMISSIONER FRYER: May I respond? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, and I've got some response, too. COMMISSIONER FRYER: The administrative procedure is a document that is approved by the County Commission and presumably, then, has the status of an ordinance. So it really is the law that applicants are required to make an audio or video of the NIM. That's already there. So -- and then the written summary, it is stated in the administrative procedure, is to become part of the official record. And I share the Chairman's concern when I see discrepancies between the way the NIMs have been summarized in relation to the comments that the neighbors and residents come in and make. I can't believe that the residents and neighbors change their mind to such a degree, and so it makes me suspicious of the written summary. So, again, I think it's already part of the law, and I think -- and I don't doubt, Commissioner Schmitt, what the original purpose was, but I think it is an opportunity for us to inform ourselves better of what is said particularly by the developers and concerns that are raised by neighbors and particularly in the context of the people who complain that they're not able to attend our meetings because they occur out of season and they're only here in season. It would give us a chance to hear what they're saying. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe I can shed some light on a couple of issues. First of all, since you were here, Joe, the NIM has been tightened up time-frame-wise. I believe the NIM's now going to be within one year of the first hearing. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: One year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And they can't be sooner than 15 days before the hearing. So that's -- for example, Cirrus Pointe. That's why it got delayed. So that part's been kind of fixed. The commitments made at the NIM become mandatory because this board pays attention to them, and the people rely on them, so we've made them -- we've made them adhere to the commitments they've made at the NIM. Now the audio/video, I think a video is far more intimidating than a court reporter. Terri's not intimidating. She's a smiley, nice person. She helps out all the time. But I think to help understand this, my concern's always been the added cost, and now that Ned's moved from what I thought originally was the court reporter in the room, which is intimidating, to being -- just listening to the transcript and then taking it off the transcript. If the court reporter's not present and can do the transcript at their leisure, the cost may be different. And my issue's always been the cost. I think the accuracy of the outcome is important. And we have seen great discrepancies between summaries and audios. So before we make a decision on this, maybe if staff could solicit from the court reporting office we currently have a cost to do a transcript from an audio, and we can see if that is minor enough, maybe it's not so objectionable. October 19, 2017 Page 68 of 73 What do you think, Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, let's go back to a period in time when we did not have verbatim minutes at the Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, you were here, and you helped us get them. I remember that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And for whatever reason -- I mean, I remember we didn't have it, and we all pushed to get the verbatim minutes. But we had an official, I guess, recorder who summarized the notes, took the -- there still was always a video, and there was always an audio of the meeting, and they typically would go back and sit and summarize. But it was an independent consultant or whomever that basically did that, not the developer. I think that is -- that would be a suitable compromise rather than having verbatim minutes. I don't know if you've ever been to one of these meetings; they're free-for-alls a lot of times. Sometimes the developer comes in not well prepared. There's -- sometimes there's structure to it and other times there's not. It is not a -- what I would call a structured board meeting, per se, so I think it becomes -- if we want to move down that road, all we're doing is adding another almost a public hearing to the process, and that's not what it was meant to be. It was meant to be nothing more than an opportunity for the developer to say what they're doing and to get input. And I don't argue that there are commitments made, but those commitments usually aren't mandatory till they come before us and we cite them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's right. But we actually use the data that's collected at the NIM to make those statements adhered to. And I think that's the piece that there might be some problem with. I don't have the problem as much because I do listen to the audios. But the problems there, if we rely on the summary statements made by the applicant, and Ned's right, they're somewhat biased, they're somewhat slanted. And so that's why I've always gone back to the audio. The only piece that bothers me about this whole thing, because if you make a quality audio and leave the room, the people in the meeting aren't going to know any different to it. So it's not going to impact them. The impact's going to be the cost of the transcript, and that's the piece that's now missing, because an off-site transcript, I would think, would be a lot less than one where we have to have the court reporter and all the equipment on site. I'd like to get that number just to see how much it's really a -- if it's -- if they say, well, it's $10 a page and there's only two pages or a short NIM, it's not a big deal, and it solves everybody's problem then. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chairman, I spoke to a certain court reporter a month or two ago informally, and she told me, rough estimate -- and I know she'll correct me if I'm wrong, that we're talking like 200, $300. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Really? Boy, I didn't know you got paid so much. Diane first and then Stan. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, some of the last ones that we have seen that have come before us -- because everybody is talking over everybody, and all you hear is undiscernible, undiscernible, you know, and you can't -- I mean, the whole thing was you might as well throw it away, because the equipment that I have seen at some of these is a little thing they hold up, and somebody in the back of the room is asking a question. It is not even picked up by that. And it is the developer's people putting these on that do not have the proper equipment. If we could hear everyone, that would make a difference. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But understand, it's the developer's meeting. Normally only one person from staff attends that meeting, and that's typically the principal planner assigned to that project. It is really a developer's meeting. Now, if we want to make it a county meeting and actually impose certain more strict standards, I just don't think -- there may be some utility to that, but, frankly, it's -- I'm sort of torn, because sometimes public meetings -- the NIMs you'll have 200 people at a NIM, and 20 people show up on the Planning Commission. That's where my concerns are, because it doesn't adequately represent what the feelings are in the community. But, typically, by the time it gets to us, most of the issues have been resolved between the community and the developer. But I think a compromise for Ned would be to take -- well, it would have to be certainly a quality October 19, 2017 Page 69 of 73 recording, and then somebody -- an independent body convert that recording to a summary, not a verbatim minutes, but a summary of the meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: One of my favorite NIMs I ever attended with George Varnadoe and Terry Cole, we learned our lesson never to have a meeting in a place that serves alcohol. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I remember that. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: It's why I want a video of the meeting. I would prefer a video of every NIM, seriously. You get the tone of the meeting going on. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Just to see George. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Not anymore. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Erin's Isle, I remember that. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Oh, you were there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I remember. I was -- no. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: You heard about it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. First of all, there's three problems, I think. Number one is the quality -- we need to have some language that insists on better quality material -- better quality audio devices used for these NIMs. That would help solve a problem tremendously. We need to insist the representatives identify themselves when they speak at the NIM, and then the county representative, whoever that is, the planner, take some kind of lead in making sure people don't talk over one other and try to organize it a little bit if the facilitators of the applicant do not. Mike, you're looking skeptical at this. MR. BOSI: Well, the better-quality audio, that's what's -- enforce -- what is that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- MR. BOSI: Apple? Android? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Some of the audios, if you listen to them, you mostly get to hear the people by the front table, which is the applicant's team, because the device they use, like their cell phone, doesn't pick up the audio from way in the back of the room. MR. BOSI: Well, I understand. I don't know how to create a standard for that. So is it, we get their audio in and then we make an evaluation as to whether that's acceptable or not. MR. KLATZKOW: No, you provide the audio equipment. I mean, staff members are there anyway. MR. BOSI: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: The measurement of the quality of the equipment will be after the fact, and it will be based upon how many times it says "inaudible," "garbled." Right now it's far too much. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Jeff is right. I mean, we put the onus on the county staff to have somebody there and set up the audio. Now, we have to pass that cost off to the applicant. I mean, that's the -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, the facilitator's going to be there anyway. Under the current administrative procedure, a county facilitator must be present. MR. BOSI: That is not a facilitator. The member there is to listen to -- in his role or her role, the planner's role is to listen -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: It's called a facilitator in the ordinance. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But they're not a facilitator. MR. BOSI: It may be labeled a "facilitator" in the ordinance -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: But it is labeled. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think we've talked about it quite a bit. I think there's room to improve what we're doing at the NIMs. I'm not sure this board has the consensus that the improvement requires a formal transcript. So I'd like to turn to anybody here that's willing to take a stab at what we should do in relationship to this response, whether it's accepting it as it's stated or modifying it. I don't have a dog in the fight, guys. I can tell you right now, I listen to the audio. It works fine for me. It doesn't, apparently, work for everybody, and that's also -- that's fine for them. So we just simply need to find a solution. I'll go along with what the majority wants at this point. I'm comfortable with that. October 19, 2017 Page 70 of 73 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I guess the question is, what's the objective? The objective is to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Clarity. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: For clarity. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Clarity and commitments and representations. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Then do we shift the whole purpose from this becoming a county meeting and not a developer meeting? Because right now it's a -- the onus is on the developer. It's their meeting, meeting with the public. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I don't think we should shift it to the county. The county's got enough tax -- spending enough taxpayers' money trying to get things through the system. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Agreed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I'd prefer not to do that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I just would -- and I think -- I'm sure, Joe, you're exactly right how it started, but then along comes this administrative procedure and it says, after the NIM is completed the applicant will submit a written summary of the NIM and any commitments that have been made to the assigned planner. These commitments will become a part of the record of the proceedings, be included in the staff report for any subsequent review and approval bodies, and be considered for inclusion in the conditions of the approval of any applicable development offer. I'm not sure that it's still -- it still belongs to the developer. I think it belongs to the county, but I'm not sure that that distinction really makes a difference. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I think those pieces you just discussed are the responsibility of the principal planner there to capture that information to make sure that it's in the staff report. COMMISSIONER FRYER: But their capturing of it, I think, is occasionally biased. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, I meant the planner that attends, typically, they're -- when you do the staff report, typically, those kind of things are supposed to be made -- codified or somehow made aware in the completion of the staff report. MR. BOSI: Our planners are present at the meeting and are instructed to record and note down any commitments that are made by the developer. That's what the role of the planner is supposed to ensure; provide questions in terms of -- answers in terms of hearing dates, processes, things like that that the applicant couldn't provide for. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And typically they provide the public, if there's any questions on process. MR. BOSI: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: What the law requires, what the code requires, or any of those questions regarding process or procedures that the county staff typically will answer. I don't know. I just -- I really don't want to see this become the responsibility of the county staff. Because when -- and I've seen them. There are some bad ones. They'll come in, the audio visual doesn't work, and then they'll get up and attempt to give the presentation. And I can describe one, but I won't name the development, but it was so poor, the people left saying this was atrocious, and they should have been required to have another NIM after -- following it because -- but it was the developer who really did a poor job. It wasn't the county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we're somewhat probably not as supportive of this as a whole as needed. Rather than jump into deciding on this cold today, Mike, could you put together a list of criteria for the staff who attend the NIMs that they must do and let us critique that. For example, assure that the machine used to record the audio and/or video is adequate for the job. I mean, basically a cell phone's not going to do it; that they announce to the public that they have to identify -- or the applicant has to identify -- his team has to identify themselves every single time they speak so we know -- if we hear the recording, that we know who it is that's speaking. MR. BOSI: Are you asking me to put together a list of what we should be asking for? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. These are things you should be looking for. MR. BOSI: But this -- some of these suggestions weren't -- I didn't have the problem with the meeting, with the process of the NIM. It was introduced from the dais that they thought that because of the October 19, 2017 Page 71 of 73 issues with the transcripts, they wanted a full representation of everything that was being said to be able to identify the people involved within it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. BOSI: It sounds like you're asking me now to develop recommendations for how we can improve? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I think that staff in some cases may need a little more training and guidance on what they're supposed to do at a NIM. For example, Ned was 100 percent right. The Collier County staff planner assigned to attend the pre-application meeting, or designee, must also attend the NIM and will serve as the facilitator of the meeting, black and white. MR. BOSI: And I'll agree, we don't do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. MR. BOSI: We don't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm telling you -- MR. BOSI: We've taken a role -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- why don't you create some criteria in which you'll do that? MR. BOSI: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's all I'm suggesting. And bring it back to us, and let's start there. And then if that's starting to fail, maybe we'll look at coming back and looking at a transcript -- MR. KLATZKOW: Look, the irony is the administrative code is written by staff, okay, who then throws it on the consent agenda for the Board's approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But staff just says they're not doing it. MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, but staff wrote it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It doesn't matter. To fix this, I'm suggesting -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: You find that ironic? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- maybe if we try a step-by-step approach, create the criteria by which the staff attendee to these NIMs must be -- what he must be doing or she must be doing, let's see how that works for a little bit, Ned, and then we'll revisit this if it's still a massive failure. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm fine with that. I'm just going to say, in the meantime, I'm going to try to listen to each tape, and I'm going to call out developers whose summaries are unfair in relation to that tape. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I think that's fair. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good idea. Yeah, I think that's a good idea. And if we start seeing -- if we then prove there's too many problems and it's getting prolific, we can go ahead and institute another step. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm fine with that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Can I make one last suggestion? Mike, if you would, get input from the DSAC as to what they think of this proposal. Because I'm not saying I would support if they're -- but I'm interested what the development community thinks, because it's their meeting if we want to change that. And I -- the other thing is I think we can make it very clear that they have to hire -- we could put that in the administrative procedures that they have to hire a firm to come in and do a recording, an audio. There's companies out there that do that for a living. And we could tell them, you know, we're not going to take a small iPhone recording. It's got to be suitable recording, microphones set up, and it's got to be controlled. We can stipulate that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think -- Diane, did you want to speak before I do? COMMISSIONER EBERT: No, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Okay. Well, I was -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm trying to think. There's something else I wanted to mention, Mike, and I just lost it. Oh, well. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I still want video. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Huh? October 19, 2017 Page 72 of 73 COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I still want video. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's see how this works, and maybe we can avoid having to get -- oh, and if anybody needs the NIM audio, Judy can -- they're all filed at the county. I mean, they're supposed to get copies of them. I get them in CDs and put them in the system, but I'm sure that the planner can put them into the CityView or give them to Judy, and they can be distributed to the Planning Commission members. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah. But, see, it's not just distributed to us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're just emailed. Well, they're just emailed. It's an audio file is all it is. COMMISSIONER FRYER: It might fit on an email as an image. I don't know how large -- maybe it won't. Well, may I have the same opportunity of access that our chairman does? And if you could send me a CD with this with my meeting materials, that would -- then I could do it at home, which would be great. MR. BOSI: Yeah. We normally provide the meeting materials by flash drive, but we can do it by CD if that -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: I thought you said CD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I get them -- the applicants submit them in as CDs, but to distribute to the Planning Commission, they would probably come in the format with your other files. So it would probably be on your flash drive. You don't need it on a CD. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Like a wave file or an MP4? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: MP3, I think it is, or MP4, yeah. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. That's fine. Good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. The CD isn't a video CD. It's an audio CD. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Understood. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, that's what I need to do. I don't have the other. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So from now on, if you can distribute NIM audios with the packages to the extent they're available, then we're good, right? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Is it all or none, or do some of us have the option to say we don't want that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You don't have to have it. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I don't need it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll have -- who's our representative that does our packages anymore? Is it still Judy? MR. BOSI: Still Ms. Puig. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: At some point I'll let her -- I'll ask her if she could just poll the members and see who wants it, and then she can just prepare it for just those that want it. This has been confusing enough. Are we done? MR. BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, there's no members of the public here, unless Jamie wants to comment, which I don't think he does. Is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Motion to adjourn. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Motion to adjourn. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Diane, seconded by Patrick. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're out of here. Thank you. October 19, 2017 Page 73 of 73 ******* There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 1:51 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION _____________________________________ MARK STRAIN, CHAIRMAN ATTEST DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on ____________, as presented _______ or as corrected _______. TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. AGENDA ITEM 9-A Co&r County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING DIVISION —ZONING SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: NOVEMBER 16, 2017 SUBJECT: PDI -PL -20160002748; LIVINGSTON VILLAGE PDI (MARBELLA LAKES) PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT: Owner/Agent: Agent: Marbella Lakes Owners Association, Inc. Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP 6664 Marbella Lane Hole Montes, Inc. Naples, FL 34105 950 Encore Way Naples, FL 34110 PLEASE NOTE: The HOA controls the common areas where the street trees are located, within the Livingston Village PUD, aka Marbella Lakes. The petitioner, Marbella Lakes Owners Association, Inc., requests an insubstantial change to Ordinance No. 03-23, as amended, the Livingston Village PUD, to modify provisions relating to street tree standards. The subject PUD property consists of 148.98± acres. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The PUD is located on the east side of Livingston Road, approximately one mile south of Pine Ridge Road in Section 19, Township 49 South, Range 29 East, Collier County, Florida (see location map on fallowing page). PDI-PL20160002748 Livingston Village PUD Page 1 of 7 CCPC: November 16, 2017 (Revised: 11/8/17) Location Map Petition Number: PL -2016-2748 Zoning Map z D J m N O J Pine Ridge RD rn OQ O � ° m u C75 a e � Green BLVD n Q O M M m PROJECT m P m LOCATION i0 c Goltlen nGate PKWY I z � Radio RD Location Map Petition Number: PL -2016-2748 Zoning Map PURPOSE AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: In the applicant's narrative statement, the purpose of the proposed amendment is to revise PUD Section 2.9, the Street Tree Master Plan, to now allow trees to be removed or replaced at the option of the Marbella HOA. The petitioner also indicates that all single-family lots currently meet and will continue to be required to meet the minimum planting requirements of Section 4.06.05 of the Land Development Code (LDC). SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: This section of the staff report identifies the land uses and zoning classifications for properties surrounding the boundaries of the PUD North: The Balmoral PUD (4.0 DU/A) and the Whippoorwill Woods PUD (5.51 DU/A) East: Interstate -75, across from which is Golden Gate Estates (IDU/2.25A) South: Wyndemere RPUD (1.53DU/A) West: Livingston Road ROW, across from which is the Grey Oaks PUD (1.11 DU/A) STAFF ANALYSIS: The Livingston Village PUD currently requires street trees in lieu of tree requirements for individual lots or tracts, as described in Section 2.9 of the PUD. This amendment permits street trees to be removed under certain circumstances. Over the years, since the original development of the PUD, the street trees have grown into the sidewalks and utility lines, causing damage. The proposed removal of the street tree requirement will permit the HOA to remove some street trees, remove and replace others, and leave some in their current location. All street trees are planted on HOA property. The HOA will be required to provide PDI-PL20160002748 Livingston Village PUD Page 3 of 7 CCPC: November 16, 2017 (Revised: 11/8/17) evidence that the required plantings have been installed on common area property by the HOA or single-family lots with the homeowner's consent. Comprehensive Planning: Because this application is not adding uses or increasing the intensity of the previously approved uses in the Livingston Village PUD, it is consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the GMP. Conservation and Coastal Management Element: Environmental staff has evaluated the proposed changes to the PUD Documents. There is no issue with consistency. Transportation Element: Transportation Planning staff has evaluated the proposed changes to the PUD Documents, and there is no issue with consistency. PLANNED UNIT DEVEL®PENT INSUBSTANTIAL CHANGE CRITERIA: There are three types of changes to a PUD Ordinance: Substantial, Insubstantial, and Minor. An insubstantial change includes any change that is not considered a substantial or minor change. An insubstantial change to an approved PUD Ordinance shall be based upon an evaluation of LDC Section 10.02.13 E.1. The criteria and response to each criterion are listed below as follows: LDC Section 10.02.13.E.1 Criteria: a. Is there a proposed change in the boundary of the Planned Unit Development (PUD)? No, there is no proposed change in the boundary of the PUD. b. Is there a proposed increase in the total number of dwelling units or intensity of land use or height of buildings within the development? No, there is no proposed increase in the number of dwelling units or intensity of land use or height of buildings within the development. C. Is there a proposed decrease in preservation, conservation, recreation, or open space areas within the development in excess of five (5) percent of the total acreage previously designated as such, or rive (5) acres in area? No, there is no proposed decrease in preservation, conservation, recreation, or open space areas within the development as designated on the approved Master Plan. d. Is there a proposed increase in the size of areas used for non-residential uses, to include institutional, commercial and industrial land uses (excluding preservation, conservation or open space), or a proposed relocation of nonresidential land uses? No, there is no increase in the size of non-residential uses. PDI-PL20160002748 Livingston Village PUD Page 4 of 7 CCPC: November 16, 2017 (Revised: 11/8/17) e. Is there a substantial increase in the impacts of the development which may include, but are not limited to increases in traffic generation; changes in traffic circulation; or impacts on other public facilities? No, there are no substantial impacts resulting from this amendment. L Will the change result in land use activities that generate a higher level of vehicular traffic based upon the Trip Generation Manual published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers? The proposed amendment would not result in land use activities that generate higher levels of vehicular traffic based upon the Trip Generation Manual published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, which were not anticipated when the principal uses were originally adopted. g. Will the change result in a requirement for increased stormwater retention, or otherwise increase stormwater discharge? No, the proposed changes will not impact or increase stormwater retention or increase stormwater discharge. It. Will the proposed change bring about a relationship to an abutting land use that would be incompatible with an adjacent land use? No. There will be no incompatible relationships with abutting land uses. i. Are there any modifications to the PUD Master Plan or PUD Document or amendment to a PUD ordinance which is inconsistent with the Future Land Use Element or other elements of the Growth Management Plan or which modification would increase the density of intensity of the permitted land uses? No. Comprehensive Planning staff determined the proposed changes to the PUD Document would be consistent with the FLUE of the GMP. Both environmental and transportation planning staff reviewed this petition, and no changes to the PUD Document are proposed that would be deemed inconsistent with the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) or the Transportation Element of the GMP. This petition does not propose any increase in density or intensity of the permitted land uses. j. The proposed change is to a PUD District designated as a Development of Regional Impact (DRI) and approved pursuant to Chapter 380.06, Florida Statues, where such change requires a determination and public hearing by Collier County pursuant to Sec. 380.06 (19), F.S. Any change that meets the criterion of Sec. 380.06 (19)(e)2., F.S., and any changes to a DRI/PUD Master Plan that clearly do not create a substantial deviation shall be reviewed and approved by Collier County under Section 10.02.13 of the LDC. Livingston Village PUD is not a DRI; therefore, this criterion is not applicable. PDI-PL20160002748 Livingston Village PUD Page 5 of 7 CCPC: November 16, 2017 (Revised: 11/8/17) k. Are there any modifications to the PUD Master Plan or PUD Document or amendment to a PUD ordinance which impact(s) any consideration deemed to be a substantial modification as described under LDC Section(s) 10.02.13 E.? Based upon the analysis provided above, the proposed change is not deemed substantial. LDC Section 10.02.13.E.2 Criteria: Does this petition change the analysis of the findings and criteria used for the original application? No, the proposed change does not affect the original analysis and findings for the original application. Please see Rezone Findings and Findings for the original PUD (Exhibit "A"). DEVIATION DISCUSSION: No Deviations are requested. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): A NIM was conducted by the applicant on August 23, 2017 at the Marbella Lakes Clubhouse located at 6664 Marbella Lane in Naples, Florida. Approximately 31 people attended. Following Agent Bob Mulhere's presentation attendees asked questions for about 20 minutes. Some attendees expressed support for the proposed optional street trees; others stated that they enjoyed the community - atmosphere created by the trees. A few attendees asked for options to include replanting some of the street trees and Mr. Brett Cohan of the Marbella Lake Owners Association said that was being considered, and future planning meetings would occur on that matter. Several members voiced support for removing street trees already causing property damage, because they believe the property damage was going to affect property values. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: This Staff Report was reviewed by the County Attorney's office on October 30, 2017. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission approve Petition PDI- PL20160002748 and forward the petition to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) for ordinance amendment. Attachments: A. Rezone Findings B. Application C. Ordinance Number: 03-23 D. NIM Summary E. Draft Resolution PDI-PL20160002748 Livingston Village PUD Page 6 of 7 CCPC: November 16, 2017 (Revised: 11/8/17) PREPARED BY: FRED WSCHL, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER ZONING DIVISION REVIEWED BY: A. X�- /JL-�- RA N . BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER ZONING DIVISION APPROVED BY: MIKE BOSI, AICP, DIRECTOR ZONING DIVISION PDI-PL20160002748 Livingston Village PUD November 16, 2017 DATE it- 6-17 DATE DATE Page 7 of 7 Attachment A REZONE FINDINGS PETITION PUDZ-02-AR-3095 Section 2.7.2.5 of the Collier County Land Development Code requires that the report and recommendations of the Planning Commission to the Board of County Commissioners shall show that the Planning Commission has studied and considered the proposed change in relation to the following, where applicable: 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives & policies of the Future Land Use Map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan. Development Orders deemed consistent with all applicable elements of the Future land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP) should be considered a positive relationship. The proposed Livingston Village PUD development is in compliance with the FLUE of the GMP. 2. The existing land use pattern; The adjacent uses include single and multi -family residential to the west and the approved Balmoral PUD to the north. There is the developed residential Wyndemere PUD to the south (See Staff Report) 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts; The parcel is of sufficient size that it will not result in an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. It is also consistent with expected land uses by virtue of its consistency with the FLUE of the Growth Management Plan. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. The proposed Livingston Village PUD district boundaries are logically drawn and they are consistent with the FLUE of the GMP. The proposed amendment will not change these boundaries. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary. The proposed Livingston Village PUD is appropriate based on the permitted land uses and compatibility with adjacent land uses. Furthermore, the subject PUD has a positive relationship to the GMP. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living neighborhood; MAY 13 2003 8 ot1 5 The proposed development standards (i.e. setbacks, landscaping and open space) made a condition of approval will go a long way towards offsetting any potential adverse _ influences and will not adversely influence living conditions in the neighboring developments. Furthermore, the conditions for approval have been promulgated and designed to ensure the least amount of adverse impact on adjacent and nearby developments. 7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety. This petition was approved by the Transportation Department subject to the conditions of approval as contained in the PUD Document. In addition, this project when developed will not excessively increase traffic congestion on the arterial road network. In the final analysis all rezone actions are subject to the Concurrency Management System. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem; The Land Development Code specifically addresses prerequisite development standards that are designed to reduce the risk of flooding on nearby properties. New development in and of itself is not supposed to increase flooding potential on adjacent -- property over and above what would occur without development. However, as urban intensification in the absence of commensurate improvement to inter -county drainage appurtenances may increase the risk of flooding in areas when the drainage outfall condition is inadequate. In summary, every project approved in Collier County involving the utilization of land for some land use activity is scrutinized and required to mitigate all sub -surface drainage generated by developmental activities as a condition of approval. The Livingston Village PUD was reviewed for drainage relationships and design and construction plans are required to meet County standards as a condition of approval. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas; All projects in Collier County are subject to the development standards that apply generally and equally to all zoning districts concerning the need to provide the required open space. The subject development standards are designed to ensure that light penetration and circulation of air does not adversely affect adjacent areas. MAY 13 2003 ` °� 10. 11. 12. 13. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area; Typically urban intensification increases the value of contiguous underutilized land. However, this is a subjective determination based upon anticipated results, which may be internal or external to the subject property that can affect property values. Property valuation is affected by a host of factors including zoning, however zoning by itself may or may not affect values, since value determination by law is driven by market value. The mere fact that a property is given a new zoning designation or amendment may or may not affect value. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations; The basic premise underlying all of the development standards in the zoning division of the LDC is that their sound application when combined with the administrative site development plan approval process, gives reasonable assurance that a change in zoning will not result in a deterrence to improvement of adjacent property. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare; The proposed rezone to the Livingston Village PUD complies with the Growth Management Plan, which is a public policy statement supporting zoning actions when they are consistent with said plans. In light of this fact the proposed change does not constitute a grant of special privilege. Consistency with the FLUE is further determined to be a public welfare relationship because actions consistent with plans are in the public interest. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning; The subject property can be developed in accordance with the existing zoning, however to do so would deny this petitioner of the opportunity to maximize the development potential of the site as made possible by its consistency relationship with the Growth Management Plan as follows. The Urban Residential Sub -district permits residential development along with a variety of unit types and at a base density of 4 dwelling units per acre. This district is intended to accommodate a variety of residential and non-residential uses, including mixed-use developments in the form of a Planned Unit Development. Based upon the above analysis, staff concludes that the proposed 590 unit residential development at a density of 3.9 units per acre can be deemed consistent with the FLUE. It should be noted that this FLUE designation is intended to encourage urban residential development to I MAY 13 2003 PC1 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County; The Livingston Village PUD is designed in a manner that is compatible with surrounding and approved PUD property in size and scale. It is also consistent with the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan. 15. Whether is it impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. There are many sites, which are zoned to accommodate the proposed development. This is not the determining factor when evaluating the appropriateness of a rezoning decision. The determinants of zoning are consistency with all elements of the GMP, compatibility, adequacy of infrastructure and to some extent the timing of the action and all of the above criteria. (See the Staff report for a more detailed review) 16, The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration, which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed, zoning classification. The extent of site alteration will be determined as a function of obtaining a Site Development Plan and/or a preliminary subdivision plat approval to execute the PUD's development strategy. — 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, as amended. A multi -disciplined team responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP has reviewed this petition and they have found it consistent with the GMP. The conditions of approval have been incorporated into the PUD document. Staff reviews for adequacy of public services and levels of service determined that required infrastructure meets with GMP established relationships. REZONE F1NDINGS/AR3095/RVa/rb MAY 13 2003 no FINDINGS FOR PUD PUDZ-02-AR-3095 Section 2.7.3.2.5 of the Collier County Land Development Code requires the Planning Commission to make a finding as to the PUD Master Plans' compliance with the following criteria: 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. Intensifying land development patterns produces economics of scale relative to public utilities, facilities and services, which are currently available in this area of Collier County. Development of land that has legal access, and is adjacent to existing residential development is particularly suitable for a mixed dwelling type housing project as provided for in the Livingston Village PUD. Conversely, existing neighboring residents may perceive the proposed increase as intensification near their neighborhood as contributing factors to increasing noise, blocking views and reducing property values. Jurisdictional reviews by County staff support the manner and pattern of development proposed for the subject property. Development conditions contained in the proposed PUD document give assurance that all infrastructures will be developed and are consistent with County regulations. Any inadequacies that require supplementing the PUD document will be recommended to the BCC as conditions of approval by staff. Recommended mitigation measures will assure compliance with LOS relationships as prescribed by the GMP. 2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contract, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Documents submitted with the Livingston Village PUD application provide evidence of unified control. The PUD document makes appropriate provisions for continuing operation and maintenance of common areas. 3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives and policies of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). The subject petition has been found consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the GMP. The subject PUD proposes for a m.x of residential dwelling types, which is consistent with the GMP (See Staff report). 4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. r � �E MAY 13 2003 IF, The subject residential PUD provides criteria for a common architectural design and development standards. In addition, landscaping has been provided to buffer the adjacent residential developments. The PUD Master Plan has been designed to optimize internal land use relationship through the use of various forms of lakes and open space separation. 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The amount of open space set aside by this project is consistent with the provisions of the Land Development Code. 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. The proposed Livingston Village PUD will not adversely impact the timing or sequence of development that is currently allowed in the area. Furthermore, the adopted concurrency requirements ensure that further LOS degradation is not allowed or the LOS deficiency is corrected. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. Ability, as applied in this context, implies supporting infrastructure such as wastewater disposal system, potable water supplies, characteristics of the property relative to hazards, and capacity of roads, is supportive of conditions emanating from urban development. 8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. This criterion essentially requires an evaluation of the extent to which development standards proposed for this PUD depart from development standards that would be required for the most similar conventional zoning district. The development standards in this PUD are similar to those development standards for cluster housing. However. staff is recommending that the minimum side yard setback be 6 feet instead of the proposed 5 -foot side yard setback. MAY 13 2003 13 ' 2C PREPARED BY: Al /I � RAY B LOWS, CHIEF PLANNER CURRENT PLANNING SECTION REVIEWED BY: < J-A.--)�- � 4 A_.t SUSAN MURRAY, AICP, MANACLER CURRENT PLANNING SECTION JERSTLE, AICP, DIRE( VICES DEPARTMENT APPROVED BY: JO EPH K. SCI MITT, ADM ISTRATOR C MMUNITY DEV. AND ENVIRONMENTAL SVCS. Staff Report for the April 17, 2003 CCPC meeting. KENNETH L. ABERNATHY, CHAIRMAN RVB/rb/STAFF REPORTIPUDZ-02-AR-3095 7 4 •03 DATE 41-"9-0.3 E7: -8 z3 ATE DAT MAY 13 2003 REZONE FINDINGS PETITION PUDZ-02-AR-3095 Section 2.7.2.5 of the Collier County Land Development Code requires that the report and recommendations of the Planning Commission to the Board of County Commissioners shall show that the Planning Commission has studied and considered the proposed change in relation to the following, where applicable: 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives & policies of the Future Land Use Map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan. Development Orders deemed consistent with all applicable elements of the Future land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP) should be considered a positive relationship. The proposed Livingston Village PUD development is in compliance with the FLUE of the GMP. 2. The existing land use pattern; The adjacent uses include single and multi -family residential to the west and the approved Balmoral PUD to the north. There is the developed residential Wyndemere PUD to the south (See Staff Report) 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts; The parcel is of sufficient size that it will not result in an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. It is also consistent with expected land uses by virtue of its consistency with the FLUE of the Growth Management Plan. 4, Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. The proposed Livingston Village PUD district boundaries are logically drawn and they are consistent with the FLUE of the GMP. The proposed amendment will not change these boundaries. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary. The proposed Livingston Village PUD is appropriate based on the permitted land uses and compatibility with adjacent land uses. Furthermore, the subject PUD has a positive relationship to the GMP. _ 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living neighborhood; MAY 13 2003 The proposed development standards (i.e. setbacks, landscaping and open space) made a condition of approval will go a long way towards offsetting any potential adverse influences and will not adversely influence living conditions in the neighboring developments. Furthermore, the conditions for approval have been promulgated and designed to ensure the least amount of adverse impact on adjacent and nearby developments. 7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety. This petition was approved by the Transportation Department subject to the conditions of approval as contained in the PUD Document. In addition, this project when developed will not excessively increase traffic congestion on the arterial road network. In the final analysis all rezone actions are subject to the Concurrency Management System. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem; The Land Development Code specifically addresses prerequisite development standards that are designed to reduce the risk of flooding on nearby properties. New development in and of itself is not supposed to increase flooding potential on adjacent property over and above what would occur without development. However, as urban intensification in the absence of commensurate improvement to inter -county drainage appurtenances may increase the risk of flooding in areas when the drainage outfall condition is inadequate. In summary, every project approved in Collier County involving the utilization of land for some land use activity is scrutinized and required to mitigate all sub -surface drainage generated by developmental activities as a condition of approval. The Livingston Village PUD was reviewed for drainage relationships and design and construction plans are required to meet County standards as a condition of approval. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas; All projects in Collier County are subject to the development standards that apply generally and equally to all zoning districts concerning the need to provide the required open space. The subject development standards are designed to ensure that light penetration and circulation of air does not adversely affect adjacent areas. I MAY 13 2003 9 _?3 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area; Typically urban intensification increases the value of contiguous underutilized land. However, this is a subjective determination based upon anticipated results, which may be internal or external to the subject property that can affect property values. Property valuation is affected by a host of factors including zoning, however zoning by itself may or may not affect values, since value determination by law is driven by market value. The mere fact that a property is given a new zoning designation or amendment may or may not affect value. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations; The basic premise underlying all of the development standards in the zoning division of the LDC is that their sound application when combined with the administrative site development plan approval process, gives reasonable assurance that a change in zoning will not result in a deterrence to improvement of adjacent property. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare; The proposed rezone to the Livingston Village PUD complies with the Growth Management Plan, which is a public policy statement supporting zoning actions when they are consistent with said plans. In light of this fact the proposed change does not constitute a grant of special privilege. Consistency with the FLUE is further determined to be a public welfare relationship because actions consistent with plans are in the public interest. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning; The subject property can be developed in accordance with the existing zoning, however to do so would deny this petitioner of the opportunity to maximize the development potential of the site as made possible by its consistency relationship with the Growth Management Plan as follows. The Urban Residential Sub -district permits residential development along with a variety of unit types and at a base density of 4 dwelling units per acre. This district is intended to accommodate a variety of residential and non-residential uses, including mixed-use developments in the form of a Planned Unit Development. Based upon the above analysis, staff concludes that the proposed 590 unit residential development at a density of 3.9 units per acre can be deemed consistent with the FLUE. It should be noted that this FLUE designation is intended to encourage urban residential development MAY 13 2003 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County; The Livingston Village PUD is designed in a manner that is compatible with surrounding and approved PUD property in size and scale. It is also consistent with the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan. 15. Whether is it impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. There are many sites, which are zoned to accommodate the proposed development. This is not the determining factor when evaluating the appropriateness of a rezoning decision. The determinants of zoning are consistency with all elements of the GMP, compatibility, adequacy of infrastructure and to some extent the timing of the action and all of the above criteria. (See the Staff report for a more detailed review) 16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration, which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed, zoning classification. The extent of site alteration will be determined as a function of obtaining a Site Development Plan and/or a preliminary subdivision plat approval to execute the PUD's development strategy. 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, as amended. A multi -disciplined team responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP has reviewed this petition and they have found it consistent with the GMP. The conditions of approval have been incorporated into the PUD document. Staff reviews for adequacy of public services and levels of service determined that required infrastructure meets with GMP established relationships. I:�iLL�y{�L�i�aiY/:L'IIcLIFLi7:7(i� MAY 13 2003 Pct FINDINGS FOR PUD PUDZ-02-AR-3095 Section 2.7.3.2.5 of the Collier County Land Development Code requires the Planning Commission to make a finding as to the PUD Master Plans' compliance with the following criteria: 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. Intensifying land development patterns produces economics of scale relative to public utilities, facilities and services, which are currently available in this area of Collier County. Development of land that has legal access, and is adjacent to existing residential development is particularly suitable for a mixed dwelling type housing project as provided for in the Livingston Village PUD. Conversely, existing neighboring residents may perceive the proposed increase as intensification near their neighborhood as contributing factors to increasing noise, blocking views and reducing property values. Jurisdictional reviews by County staff support the manner and pattern of development proposed for the subject property. Development conditions contained in the proposed PUD document give assurance that all infrastructures will be developed and are consistent with County regulations. Any inadequacies that require supplementing the PUD document will be recommended to the BCC as conditions of approval by staff. Recommended mitigation measures will assure compliance with LOS relationships as prescribed by the GMP. 2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contract, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Documents submitted with the Livingston Village PUD application provide evidence of unified control. The PUD document makes appropriate provisions for continuing operation and maintenance of common areas. 3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives and policies of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). The subject petition has been found consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the GMP. The subject PUD proposes for a mix of residential dwelling types, which is consistent with the GMP (See Staff report). 4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. 12 I MAY 13 M (P �.Q The subject residential PUD provides criteria for a common architectural design and development standards. In addition, landscaping has been provided to buffer the adjacent residential developments. The PUD Master Plan has been designed to optimize internal land use relationship through the use of various forms of lakes and open space separation. 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The amount of open space set aside by this project is consistent with the provisions of the Land Development Code. 6. The timingor sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. The proposed Livingston Village PUD will not adversely impact the timing or sequence of development that is currently allowed in the area. Furthermore. the adopted concurrency requirements ensure that further LOS degradation is not allowed or the LOS deficiency is corrected. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. Ability, as applied in this context, implies supporting infrastructure such as wastewater disposal system, potable water supplies, characteristics of the property relative to hazards, and capacity of roads, is supportive of conditions emanating from urban development. 8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. This criterion essentially requires an evaluation of the extent to which development standards proposed for this PUD depart from development standards that would be required for the most similar conventional zoning district. The development standards in this PUD are similar to those development standards for cluster housing. However, staff is recommending that the minimum side yard setback be 6 feet instead of the proposed 5 -foot side yard setback. 13 1 MAY 13 2003 f. Attachment B Co er County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 INSUBSTANTIAL CHANGE TO A PUD (PDI) LDC subsection 10.02.13 E & Code of Laws section 2.83- 2-90 Ch. 3 6.3 of the Administrative Code Pursuant to LDC subsection 10.02.13 E.2, a PUD insubstantial change includes any change that is not considered a substantial or a minor change. A PUD insubstantial change to an approved PUD ordinance shall be based upon an evaluation of LDC subsection 10.02.13 E:1 and shall require the review and approval of the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner's approval shall be based on the findings and criteria used for the original application. PETITION NO PROJECT NAME To be completed by staff DATE PROCESSED APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION Name of Applicant(s): Marbella Lakes Owners Association, Inc.c/o Brett Cohan Address: 6664 Marbella Lane Telephone: 239-253-0593 city: Naples state: FL Cell: N/A Fax: N/A E -Mail Address: bcohan@comcast.net Name of Agent: Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP, Vice President Folio #: 56610001760 Firm: Hole Montes, Inc. Address: 950 Encore Way Telephone: 239-254-2000 ZIP: 34105 Section: 19 Twp: 49S Range: 26E_ Cell: N/A City: Naples state: FL ZIP: 34110 Fax: 239-254-2099 E -Mail Address: bobmulhere@hmeng.com 6/17/2015 Page 1 of 5 Co er County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST INFORMATION Is the applicant the owner of the subject property? ❑■ Yes ❑ No ❑ 1. If applicant is a land trust, so indicate and name the beneficiaries below. x❑ 2. If applicant is corporation other than a public corporation, so indicate and name officers and major stockholders below. ❑ 3. If applicant is a partnership, limited partnership or other business entity, so indicate and name principals below. ❑ 4. If applicant is an owner, indicate exactly as recorded, and list all other owners, if any. ❑ 5. If applicant is a lessee, attach copy of lease, and indicate actual owners if not indicated on thelease. ❑ 6. If applicant is a contract purchaser, attach copy of contract, and indicate actual owner(s) name and address below: (If space is inadequate, attach on separate page) Marbella Lakes Owners Association, Inc. - Jennifer Fazio, President, Sean Segin, Vice President, Brett Cohan, Treasurer, Pamela Jacobs, Secretary DETAIL OF REQUEST On a separate sheet, attached to the application, describe the insubstantial change request. Identify how the request does not meet the PUD substantial change criteria established in LDC subsection 10.02.13 E.I. PROPERTY INFORMATION' PUD NAME: Livingston village PUD ORDINANCE NUMBER: 03-23 FOLIO NUMBER(S): 66610001760 Provide a legal (if PUD is recorded) or graphic description of area of amendment (this may be graphically Illustrated on Amended PUD Master Plan). If applying for a portion of the PUD, provide a legal description for subject portion. Attach on a separate sheet, a written description of the map or text change. Does amendment comply with the Growth Management Plan? ❑■ Yes ❑ No 6/17/2015 Page 2 of 5 cokerer county COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.collieraov.net 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239)252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 If no, please explain: Has a public hearing been held on this property within the last year? ❑ Yes ❑■ No If yes, in whose name? Has any portion of the PUD been ❑ SOLD and/or ❑ DEVELOPED? Are any changes proposed for the area sold and/or developed? ❑ Yes 0❑ No If yes, please describe on an attached separate sheet. 6/17/2015 Page 3 of 5 Co CT County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 Pre -Application Meeting and Final Submittal Requirement Checklist for: PUD Insubstantial Change Chapter 3 G.3 of the Administrative Code + The following Submittal Requirement checklist is to be utilized during the Pre -Application Meeting and at time of application submittal. At final submittal, the checklist is to be completed and submitted with the application packet. Please provide the submittal items in the exact order listed below, with cover sheets attached to each section. Incomplete submittals will not be accepted. REQUIREMENTS FOR REVIEW q OF COPIES REQUIRED REQUIRED NOT Completed Application (download current form from County website) 16 Q Pre -Application Meeting notes 1 x Project Narrative, including a detailed description of proposed changes and why amendment is necessary 16 ❑ Detail of request Li x Current Master Plan & 1 Reduced Copy ❑ ❑ x Revised Master Plan & 1 Reduced Copy ❑ ❑ Q Revised Text and any exhibits x PUD document with changes crossed through & underlined ❑ x ❑ PUD document as revised with amended Title Page with Ordinance # x Warranty Deed ❑ x ❑ Legal Description x Boundary survey, If boundary of original PUD is amended ❑ ❑ Q If PUD Is platted, Include plat book pages x ❑ List identifying Owner & all parties of corporation 2 x Affidavit of Authorization. signed & notarized 2 x ❑ Completed Addressing Checklist 1 El ❑ Copy of 8 % in. x 11 in, graphic location map of site 1 x Electronic copy of all documents and plans *Please advise: The Office of the Hearing Examiner requires all materials to be submitted electronically in PDF format. ❑ Q ❑ *If located in Immokalee or seeking affordable housing, include an additional set of each submittal requirement. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS: • Following the completion of the review process by County Review staff, the applicant shall submit all materials electronically to the designated project manager. • Please contact the project manager to confirm the number of additional copies required. 6/17/2015 - Page 4 of 5 C & County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colller¢ov.net 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 PLANNERS — INDICATE IF THE PETITION NEEDS TO BE ROUTED TO THE FOLLOWING REVIEWERS: ❑ School District (Resldentlal Components): Amy Lockheart ❑ Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment: Executive Director Utilitles Engineering: Kris VanLengen Parks and Recreation: Vicky Ahmad ❑ Emergency Management: Dan Summers Naples Airport Authority: Ted Soliday Conservancy of SWFL: Nlchole Ryan Other: City of Naples: Robin Singer, Planning Director Other: FEE REQUIF:EMENTS ' 91 PUD Amendment Insubstantial (PDI): $1,500.00 9 Pre -Application Meeting: $500.00 6 Estimated Legal Advertising fee for the Office of the Hearing Examiner: $9X 83 $1,125.00 The completed application, all required submittal materials, and fees shall be submitted to: Growth Management Department/Planning and Regulation ATTN: Business Center 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Appll ant nature Robert J. Where, FAICP, Vice President Applicant/Owner Name (please print) $1,500.00 $1,125.00 $ 100.00(Fire Rev) $2,725,00 - 500.00(credit) $2,225.00 Date 6/17/2015 Page 5 of 5 AFFIDAVIT OF AUTHORIZATION FOR PETITION NUMBERS(S) PDI -PL -20180002748 1, BRETTCOHAN (print name), as TREASURER applicable) of MARBELLA LAKES OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. under oath, that I am the (choose one) ownerr,/�applicant f-7contl _ (title, If swear or affirm 1. I have full authority to secure the approval(s) requested and to impose covenants and restrictions on the referenced property as a result of any action approved by the County in accordance with this application and the Land Development Code; 2. All answers to the questions in this application and any sketches, data or other supplementary matter attached hereto and made a part of this application are honest and true; 3. 1 have authorized the staff of Collier County to enter upon the property during normal working hours for the purpose of investigating and evaluating the request made through this application; and that 4. The property will be transferred, conveyed, sold or subdivided subject to the conditions and restrictions imposed by the approved action. 5. Well authorize ROBERT J.MULHERE,FAICP,VICE PRESIDENT, PLANNINGSERVICES to act as our/my representative in any matters regarding this petition including 1 through 2 above. "Notes: • If the applicant is a corporation, then it is usually executed by the corp. pres. or v, pres. • If the applicant is a Limited Liability Company (L. L. C.) or Limited Company (L. C.), then the documents should typically be signed by the Company's "Managing Member." • If the applicant is a partnership, then typically a partner can sign on behalf of the partnership. • If the applicant Is a limited partnership, then the general partner must sign and be identified as the "general partner" of the named partnership. • If the applicant is a trust, then they must include the trustee's name and the words "as trustee". • In each instance, first determine the applicant's status, e.g., individual, corporate, trust, partnership, and then use the appropriate format for that ownership. Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing Affidavit of Authorization and that the facts !ta 00 In it are true. 2 -Zy. /?- Signaturb Date BRETT COHAN, TREASURER MARBELLA LAKES OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER The foregoing 'instrument was sworn to (or affirmed) and subscribed before me on Z — 2 V — I-? (date) by �/4 sljL C*Aar7 (name of person providing oath or affirmation), as who i ersonally known to me r who has produced (type of Identification) as identification. t STAMP/SEAL Signature of Notary Public "04k ALMEIDA MOREL �Notary Public - State of flarids •' aM Cwrrrissian Esgres fab 16.2D16 "`nf ii:PO� Commission M FF 065997 CPW&COA-00115\155 REV 3/14/14 Hm HOLE MONTES ENGINEER6 I Fb4NERS I SURVEYORS 950 Encore Way • Naples, Florida 34110 - Phone 239.254,2000 Fax 239 254,2099 December 9, 2016 VL4 HAND DELIVER Paula Brethauer, Intake Planner Collier County Growth Management Division Growth Management Division 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, Florida 34104 Re: Livingston Village PUD (a/k/a Marbella Lakes PUD) Insubstantial Change to a PUD (PDI) HM File No.: 2016.080 Dear Ms, Brethauer: This letter and the enclosed information are submitted to request approval of an Insubstantial Change to a PUD (PDI) for the above -referenced project. Please see enclosed Narrative for full description of project. We enclose the following documents: One (1) copy of a cover letter (this is the cover letter); • One (1) fee check in the amount of $2,225; One (1) copy of completed PDI Application; • One (1) copy of the Pre -Application Meeting Notes from 10-18-2016; • One (1) copy of the Project Narrative; One (1) copy of letter from City of Fort Myers; One (1) copy of Detail of Request — included in Narrative; One (1) copy of Current Master Plan — see attached Ordinance No. 03-23; One (1) copy of Revised Master Plan —Not Applicable; One (1) copy of PUD document with changes crossed through and underlined; One (1) copy of Deed; One (1) copy of Legal Description — see attached Legal Description from Ordinance No. 03-23; One (1) copy of Ordinance No. 03-23: One (1) copy of Boundary Survey —Not Applicable, One (1) copy of Marbella Lakes, Unit One Plat (O.R. 49, Pages 91-96); • One (1) copy of Affidavit of Authorization (signed and notarized); One (1) copy of the List identifying Owner and All Parties of Corporation (Disclosure Information) — included in the PDI Application; • One (1) copy of completed Addressing Checklist; One (1) copy of Aerial with Location Map (I1" x 17"); and • One (1) CD of all materials in pdf format. ll:A2016A2016080AWPAPDIAInitlalAPB 161209 lir tr initial Pot submittal.dacx - - - - - - -- - Naples • Fort Myers Paula Brethauer, Intake Planner Collier County Growth Management Division Livingston Village PUD (a/k/a Marbella Lakes PUD) Insubstantial Change to a PUD (PDI) HM File No.: 2016.080 December 9, 2016 Page 2 This concludes our Insubstantial Change to a PUD (PDI) submittal. Should you have any questions or require further information, please feel free to contact me. Very truly yours, HOLE MONTES, INC. R bertJ. Mulhere, FAICP Vice President, Planning Services RJM/sek Enclosures as noted. cc: Bret Cohan w/enclosures H:A2016A20(6080AWP\PDIAInitialAPn 161209 Itr tr initial PDI submitial,doex MARBELLA LAKES (A/K/A LIVINGSTON VILLAGE PUD) ORDINANCE NO. 02-22 PDI NARRATIVE AND DEVIATION JUSTIFICATION REVISED 5-17-2017 Marbella Lakes (aka Livingston Village PUD) was approved on May 13, 2003. It is 148.98 acres in size and is located on the east side of Livingston Road, just north of the Wyndemere PUD. The PUD was approved for up to 590 residential dwelling units and is built out with both single family and multi -family development. The PUD Master Plan provides the following land use Table: LAND USE SUMMARY ® n-1 & R • 2 RESIDENTIAL . 89.8 ® REC RECREATIONAL • 3.1 ®® PRIVATE ROADWAY - 7.5 C= L LAKE - 14.5 F!& PRESERVE PRESERVE WRHIN - 4.0 DRAINAGE EASEMENT Ir01010[� OI T.prp OJL m1a Rrir O OPEN SPACE. BUFFERS - 30.1 & EASEMENTS TOTAL -149.0 PROPOSED PUD CHANGE: The PUD, in Section 2.9, Landscape Buffers, Berms, Fences and Walls, Paragraph K., provides for a Street tree Master Plan, as follows: Street Trees: Street trees shall be provided on both sides of all internal roads or access ways. A Street Tree Master Plan .shall be included with the application for a preliminary subdivision plat PSP or site development plan SDP as may be appropriate. Installation of individual trees shall be installed prior to or concurrent with the development of the adjacent dwelling unit or structure in proximity to the roadway or access way. Shade trees in proximity to sidewalks or other paved areas shall be installed with a deep root barrier system. Street trees shall be placed at the more restrictive spacing of one per lot or one per 50 linear feet. A minimum oj'50 percent of the trees shall be canopy trees with a 10 foot height at installation. Street trees shall be located within 10 feet of the edge of pavement and between the edge of pavement and sidewalk when viable. Once installed should a street tree be displaced or die it shall be replaced within 6 months. Replacement trees shall minimally meet the original specification requirements, including consistency with the Street Tree Master Plan. This tree requirement may count toward satisfaction of the tree requirements for individual lots or tracts as provided for by the Collier County Land Development Code. If utilized to satisfy Collier County Land Development Code Page 1 of 3 C:\Users\EVELYNTRIMINO\AppData\Locai\Microsoll\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Con(ent.Outlook\7Y2UCARF\Marbella Lakes Narrative (Revised 6-20-2017).docx requirements, trees shall be required to meet native species requirements and other applicable Code provisions. The development contains 50 -foot wide private roadways (with travel lanes and sidewalks on both sides of the street), and adjacent to the ROW on one side of the street there is a 15 -foot County Utility Easement (CUE) and on both sides of the street there is a 10 -foot Public Utility Easement (PUE). In the rear of these lots there is a 15 foot wide drainage easement. The platted lots average i 10 feet to 120 feet in depth. The front yards are relatively small, especially the remainder of the yard not encumbered by easement. All of the lots were also planted with at least 3 palm trees in the front yard and with additional trees in the rear in many cases. These plantings are adequate to meet the county's landscape requirements. The Developer, GL Homes did have a landscape plan prepared and approved, and did plant the street trees required above; however, the planting did not follow the required and prescribed details of the approved landscape plan. The inconsistencies are as follows: • The live oak trees (all street trees are live oaks) planted were planted with plan required root barrier. • The trees are planted within the ROW or within the adjacent CUE, and only a few feet at most from the sidewalk and from water and sewer lines another utility infrastructure. • The plan calls for a separation of at least 12.5 feet between trees, yet most are closer. • The plan calls for a significant separation of trees from utilities (10 feet) but this was not adhered to, as most trees are closer and are now growing into each other). • The plan requires that planting of these trees be planted at east 7.5 feet form utilities. This was not adhered to in any case. • Given the lack of root barriers and proximity of these trees to utilities, sidewalks, rights- of-way travel lanes, and given the lack of spacing between trees, problems are already occurring. It will only get worse (and more expensing to address the problems). Please refer to pictures attached photos of street trees in Marbella Lakes. Additionally, other jurisdictions have now limited or suspended the use of live oaks due to the potential impacts associated with the rot system and damage to sidewalks, pavement, utilities lines, tripping hazards and so forth (see attached letter dated March 16, 2016, from City of Fort Myers to GL Homes). We are proposing to strike through the street tree section in its entirety. Each single family lot contains a grouping of three palms in the front yard and one canopy tree in the rear yard. This is consistent with LDC requirement, exclusive f the street trees. In conclusion, while the idea of planting street trees is laudable, in this case there are significant concerns and the potential of significant cost to the residents of Marbella Lakes. As it is, there will be costs associated with removal of these trees, but leaving them in place will certainly lead to more significant problems and related costs. Page 2 of 3 C:\Users\EVELYNTRIMINO\AppData\Local\MicrosoR\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\ConlenLOutlook\7Y2UCARF\Marbella Lakes Narrative (Revised 6-20-2017).docx Therefore, the following revised language is proposed (underlined language is being added and stfuek thfoug13 language deleted): 2.9 LANDSCAPE BUFFERS, BERMS, FENCES AND WALLS Landscape buffers, berms, fences and walls are generally permitted as a principal use throughout the Livingston Village PUD. Other than as specifically provided below in paragraphs A. through K., the provisions of the LDC shall apply, as applicable to landscape buffers, berms, fences, and walls. The ello:: i ng stemderds ill-app;T K. Street Trees previously required pursuant to the Street Tree Master Plan may be removed. Such trees are not required to be replanted. All single family lots must meet the minimum planting requirements set forth in the LDC. Prior to the removal of any Street Trees, Marbella FIOA shall submit an insubstantial change to the approved landscape plan identifying the fact that the Street Trees are to be removed and identifying any single family lots that do not meet the LDC minimum tree requirements. The revised landscape plan shall include one or more typical planting plans for such lots and evidence that the necessary plantings have been installed. Street Trees, Street tree„ shall he . :dad on hoth sides F n inter. n, .e„d,. ,. aeeess ways. A Street Tree Master Plan shall be :..,Laded with the appheatien fer preliniinapf subdivision plan (PSP) or site deN,eiepment p /STPD\ a may he appropriate. installation ..F ind:..:d...l trees shall he :nst„ned prieF to o eeneuffent ..;th the de..elopment of the ed aee«t dwelling unit a stfue!u e in proximity te the readway of aeeess way. Shade trees in proximity to sidewalks , other « .ed afeas shall he installed with .. deep Feet 1...,...:er . .rate « Street trees shall he .,laved at the more restive spaoing of ,, e tree F en ,nn linear feet. A minimum of 50 pereen4 of the trees shall be eanepy trees with a4 -0 - feet height at installatien. Sireet trees shall h -e-, le-eated- %vithi n 10 fset of the edge - F pavement and between the edge o f « ent end the sid-t ,,e1L n.hen vin ..._..,, »arra .._...__....._ __a_ .._ r_. _____.__ �._ ____ ____.. __._ 100hen ..____. n ll d should a street tree he d:,,.leeed or die :t shell he re«leeed A,'th�n vaw� ....,...,..�», should » street .._ _...r._.._ .,. die, ._ ...._...._ ._r _____ ..______ hs. D .4.. e ent trees shall, Fainimally meet the original .d F7eeti.,« ........t.. ineh.diag ee. sisteney with the Street Tree Master Dle . Th;r_t:m .«t teaM satisfti een of the tree .vy,. ents C r individual cgarr T„ ,, lots or t., as pro,idea F by the Gell: County Land rte elep ent_Code rF shall hyd meet native speeiese-r ents a fad ether- appheatle r`e� EQ�#ifet23ent5; Page 3 of 3 C:\Users\EVELYNTRIMINO\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\7Y2UCARF\Marbella Lakes Narrative (Revised 6-20-2017).docx ow Isw kr. Nk, f. 4 a. tdpom soft Y p 1 N J t , *Nqm. Zft- INSTR 4476541 OR 4606 PG 1436 RECORDED 9/20/2010 1:22 PM PAGES 3 DWIGHT E. BROCK, COLLIER COUNTY CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT DOC@.70 $0.70 REC $27.00 CONS $0.00 This Instrument prepared by (and after recording should be relumed to): NIARBELLA LAKES ASSOCIATES, LLC 1600 Sawgrass Corporate Parkway, Suite 400 Sunnse, Florida 33323 Atln: Steve Hellman, Esq. Follo Numbers: See Exhibit"D" QUITCLAIM DEED THIS QUITCLAIM DEED is made and given this 13th day of July, 2010 by MARBELLA LAKES ASSOCIATES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, whose address is 1600 Sawgrass Corporate Parkway, Suite 400, Sunrise, Florida 33323 (the "Grantor"), to MARBELLA LAKES OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., a Florida corporation not-for-profit, whose mailing address is 1600 Sawgrass Corporate Parkway, Suite 400, Sunrise, Florida 33323 (the "Grantee"). Wherever used herein, the terms "Grantor"and "Grantee" shall Include the parties to this Instrument and their respective successors and assigns. WITNESSETH: GRANTOR, for and in consideration of Ten and No/100 (510.00) Dollars paid by Grantee to Grantor, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, does hereby remise, release and quitclaim unto Grantee, forever, all the right, title. Interest, claim and demand which Grantor has in and to the following.deseribed.property located in Hillsborough County, Florida (the"Property'), town: See Exhibit "F,4", {ed hereTcri 'i` i31e1a part hereof THIS CONVEYANCE is m,adeV°ybJect to the folk year 2010 and subsequent year //not yet` q ordayabl prohibitions and other requiremg�nts posed b'" ON, I building, zoning, land use and bnvi nfneiy(aylaw ,'D would be disclosed by an accur ate s rv�yo he Pr p r reservations, limitations and oth� jj,milttajsyr" fecor $i same; and (d) that certain Amenn'tl #2astoted masfe and Easements for Mat Ella Lall((@s\ corded in Official Records of Hillsborough Counas the same I from time to time. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the, belonging or in anywise appertaining, and of Grantor, either in law or In equity, to the taxes and assessments for the antes, regulations, restrictions, ncluding, without limitation, all regulations; (c) matters which enants, conditions, restrictions, shall not operate to reimpose :pants, Conditions, Restrictions 1, at Page 2711 of the Public modified and/or supplemented djd'singular the appurtenances thereunto interest, lien, equity and claim whatsoever and behoof of Grantee. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor has hereunto set its hand and seal as of the day and year first above written. Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of: MARBELLA LAKES ASSOCIATES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company , �^t Lja& By: Naples Associates III, LLC, a Florida limited Print Name: LY,J X55 liability Company, member ,i�its Pr' ame: �lmanaging By: 1(//11'7'—� Richard M. Norwalk, Vice President STATE OF FLORIDA ) )SS: COUNTY OF BROWARD ) I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this day, before me, an officer duly authorized in the Stale aforesaid and In the County aforesaid to take acknowledgments, the foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me by Richard M. Norwalk, as Vice President of Naples Associates III, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, the managing member of MARBELLA LAKES ASSOCIATES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, on behalf of said companies. He is personally known to me. 2010. WITNESS my hand and official seal in the CoUDty, and State last esaid this 13th day of July, _�lV\4id N0'fary-Public JMIETIEMNUEON BYO -!ss�Qp13 Typed, printed or stamped name of Notary Public mora rlw twr P.eR um,xnnna OR 4606 PG 1437 EXHIBIT "A" THE PROPERTY Tracts A-1, A-4, A-5, A-6, A-7, P-1, P-2, P-3, L-1 L-2, L-3, L-4, L-5 and L-6, M, N, E and J-1 of the Plat of MARBELLA LAKES, according to the Plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 46, Page 77 of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. Tracts OS -1 and OS -2 of the Plat of MARBELLA LAKES, UNIT ONE, according to the Plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 49, Page 91 of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. -2- *** OR 4606 PG 1438 *** EXHIBIT "B" FOLIO NUMBERS Tracts Plat Folio Number A-1 MARBELLA LAKES, Plat Book 56610000022 46, Page 77 A4 MARSELLA LAKES, Plat Book 56610000185 46, Page 77 A-5 MARBELLA LAKES, Plat Book 56610000208 46, Pae 77 A-6 MARBELLA LAKES, Plat Book 56610000224 46, Pae 77 A-7 MARBELLA LAKES, Plat Book 56610000240 46, Pae 77 P-1 MARBELLA LAKES, Plat Book 56610004589 46 Page 77 P-2 MARBELLA LAKES, Plat Book 56610004602 46, Page 77 P-3 MARBELLA LAKES, Plat Book 56610004628 46, Page 77 L-1 MARBELLA LAKES, Plat Book 56610003920 46, Pae 77 L-2 MARBELLA LAKES, Plat Book 56610003946 46, Pace 77 L-3 MARBELLA LAKES, Plat Book 56610003962 46, Pa a 77 _ L-4 MARBELKE3- -I, ook 56610003988 L-5LLA LAKES, Pat - B, OK, 4 56610004000 4 a e 77 '� \ L-6 i M RLLA-LAKES,-PI 1 Boo 56¢10004026 M I`IrA - 3b`o 566 0004042 N I,.., t B LLkJAKESU,Plat Book 0004068 " ry, E ,�. ARBELLA LAKES, I t B ok,',5§ 10001760 Patle 77 4'wt i J-1 A ELLA LAKES, Plat g k,. r5 610003881 & e,77 05-1 M RBE ES-Anite.Ona, 56630500047 OS -2 MARBELLA LAKES, Unit One, 56530500063 Plat Book 49 Pa a 91 -3- SECTION ONE: AMENDMENT TO SECTION 2, PROJECT DEVELOPMENT, SUBSECTION 2.9, LANDSCAPE BUFFERS, BERMS, FENCES AND WALLS, ATTACHED TO ORDINANCE NO. 91-102, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE NO. 03-23, LIVINGSTON VILLAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Section 2.9, Landscape Buffers, Berms, Fences and Walls, attached to Ordinance No. 91- 102, as amended by Ordinance No. 03-23, Livingston Village Planned Unit Development, is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.9 LANDSCAPE BUFFERS, BERMS, FENCES AND WALLS Landscape buffers, berms, fences and walls are generally permitted as a principal use throughout the Livingston Village PUD. Other than as specifically provided below in paragraphs A through K the provisions of the LDC shall apply, as applicable to landscape buffers, berms, fences, and walls The fa!I& i stan,l fds--.l n ««L.. 6 K. Street Trees previously required pursuant to the Street Tree Master Plan may be removed. Such trees are not required to be replanted. All single family lots must meet the minimum planting requirements set forth in the LDC. Prior to the removal of any Street Trees, Marbella HOA shall submit an insubstantial change to the approved landscape plan identifying the fact that the Street Trees are to be removed and identifying any single family lots that do not meet the LDC minimum tree requirements. The revised landscape plan shall include one or more typical planting plans for such lots and evidence that the necessary plantings have been installed. Street Tfees. Street trees shall b provided on both sides c n edge- of-fite-final roads nr aeoess ways. A Street Tree Master Plan shall be ifieluded with the applieation fef pfeliminary stibdivision plan (PSP) oF site developfnent plan (SDP) as fflay be appropriate. installation of indiN,idual !fees shall be insta prior to or eaneurrent with the development of the adjacent dwelling unit 6 stfuetufe in proximity to the readway or aeoess way. Shade trees in proilEifflity to sidewalks or other paved afeas shall be installed with a deep root barrier systeffi.. Street trees shall be plaeed at the more restive spaeing of one tree per "'. i0o linear feet. A fninifflum of So pereent of the 4fees shall be eanopy tfeesNith 11 -10 - pavement, nd between ti.o ,,,1 b ..0 « .i h sidewalk L bl e.� Onee installed, should a street tree be displaeed of die, it shall be replaeed wiglin 6 months.Reply «t tirees shall ll et theoriginal specifieation r Page 1 of 2 Words underlined are added; words Stwek Nrreagh are deletions C':\Users\EVELYNTRIMINO\AppDeta\Local\Microsott\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Conlent.Outlook\7Y2UC'ARF\Livingston Village PUD (PDI-PL20160002748) (6-20-2017) 2.docx Page 2 of 2 Words underlined are added; words ARiel-thFou It are deletions C:\Users\EVELYNTRIMINO\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Filcs\Content.Outlook\1Y2UCARF\Livingsion Village PUD (PDI-PL20160002748) (6-20-2017) 2.docx ORDINANCE NO. 03-_2-3, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 91-1025? THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WHICH-{;; INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS-,--,- FOR EGULATIONS , FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY„ j FLORIDA BY AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING ATLAS MAP' II d NUMBERED 9619N; BY CHANGING THE ZONING71 CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED READ'-" M'� u PROPERTY FROM "A" RURAL, AGRICULTURE TO "PUD' o" `u��•., v PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS LIVINGSTOI�?„ !� VILLAGE PUD LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF LIVINGSTONf" ZZs[ 2VtiV�� SECT8 ION 19,TOWN HIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 81) NORTH OF WYNDEMERE COUNTRY CLUB, COLLIER 9tbt COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 148.98+ ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Attachment C -7� WHEREAS, Michael Fernandez, AICP, Planning Development, Incorporated, representing Marian H. Gerace and Wallace L. Lewis, Jr., petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to change the zoning classification of the herein described real property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that: SECTION ONE: The zoning classification of the herein described real property located in Section 19, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, is changed from "A" Rural Agriculture to "PUD" Planned Unit Development in accordance with the Livingston Village PUD Document, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by reference herein. The Official Zoning Atlas Map numbered 9619N, as described in Ordinance Number 91-102, the Collier County Land Development Code, is hereby amended accordingly. SECTION TWO: This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this _ IS day of Mal 2003. '`ATTESTS{. DWIGHT E,'BROCK, CLERK r., ' ilt*q as to Ckin "'s sig"At't 041. Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency Marjorie M)Student Assistant County Attorney PUM-1002-AR-3095/RB/b BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER C�q�Y, �FLOR A BY: (l TOM HENNING, CHAIRMAN This ordinance filed with the Secretory of State's Office tha aaebo lodgement o- f that f(ll m*i � day Of ��lgt, Clerk EXHIBIT A LIVINGSTON VILLAGE Q PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PREPARED FOR: Marian M. Gerace and Wallace L. Lewis, Jr. c/o Steven A. Landy, Esti. Greenberg Traurig Attorneys at Law 1221 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33131 PREPARED BY: PLANNING DEVELOPMENT INCORPORATED Michael R. Fernandez, AICP 5133 CASTELJ,.O DRIVE SUITE 2 NAPLES, FLORIDA 34103 239 / 263-6934 1263-6981 FAX PDI MRF @ AOL.COM DATE FILED: July 12.2002 DOCUMENT DATE: May 15, 2003 DATE REVIEWED BY CCPC: April 17, 2003 DATE APPROVED BY BCC: Ma r 13 2003 ORDINANCE NUMBER: Oa TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE AND SHORT TITLE 111 SECTION I LEGAL DESCRIPTION, PROPERTY OWNERSHIP, AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION 1-1 SECTION 11 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT 2.1 SECTION III RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT 3.1 SECTION IV RECREATION DISTRICT 4.1 EXHIBITS EXHIBIT A LIVINGSTON VILLAGE PUD MASTER PLAN iii STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE The purpose of this Section is to express the intent of Wallace L. Lewis and Marian H. Gerace, hereinafter referred to as the developer, to create a Planned Unit Development (PUD) on 149± acres of land located in Section 19, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. The name of this Planned Unit Development shall be Livingston Village. The development of Livingston Village will be in compliance with the planning goals and objectives of Collier County as set forth in the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP). The development will be consistent with the adopted growth policies and land development regulations of the Growth Management Plan's Future Land Use Element (FLUE) and other applicable regulations for the following reasons: Livingston Village is compatible with adjacent land uses as required in Policy 5.4 of the FLUE through the internal arrangement of land uses, the placement of vegetative buffers, and the proposed development standards contained herein. 2. Improvements are planned to be in compliance with applicable land development regulations as set forth in Objective 3 of the FLUE. 3. The subject property is within the Urban Residential Land Use Designation as identified on the Future Land Use Map as required in Objective 1, Policy 5.1 and Policy 5.3 of the FLUE and therefore is eligible for the base density of four units per acre as provided by the FLUE Density Rating System. The proposed density for the project is 3.9 units per acre which is less than the maximum density provided by the Density Rating System contained in the FLUE and therefore is consistent with the FLUE, Policy 5.1. SHORT TITLE This ordinance shall be known and cited as the "LIVINGSTON VILLAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE". SECTION I LEGAL DESCRIPTION, PROPERTY OWNERSHIP, AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION 1.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the legal description and ownership of the Livingston Village PUD, and to describe the existing condition of the property proposed to be developed. The Livingston Village PUD is located within Collier County, 1.2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION The subject property being: A part of the North % of the North '/2 of Section 19, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, less and excepting Interstate 75 Right -of -Way located in Collier County, Florida Beginning at the Northwest corner of said Section 19; thence along the north line of said Section, South 89037'04" East 4886.95 feet to the west right-of-way of Interstate 75; thence along said right-of-way South 0007'55" West 1326.91 feet to the Northeast corner of Lot 7, Grassmere Phase Two, as recorded in Plat Book 16, pages 20-21; thence along the north line of the replat of the part of Wyndemere Tract Map as recorded in Plat Book 13, pages 3943, North 89°36'39"West 4896.99 feet to the Northwest corner of Parcel "BB" according to said plat; thence along the West line of said Section 19, North 00033'56" East 1326.30 feet to the Point of Beginning; 'Subject to easements and restrictions of record Containing 148,98 acres more or less. Bearings are based on the north line of the Wyndemere community being North 89036'39" West. 1.3 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP The subject property is currently under the ownership and unified control of Wallace L. Lewis, Jr. and Marian H. Gerace, hereinafter jointly called "applicant or developer'. 1-2 1.4 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY A. The total site area is 149* acres and is located immediately north of the Wyndemere residential community along Livingston Road and extends eastward to the right-of-way of Interstate 75. This parcel is located within Section 19, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. B. The zoning classification of the subject property prior to the date of this approved PUD Document was "A" - Rural Agriculture. 11 SECTION 11 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT 2.1 PURPOSE 2-1 The purpose of this Section is to generally describe the plan of development for the Livingston Village PUD, and to identify relationships to applicable County ordinances, policies, and procedures. 2.2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT PLAN AND PROPOSED LAND USES Livingston Village has an area of 149± acres and shall consist of a maximum of 590 residential units developed as a mixture of single and multi -family residences in a community of individual residential tracts, and shared open space features. The project's primary access shall be from Livingston Road via an entry drive or public road located along the northerly property line of the subject property. A secondary access from Livingston Road shall be located approximately 660 feet north of the property's southerly boundary. The Livingston Village PUD Master Plan is illustrated graphically on Exhibit "A". A Land Use Summary indicating approximate land use acreages is shown on the PUD Master Plan. The location, size, and configuration of individual tracts shall be determined at the time of preliminary subdivision plat approval with minor adjustments at the time of final plat approval, in accordance with Section 3.2.7.2. of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC). 2.3 COMPLIANCE WITH COUNTY ORDINANCES A. Regulations for development of the Livingston Village PUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this PUD Ordinance, and to the extent they are not inconsistent with this PUD Ordinance, applicable sections of the LDC which are in effect at the time of issuance of any development order to which said regulations relate which authorizes the construction of improvements, such as but not limited to final subdivision plat, final site development plan, excavation permit and preliminary work authorization. Where this PUD Ordinance does not provide developmental standards, then the provisions of the specific section of the LDC that is otherwise applicable shall apply. B. Unless otherwise defined herein, the definitions of all terms shall be the same as the definitions set forth in the LDC in effect at the time of development order application. C. Unless modified, waived or excepted by this PUD Document, the provisions of other applicable sections of the LDC remain in effect with respect to the development of the land which comprises this PUD. D. All conditions imposed herein are part of the regulations which govern the manner in which the land may be developed. 2-2 E. The Subdivisions Division of the LDC (Article 3, Division 3.2) shall apply to the Livingston Village PUD, except where an exemption is set forth herein or otherwise granted pursuant to LDC Section 3.2.4. F. The Site Development Plans Division of the LDC (Article 3, Division 3.3) shall apply to the Livingston Village PUD, except where an exemption is set forth herein or otherwise granted pursuant to LDC Section 3.3.4. 2.4 ROADWAYS Standards for roads shall be in compliance with the applicable provisions of the LDC regulating subdivisions, unless otherwise modified, waived or excepted by this PUD or approved during the preliminary subdivision plat approval process. The developer reserves the right to request substitutions to Code design standards in accordance with Section 3.2.7,2 of the LDC. The developer also retains the right to establish gates, guardhouses, other access controls, signs and monuments as may be deemed appropriate by the developer on all internal project roadways in accordance with the standards established herein and applicable provisions of the Land Development Code. Roadways within the Livingston Village PUD shall be designed and constructed in accordance with Section 3.2.8.4.16. of the LDC with the following substitutions: A. LDC Sections 3.2.8.3.19: Street name signs shall be approved by the Engineering or Transportation Services Director, but need not meet the U.S.D.O.T.F.H.W.A. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Street Pavement painting, street striping, and reflective edging requirements shall be waived. B. LDC Section 3.2.8.4.16.9: The requirement that curved streets have a minimum tangent of 75 feet at intersections shall be waived and no minimum shall be required. F. LDC Section 3.2.8.4.16.5: All internal streets shall considered local streets and their standard right-of-way width shall be no less than 50 feet. D. LDC Section 3.2.8.4.16.6: The 1,000 foot length for cul-de-sac streets shall be waived. The maximum length shall be 1,400 feet unless extended upon review and approval of the Fire District. E. LDC Section 3.2.8.4.16.10: The requirement for tangents between reverse curves shall be waived. F. LDC Section 3.2.8.4.16.12.d: The requirement for asphaltic courses shall be waived to allow the use of a surface course of paver brick or decorative concrete pavement. G. LDC Section 3.2.8.4.16.12.e: The requirements that grass be required for all non -paved areas of the right-of-way shall be waived to allow the installation of decorative planters and alternative ground cover. 2-3 H. LDC Section 3.2.8.4.22.9.c: The requirement that drainage facilities on lots be spaced in accordance with FDOT criteria may be substituted upon submittal of the necessary data to support the substitution at the time of development plan submittal and approval of the Engineering Services Director. 2.5 LAKE SETBACK AND EXCAVATION A. As depicted on the Livingston Village Master Concept Plan, lakes have been preliminarily sited, with the ultimate location and configuration to be determined during the site development review stages of project development. B, Lake banks and edge of water may be sculpted for aesthetic purposes and to complement the overall project theme and may use combinations of vertical bulkheads (rock, concrete, wood), vegetation, beach and earthen berms for aesthetic purposes, consistent with the intent of Section 2.8.3.7.4 of the LDC. Sidewalks may be constructed along the lake edges. C. Final lake area determinations shall be in accordance with the South Florida Water Management District stormwater criteria and Section 3.5.7 of the LDC. D. Lake Setbacks Lake excavations shall be located so that the control elevation shall adhere to the following minimum setback requirements, unless bulkheading is provided, per LDC and Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) standards: Lakes and stormwater management features may be located adjacent to internal roads. The roads will be designed to (AASHTO) road standards and shall incorporate such factors as road alignment, travel speed, bank slope, road cross-sections, and need for barriers. 2. With the exception of the Collier County drainage easement along the project's south property line, lakes and stormwater management features shall be set back a minimum of 20 feet from external property boundaries of the Livingston Village PUD. E. Blasting may be utilized in the excavation process provided that such use is located a minimum of 350 feet from off-site structures and provided such excavations meet the setback requirements and other provisions of this PUD Document for lakes. Unless otherwise addressed herein, blasting shall be governed by the applicable provisions of the LDC. 2.6 MODEL HOMES/SALES CENTERS/SALES OFFICES/CONSTRUCTION OFFICES Model homes, sales centers, sales offices, construction offices, and other uses and structures including temporary sales and temporary service centers (related to the promotion and sales for the development such as but not limited to pavilions, viewing platforms, gazebos, parking areas, tents and signs) shall be permitted principal uses throughout the Livingston Village PUD subject to the requirements of Article 2, Division 2.6, Section 2.6.33.4 and Article 3, Division 3.2, Section 3.2.6.3.6, of the LDC. The limitation of Section 2.6.33.4.1.5(a), regarding the number of model homes allowed prior to plat recordation shall be applicable to each subdivision tract rather than each 2-4 subdivision phase. The model home/sale centers temporary'use permits shall be valid for five years. An annual extension of this temporary use may be permitted with the review and approval of the Planning Services Director. These uses may be either wet or dry facilities. These uses may use septic tanks or holding tanks for waste disposal subject to permitting under F.A.C. 10D-6, and may use potable water, existing lakes or irrigation wells for irrigation. 2.7 CHANGES AND AMENDMENTS TO PUD DOCUMENT OR PUD MASTER PLAN Changes and amendments may be made to this PUD Ordinance or the Livingston Village PUD Master Plan as provided in Article 2, Division 2.7, Section 2.7.3.5 of the LDC. The Planning Services Director shall be authorized to approve minor changes and refinements to the Livingston Village PUD Master Plan upon written request of the developer. A. The following limitations shall apply to such requests: The minor change or refinement shall be consistent with the Collier County GMP and the Livingston Village PUD Document. 2. The minor change or refinement shall not constitute a substantial change pursuant to Section 2,73.5. 1. of the LDC. 3. The minor change or refinement shall be compatible with adjacent land uses and shall not create detrimental impacts to abutting land uses, water management facilities, and conservation areas within or external to the PUD. B. The following shall be deemed minor changes or refinements: 1. Reconfiguration of lakes, ponds, canals, or other water management facilities where such changes are consistent with the criteria of the South Florida Water Management District and Collier County. 2. Internal realignment of rights-of-way, other than a relocation of access points to the PUD itself, where water management facility, preservation areas, or required easements are not adversely affected or otherwise provided for. 3. Reconfiguration of parcels when there is no encroachment into the preservation area. 2.8 COMMON AREA MAINTENANCE Common area maintenance will be provided by a property owners' association or other similar entity whose function shall include provision for the perpetual care and maintenance of all common facilities and open space subject further to the provision of the LDC, Section 2.2.20.3.8. 2.9 LANDSCAPE BUFFERS, BERMS, FENCES AND WALLS Landscape buffers, berms, fences and walls are generally permitted as a principal use throughout the Livingston Village PUD. The following standards shall apply: 2-5 A. Landscape berms shall have the following maximum side slopes: 1. Grassed berms 4:1 2. Ground covered berms 3:1 3. Structural walled berms — vertical and located at the rear of a required landscape buffer B. The maximum height of the berm adjacent to 1-75 is 22 feet, as measured from existing grade. A landscape berm adjacent to 1-75 shall be as required in Section 2.4.4.18.1 of the LDC. C. The maximum height of any combination of perimeter landscape berm, fence or wall adjacent to 1-75 is an eight foot wall or fence on top of a 22 foot berm measured from the highest crown elevation of 1-75. D. The maximum height of all other fences or walls is eight feet, as measured from the finished grade of the ground at the base of the fence or wall. For the purpose of this provision, finished grade shall be considered to be no greater than 18 inches above the highest crown elevation of the nearest existing road. E. Fences and walls which are an integral part of security and access control structures such as gate houses and control gates shall not be subject to the height limitations set forth under Section 2.12 of this Document, and shall be governed by the height limitations for principal structures of the internal land use designation in which they are located. In the case of access control structures within rights-of-way adjoining two or more different internal land use designations, the more restrictive height standard shall apply. F. Upon submission of a landscape plan, the County Landscape Architect may approve landscape buffers, berms, fences and walls to be constructed along the perimeter of the Livingston Village PUD prior to preliminary subdivision plat and site development plan submittal. Subsequent to construction, all such areas must be included in a landscape easement or tract on final plats, or identified in a separate recorded instrument. G. Fence or wall setbacks: Fences, walls and similar structures shall have a minimum of a 5 foot setback from development boundaries where adjacent to a public right-of-way and a 2 foot setback from all other land uses. H. Fences or walls may be placed zero feet from the internal right-of-way provided that shrubs are provided in the right-of-way and may be located five feet from project perimeter, subject to review and approval by the Transportation Division at time of SPP review. In the case of access control structures within rights-of-way adjoining two or more different internal land use designations, the more restrictive height standard shall apply. 2-6 J. Pedestrian sidewalks and/or bike paths, water management systems, drainage structures, signs and utilities are allowed in landscape buffers/easements, in accordance with Subsection 2.4.7.3 of the Land Development Code, K. Street Trees: Street trees shall be provided on both sides of all internal roads or access ways. A Street Tree Master Plan shall be included with the application for a preliminary subdivision plat (PSP) or site development plan (SDP) as may be appropriate. Installation of individual trees shall be installed prior to or concurrent with the development of the adjacent dwelling unit or structure in proximity to the roadway or access way. Shade trees in proximity to sidewalks or other paved areas shall be installed with a deep root barrier system. Street trees shall be placed at the more restrictive spacing of one per lot or one per 50 linear feet. A minimum of 50 percent of the trees shall be canopy trees with a 10 -foot height at installation. Street trees shall be located within 10 feet of the edge of pavement and between the edge of pavement and sidewalk when viable. Once installed, should a street tree be displaced or die, it shall be replaced within 6 months, Replacement trees shall minimally meet the original specification requirements, including consistency with the Street Tree Master Plan. This tree requirement may count toward satisfaction of the tree requirements for individual lots or tracts as provided for by the Collier County Land Development Code. If utilized to satisfy Collier County Land Development Code requirements, trees shall be required to meet native species requirements and other applicable Code provisions. 2.10 CLEARING AND FILL STORAGE A. Fill storage is generally permitted as a temporary principal use throughout the Livingston Village PUD until buildout of the project. Fill material may be transported and stockpiled within areas which have been disturbed. Prior to stockpiling in these locations, the developer shall notify the Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator per Section 3.2.8.3,6. of the LDC. The following standards shall apply: 1. Stockpile maximum height: 45 feet 2. Fill storage areas in excess of five feet in height shall be separated from developed areas by fencing, excavated water bodies or other physical barriers if the side slope of the stockpile is steeper than 4 to 1 (i.e. 3 to 1). B. Soil erosion control shall be provided in accordance with LDC Division 3.7 2.11 PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT PHASING Submission, review, and approval of preliminary subdivision plats for the project may be accomplished in phases to correspond with the planned development of the property. 2.12 GENERAL PERMITTED USES Certain uses shall be considered general permitted uses throughout the Livingston Village PUD except in the Preserve District. General permitted uses include earth mining, rock crushing and excavation operations, which are directly related to and necessary for onsite development, and those uses which generally serve the residents of the Livingston Village PUD and are typically part of the common infrastructure or are considered community facilities. 2-7 A. General Permitted Uses: 1. Essential services as set forth under LDC, Section 2.6.9.1. 2. Water management facilities and related structures. 3. Temporary sewage treatment facilities. 4. Water management facilities and related structures including lakes with bulkheads or other architectural or structural bank treatments. 5, Guardhouses, gatehouses, and access control structures. 6. Architectural features and elements including walls, fences, arbors, gazebos and the like. 7. Temporary construction, sales, and administrative offices for the developer and developer's authorized contractors and consultants, including necessary access ways, parking areas and related uses. a. Landscape/hardscape features including, but not limited to landscape buffers, berms, fences, water features and walls subject to the standards set forth in Section 2.9 of this PUD and the Land Development Code. 9. Fill storage, site filling and grading are subject to the standards set forth in Section 2.10 of this PUD. 10. Any other uses which are comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and are approved through the process set forth in the LDC in effect at the time of the request for such use. B. Development Standards: Unless otherwise set forth in this Document, the following development standards shall apply to General Permitted Uses: 1. Guardhouses, gatehouses, signage, landscape features, and access control structures shall have no required setback except that access control structures shall have a setback of 100 feet from public right-of-way external to the project. 2. Other general permitted uses shall be set back a minimum of five feet from property lines. 3. Minimum distance between structures, which are part of an architecturally unified grouping — five feet 4. Minimum distance between unrelated structures — ten feet 5. Maximum height of buildings — 35 feet 6. Minimum floor area - None required. 7. Minimum lot or parcel area - None required. 2-8 8. Sidewalks and bikepaths may occur within County required buffers, in accordance with Subsection 2.4.7.3 of the Land Development Code. 9. Standards for parking, landscaping, signs and other land uses where such standards are not specified herein or within the Livingston Village PUD are to be in accordance with the LDC provision in effect at the time of site development plan, subdivision plat or building permit application, as may be applicable. 2.13 OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS A combination of the lakes, landscape buffers and other open space shall meet the 60 percent open space requirement for development as set forth in Section 2.6.32.2 of the LDC. Open space shall include all pervious green space within development parcels and lots. 2.14 NATIVE VEGETATION RETENTION REQUIREMENTS There are approximately 14.6 acres of native vegetation currently on site. Per Section 3.9.5.5.3 of the LDC, twenty-five percent of the native vegetation (3.7 acres) is required to be retained on-site. The four acres of preserve areas within the drainage easement on site shall fully satisfy the LDC requirement and Policy 6.1.1 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan. 2.16 EXOTIC VEGETATION REMOVAL An exotic vegetation removal, monitoring, and maintenance (exotic -free) plan for the site, yvith emphasis on the conservation/preservation areas, shall be submitted to Environmental Services Department review staff prior to final plat/construction plan approval. A schedule for exotic removal within the preservation areas shall be submitted with the above-mentioned plan. 2.16 'AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES The site has been used and is currently utilized for agricultural purposes, Agricultural activities, as defined in the LDC, shall continue to be a permitted use until such time as residential development has commenced. 2.17 SIGNAGE A. General 1. All Collier County sign regulations in force at the time of permit approval shall apply unless such regulations are in conflict with the conditions set forth in this Section, in which case the PUD Document shall govern. 2. For the purpose of this PUD Document, each platted parcel shall be considered a separate parcel of land and shall be entitled to any sign as permitted herein. 3. Should any of the signs be requested to be placed within a County owned right-of-way, a right -of way permit must be applied for and approved. 4. All signs shall be located so as not to cause sight line obstructions. 2-9 5. All internal project rights-of-way may be utilized for decorative landscaped entrance features and signage subject to review and approval from the Planning Services Department for consistency with the requirements set forth herein. 6. Signs may be allowed in landscape buffers/easements- B. Residential Project Entrance Signs 1. Entrance signs may be located at each side of each entrance to the project and may be one, two or three -sided. A maximum of two 1 -sided, one 2 - sided, or one 3 -sided entrance signs may be permitted at each entrance. 2. No sign face area may exceed 60 square feet and the total sign face area of entrance signs at each entrance may not exceed 120 square feet. The sign face area shall not exceed the height or length of the wall or monument upon which it is located. 3. The setback for the signs from any rights-of-way and any perimeter property line shall be five feet. 4. Entrance signs may be lighted provided all lights are directed at the sign or are shielded. 5. Entrance signs may not exceed a height of 15 feet above the finished ground level of the sign site. For the purpose of this Section, finished ground level shall be considered to be no greater than 18 inches above the highest crown elevation of the nearest road. 6. The southeast corner of the intersection of Livingston Road and the entry drive at the project's northern property line (or the Green Boulevard Extension public roadway), shall be considered a residential project access and may be improved with residential project entrance signage. C. Interstate 75 Sign A ground sign shall be permitted along the eastern PUD boundary adjacent to Interstate 75. Such sign shall contain only the name of the development and/or the insignia and shall not contain promotional or sales material. The ground sign shall be compatible architecturally with the unified theme of the PUD. Such ground sign shall not exceed 200 square feet and shall have a maximum height of 20 feet. Sign area shall not include landscaped and architectural enhancements and treatments. D. Internal Signs in the Residential Districts Residential and community facilities entrance signs may be located on both sides of the neighborhood entrance street and within the entry medians. Setbacks from internal road rights-of-way may be zero feet. Such signs may be used to identify the location of neighborhoods, clubhouse, recreational areas and other features within the Livingston Village PUD. Individual signs may be a maximum of 100 square feet per sign face area. Such signs may have a maximum height of 12 feet. No building permit is required. 2-10 2. Residential directional or identification signs may be allowed internal to the subdivisions. Such signs may be used to identify the location of or direction to approved uses such as models or model sales centers, clubhouse, and recreational areas. Individual signs may be a maximum of four square feet per side in size. Signs maintaining a common architectural theme may be combined to form a menu board with a maximum size of 24 square feet per side, and a maximum height of eight feet. No building permit is required, unless such signs are combined to form a menu board. E. Directional/Identification Signs Directional or identification signs may be allowed internal to the Livingston Village PUD. Such signs may be used to identify the location of or direction to approved uses such as sales centers, model centers, recreational uses, information centers, or the individual components of the development. Individual signs may be a maximum of six square feet per side or signs maintaining a common architectural theme may be combined to form a menu board with a maximum size of 64 square feet per side and a maximum height of eight feet. F. Real Estate Signs The developer may locate real estate signs within the project. The signs shall have a maximum size of six square feet per side. Such signs may advertise "For Sale", "Sold To", or "Lot W. No building permit is required. G. Temporary Signs 1, Temporary signs may be permitted and may consist of the following types: project identification, real estate, sales center identification, and directional. 2. All other temporary signs may not exceed 32 square feet in area. if the sign is two-sided, each sign face may not exceed 32 square feet in area. 3. The setback for temporary signs from internal rights-of-way shall be five feet. 4. Temporary signs may not exceed 10 feet in height above the finished ground level of the sign site. 5. Temporary signs may remain in place simultaneously with permanent signage until the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the 442nd residential unit. 6. Special Event Signs not exceeding 32 square feet per side in size may be displayed to announce or advertise such temporary uses as open houses, community fairs or programs or any charitable, educational event. Such sign shall be located no closer than 15 feet from any property line. No building permit is required. 7. Grand Opening Signs: 2-11 The developer may display an on-site grand opening sign not exceeding 32 square feet on a side, and not exceeding 64 square feet total. A banner sign shall be anchored and may be displayed on-site for a period not exceeding 14 days within the first three months of opening for business. 8. No building permit is required for temporary signs as listed above. 9. No temporary signs shall be visible from the 1-78 Right -of -Way, H. Construction Entrance Signs Two `construction ahead" signs may be located ahead of a construction entrance, with a maximum of 20 square feet each in size. No building permit is required. One sign, with a maximum of 20 square feet in size, may be located at each construction entrance to identify the entrance as such. No building permit is required. Traffic Signs Traffic signs such as street signs, stop signs, and speed limit signs may be designed to reflect a common architectural theme. 2.18 SITE LIGHTING Lighting facilities shall be arranged in a manner which will protect roadways and neighborhood residential properties from direct glare or other interference. 2.19 UTILITIES A. Water distribution, sewage collection and transmission systems shall be constructed throughout the project by the developer. Potable water and sanitary sewer facilities constructed within platted rights-of-way, or within dedicated County utility easements, shall be conveyed to Collier County pursuant to Collier County Ordinance 97-17, as amended, except as may be provided in Section 2.8 of this Document. B. All customers connecting to the potable water and sanitary sewer system shall be customers of the County, except as may be provided in Section 2.8 of this Document. C. Temporary construction and/or sales trailers may use septic tanks or holding tanks for waste disposal subject to permitting under F.A.C. 100-6, and may use potable or irrigation wells, D. Within the project, landscaping (including palm trees, shrubs and ground cover), sidewalks/paths will be allowed within a utility easement, including placement within three feet of a utility line. Canopy trees may be located seven feet from the utility line. Said seven feet being measured from the trunk of the tree to the center of the utility line. Reconstruction of sidewalk/paths, or 2-12 modification/reinstallation of plant materials due to the necessary maintenance of utility lines will be the responsibility of the developer, its successors, or assigns. 2.20 TRANSPORTATION The development of this PUD shall be subject to and governed by the following stipulations. A. All traffic control devices and design criteria used shall be in accordance with the applicable standards of the LDC and applicable standards of the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) unless otherwise addressed within this PUD document. B. Arterial level street lighting shall be provided at all development points of ingress and egress. Said lighting shall be in place prior to the issuance of the first permanent Certificate of Occupancy (CO). C. Site related improvements will not be considered for impact fee credits. D, Road Impact Fees will be paid in accordance with the appropriate Collier County Ordinances, as amended. E. Any and all median opening locations will be in accordance with the Collier County Access Management Policy, as amended, and LDC, as amended. Median access and control will remain under Collier County Transportation Staff's authority. Collier County Transportation Staff reserves the right to modify or close any median opening(s) determined to have an adverse affect on the health, safety and welfare of the public. These include, but are not limited to, safety concerns, operational circulation issues, and roadway capacity problems. F. Sidewalks and bicycle travel ways shall be designed consistent with the applicable LDC provisions. G. The developer(s), its successor(s) in title, or assignee(s), shall be responsible for their "fair share" of the cost of any and all traffic signal(s), at any and all development entrances(s), when determined warranted and approved by Collier County Transportation Staff. The developer shall be eligible for impact fee credits for expenditures above its fair share contribution. When warranted, upon the completion of the installation, inspection, burn -in period, and final approval/acceptance of any and all traffic signal(s), said traffic signal(s) shall be turned over (for ownership) to Collier County, and will then be operated and maintained by Collier County Transportation Operations Staff. Any negotiations relevant to "fair share" payment(s), or reimbursement(s), from any and all other neighboring developer(s)/property owner(s), that directly benefit from said traffic signal(s), will be determined based upon percentage of usage / impact. , 2-13 H. The developer(s) shall provide any and all site related transportation improvement(s) including, but not limited to, any and all necessary turn lane(s) improvement(s) at the development entrance(s) as required by the LDC or other applicable ordinance prior to the issuance of the first permanent CO. Said improvements are considered site related, and therefore, do not qualify for impact fee credits. When said turn lane improvement(s), whether left turn lane(s) and/or right turn lane(s), are required, right-of-way and/or compensating right-of- way, shall be provided when required by applicable provisions of the LDC in conjunction with said improvement(s). All work within Collier County right-of-way shall meet the requirements of Collier County Ordinance No. 93-64, as amended. J. All internal access(as), drive aisle(s), and sidewalk(s), not located within County right-of-way, will be privately maintained by an entity created by the developer(s), its successor(s) in title, or assignee(s). K. If a gate is proposed at any and/or all development entrance(s) they shall be designed to provide a minimum depth of 100 feet to the development key pad/phone box and turn -around area in front of any and/or all such gate(s). L. The developer shall reserve acreage along its northern property line for a segment of the potential future extension of Green Boulevard from Santa Barbara Boulevard to Livingston Road and/or the future east -west extension from Whippoorwill Lane to Livingston Road. The reservation shall be the northernmost 75 feet between Livingston Road and the mid-section line of Section 18, approximately 4.5 acres ("Western Roadway Reservation Area"), and the northernmost 100 feet width between the mid-section line of Section 18 and I- 75, approximately 5,3 acres ("Eastern Roadway Reservation Area"). This reservation is made, in part, to accommodate a potential alignment of the potential westward extension of Green Boulevard for which an alignment study is scheduled to be undertaken between the years 2003 and 2004. Any request for dedication of said reservation which is limited to support the east - west extension of Whippoorwill Lane, or any request for dedication of the Western Roadway Reservation Area only, shall require prior listing of this roadway segment on the County's current and funded five-year Capital Improvement Schedule adopted as part of the Growth Management Plan. Any request for dedication of said reservation area which is limited to support the east -west extension of Whippoorwill Lane shall be limited to the Western Roadway Reservation Area only. This reservation shall expire January 15, 2006, Prior to January 15, 2006, the developer agrees to dedicate said reservation area to the County upon receipt of the County's request, and upon satisfaction of the above with respect to the 2-14 Western Roadway Reservation Area, if applicable. The Western Roadway Reservation Area shall be provided to the County without compensation and as required by Subsection 2.2.20.3.7 of the LDC. A dedication of the Eastern Roadway Reservation Area shall be in exchange for road impact fee credits equal to the fair market value of the property dedicated to the County and as required by Subsection 2.2.20.3.7 of the LDC. In the event that the developer has completed the project and there are remaining road impact fee credits the County shall reimburse the developer in cash the amount of road impact fee credits remaining. The value of the acreage dedicated to the County shall be based on the fair market value of the said acreage at the time of rezone approval and not at the time of a County request for dedication. In the event that impact fee credits are not available for use to acquire the reserved area, then compensation shall be made in cash. The developer shall demonstrate at the time of platting or SDP application that the reservation of the acreage has occurred. The developer reserves the right to improve the reserved area with landscaping and related improvements, but such improvements will not be considered as improvements in the evaluation of the land's value nor shall the project be dependent on such improvements for purposes of satisfying its obligations under this PUD, unless and until the reservation is deemed terminated as provided below. For example, improvements within the reserved area shall be in addition to the required perimeter buffers in the event the County requires the dedication of the reservation lands. Should the County obtain these lands, the County shall provide an easement, which allows the Developer the option to remove or retain and maintain such improvements until such time as roadway improvements commence. The developer further reserves the right to utilize the area reserved to the County for a project access driveway extending to a project entry which is proposed to be located approximately one-quarter mile east of Livingston Road. Developer shall be responsible for all necessary permitting associated with the portion of the driveway improvements to be constructed. In the event the driveway improvements are commenced prior to the termination for the reservation of the Western Roadway Reservation Area, or after the County's acquisition of either Reservation Area, the Developer shall construct the improvements consistent with the design standards of 2 -lanes of the proposed 4 -lane Green Boulevard Extension urban cross section or an approved cross section for Whippoorwill Lane, as may applicable, or any other alternative design cross section and associated standards acceptable to the Collier County Transportation Department. The Developer shall not be entitled to road impact fee credits for these driveway improvements. Should the County not elect to request the dedication of the reservation lands prior to the above date, then the reservation will be deemed terminated and the 2-15 encumbered acreage shall be released and may be incorporated into the project as if the reservation had not existed, and the Developer may relocate any previously provided project perimeter buffer to the Project's northern boundary. Project improvements which occur south of and adjacent to the reservation lands which occur prior to either the dedication to the County or prior to the termination of said reservation obligation, shall be required to include a 20 foot wide, Type D Landscape Buffer as defined in the Land Development Code. 2.21 ARCHAEOLOGICAL Pursuant to Section 2.2.25.8.1 of the LDC, if, during the course of site clearing, excavation or other construction activity an historic or archaeological artifact is found, all development within the minimum area necessary to protect the discovery shall be immediately stopped and the Collier County Code Enforcement Department contacted, 2.22 MONITORING REPORT AND SUNSET PROVISIONS A. The Livingston Village PUD shall be subject to the Time Limits of Section 2.7.3.4 of the LDC. B. Monitoring Report: An annual monitoring report shall be submitted pursuant to Section 2.7.3.6 of the LDC. 2.23 INTERSTATE 75 BUFFER REQUIREMENTS The landscape buffer to Interstate 1-75 right-of-way shall have a minimum width of 20 feet measured from the existing eastern property line of the subject property. This buffer Shall minimally meet the landscape installation requirements for Type D buffer as provided in the LDC. Additionally, the buffer improvements shall be designed to have an overall height of 25 feet at installation, as measured from the adjacent right-of-way grade. This height shall be achieved by the use of one or more of the following elements: trees, berm and wall. The maximum height of any wail element shall be eight feet and shall be screened on both sides by a hedge or County approved landscaping equivalent with a minimum height at installation of one-half the height of the wall. Said hedge or landscaping equivalent shall be maintained at a minimum height of 6 feet and must achieve this height within 2 years of the initial installation. Any wall or berm component use shall be consistent with development standards of this PUD or if not addressed, the applicable LDC development standard. Should a wail component be utilized, one-half of the required trees shall be installed on each side of the wall and the required trees shall be evenly spaced. Landscape improvements that exceed the minimum development standards of this PUD 2-16 Section shall be located at the discretion of the developer and need not comply with native species, palm restrictions, or minimum dimensional requirements of the LDC. Minimum standards for the spacing of the required trees required to reach the installation design height of 25 feet shall be 15 feet for palms. Should palms be utilized, then said palms shall be complimented by a mid -story installation of shade trees with a minimum spacing of 1 shade tree per 30 linear feet and an overall height at installation of 14 feet. k SECTION III RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS 3.1 PURPOSE 3-t The purpose of this Section is to identify permitted uses and development standards for areas within the Livingston Village PUD designated on the Livingston Village PUD Master Plan as "R1" and "132". 3.2 MAXIMUM NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS The number of dwelling units to be built in Livingston Village pursuant to this PUD will not exceed 590. 3.3 GENERAL DESCRIPTION Areas designated as "131" and "R2" on the Livingston Village PUD Master Plan are designed to accommodate a range of residential dwelling types, compatible accessory uses, recreational facilities, essential services, and customary accessory uses. The approximate acreage of the "R1", and "R2" Districts is indicated on the Livingston Village PUD Master Plan. This acreage is based on conceptual design and is approximate. Actual acreages of all development tracts will be provided at the time of site development plan or preliminary subdivision plat approvals in accordance with Division 3.3, and Division 3.2 respectively, of the LDC. Residential tracts are designed to accommodate internal roadways, open spaces, recreational facilities and other similar uses found in residential areas. 3.4 PERMITTED USES AND STRUCTURES - "R1" DISTRICT No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land use, in whole or part, for other than the following: A. Principal Uses: 1. Single family detached dwellings. 2. Single family attached, townhouse, two-family and duplex dwellings. 3. Zero lot line dwellings. 4. Model homes, sales centers including administrative offices and construction offices. 5. Any other use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and is approved through the process set forth in the LDC in effect at the time of the request for such a use. B. Accessory Uses: 1. Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the principal uses permitted in this District, including gazebos, picnic areas, pedestrian and bicycle paths, tennis courts, swimming pools, and other facilities intended for outdoor recreation, project maintenance facilities, guest 3-2 houses, boat docks (for residents of the project and their guests), garages, pools and other recreational facilities. 2. Signs as permitted by the LDC in effect at the time permits are requested, except as modified herein by Section 2.17. 3. Any other accessory use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and is approved through the process set forth in the LDC in effect at the time of the request for such use. 3.5 PERMITTED USES AND STRUCTURES - "R2" DISTRICT No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land use, in whole or part, for other than the following: A. Principal Uses: All of the uses permitted in the Residential "R1" District herein. 2. Multi -family dwellings. B. Accessory Uses: Accessory uses and structures customary associated with principal uses permitted in this District, including gazebos, pedestrian and bicycle paths, swimming pools, garages, pools and other recreational facilities. Any other accessory use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and is approved through the process set forth in the LDC in effect at the time of the request for such use. 3,6 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS A. Table 3-1 sets forth the development standards for land uses within the "R1" and k. "R2" Districts. B. Site development standards for single family uses apply to individual residential lot boundaries. Multi -family standards apply to platted parcel boundaries. C. Multiple family buildings shall have 1.5 parking spaces for all bedroom unit types, with an additional 10 percent of parking for multiple family buildings to accommodate guest parking. D. Standards for parking, landscaping, signs and other land uses where such standards are not specified herein or within are to be in accordance with the LDC in effect at the time of site development plan approval or preliminary subdivision plat approval. Unless otherwise indicated, required yards, heights, and floor area standards apply to principal structures. E. Development standards for uses not specifically set forth in Table 3-1 shall be established during site development plan approval as set forth in Article 3, Division 3.3. of the LDC in accordance with those standards of the zoning district allowing uses most similar to the proposed use. F. Attached or detached residences which include bedroom suites accessed from a courtyard and not the main house are permitted providing that: 3-3 The bedroom suite structure must be connected to other portions of the residence in a manner that gives the entire residence the appearance from the street of being one single-family residence and elevation; 2. The bedroom suite structures must be accessible only from the enclosed courtyard and must not be accessible directly from the street; and 3. The bedroom suite structure shall not contain the residence's primary cooking facilities. 3-4 TABLE 3-1 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE "1111111 and R2" RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT 1 Fronfyards are measured from the back of curb or edge of pavement (H not curbed). 2. Where adjacent to a lake or open space feature, setback is reduced to zero -feet (0'). 3. Building height shall be measured from the first habitable finished floor elevation of the unit. 4. Zero feet (0') or a minimum of six feet (6) on either side except that where zero foot (0') Is utilized, the opposite side of the structure shall have a minimum distance between structures of ten feet (10'). Zero foot (0') yards may be used on either side of a structure provided that the distance between structures is ten -feet (10'). Patio and pool enclosures, pools and similar accessory uses may encroach into any side yard. Where a physical improvement(s) is proposed to be placed within the side yard setback and such improvement(s) will prohibit access to the rear yard for maintenance purposes, then an appropriate access easement with a minimum width of 3 feet shall be provided. 5. Minimum lot width may be reduced by 29% for cul-de-sac lots provided minimum lot area requirements are met. 6. For any lot served both by a street and an alley, the lot line adjacent to the alley shall be treated as a rear lot line and the setback shall be measured from the back of curb or edge of pavement (if not curbed). 7. Guest houses or bedroom suites are subject to setbacks requirements for principal structures 6. Accessory pool enclosure/screen lanai setback may be reduced to zero feet (0') when attached to common privacy wall. 9. Accessory pool enclosure/screen lana) setback from lake maintenance easement may be reduced to zero feel (0). 10. Common architectural features such archways, arbors, and courtyard entry features shall be exempt from the minimum yard requirements listed above. 11. Principal or accessory structures may not encroach into any required landscape buffer. 12. Lots supporting a principal residence and a quest house shall have a minimum lot area equal to 1'h times the minimum lot area requirement of the principal use. 13. Limited to a maximum of three (3) habitable stories. SINGLE ZERO LOT TWO SINGLE FAMILY MULTI FAMILY LINE FAMILY & ATTACHED & FAMILY DETACHED DUPLEX WELLINGS DWELLINGS Minimum Lot Area 5,000 sq.ft. 3,500 sq.ft. 3,500 sq.ft. 2,000 sq.ft. 2,000 sq. ft. Minimum Lot Widths 50 ft. 35 ft, 35 ft. 20 ft. 60 ft. Principal & 15 ft. 15 ft. 15 ft. 15 ft. 15 ft. Accessory Side Entry Front Yard Garage 10 ft loft loft, loft. loft. Setback"" and/or Front io Porches Garage or Carport on n/a n/a Ns Na 0 ft. Parking Lot Accesswa Rear Yard Principal 10 ft. 10 ft. loft. 10 ft. loft. a s' Setback 7,11 occessory 5 ft. 5 ft. 5 ft. 5 ft. 10 ft. Side Yard Setback Principal & Accessory 6 ft. 0 ft or 6 ft. 0 ft ore ft. 0 ft ore & loft, 2,A,7,0,9,10 Maximum Height 313 35 ft. 35 ft. 35 ft. 35 R 45 ft. Minimum Distance Between 10 ft. 10 ft. loft. 10 ft. 20 ft. Principal Structures Minimum Floor Area 1,000 sq.fl. 900 sq.ft. 750 sq.ft. 750 s%ft. 750 sq.fl. Setback from Preserve — Y5 ft 25 ft. 25 ft. 25 ft. 25 ft. Principal Structures Setback from Preserve — loft. 10 ft. 10 ft. loft. 10 ft. Accessory Structures 1 Fronfyards are measured from the back of curb or edge of pavement (H not curbed). 2. Where adjacent to a lake or open space feature, setback is reduced to zero -feet (0'). 3. Building height shall be measured from the first habitable finished floor elevation of the unit. 4. Zero feet (0') or a minimum of six feet (6) on either side except that where zero foot (0') Is utilized, the opposite side of the structure shall have a minimum distance between structures of ten feet (10'). Zero foot (0') yards may be used on either side of a structure provided that the distance between structures is ten -feet (10'). Patio and pool enclosures, pools and similar accessory uses may encroach into any side yard. Where a physical improvement(s) is proposed to be placed within the side yard setback and such improvement(s) will prohibit access to the rear yard for maintenance purposes, then an appropriate access easement with a minimum width of 3 feet shall be provided. 5. Minimum lot width may be reduced by 29% for cul-de-sac lots provided minimum lot area requirements are met. 6. For any lot served both by a street and an alley, the lot line adjacent to the alley shall be treated as a rear lot line and the setback shall be measured from the back of curb or edge of pavement (if not curbed). 7. Guest houses or bedroom suites are subject to setbacks requirements for principal structures 6. Accessory pool enclosure/screen lanai setback may be reduced to zero feet (0') when attached to common privacy wall. 9. Accessory pool enclosure/screen lana) setback from lake maintenance easement may be reduced to zero feel (0). 10. Common architectural features such archways, arbors, and courtyard entry features shall be exempt from the minimum yard requirements listed above. 11. Principal or accessory structures may not encroach into any required landscape buffer. 12. Lots supporting a principal residence and a quest house shall have a minimum lot area equal to 1'h times the minimum lot area requirement of the principal use. 13. Limited to a maximum of three (3) habitable stories. SECTION IV RECREATION DISTRICT 4.1 PURPOSE 4-1 The purpose of this Section is to identify permitted uses and development standards for areas within the Livingston Village PUD designated on the Livingston Village PUD Master Plan as "REC". 4.2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION The approximate acreage of the Recreation District is indicated on the Livingston Village PUD Master Plan, Actual acreage of all development tracts will be provided at the time of site development plan or preliminary subdivision plat approvals in accordance with Division 3.3, and Division 3.2 respectively, of the LDC. The Recreation Tract is designed to accommodate customary recreational and amenity uses for a planned residential community. Depiction of the Recreational land use on the PUD Master Plan does not obligate Developer to designate a recreational land use for this acreage and this area may be developed with R1 or R2 District land uses. 4.3 PERMITTED USES AND STRUCTURES No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land or water used, in whole or in part, for other than the following: A. Principal Uses: 1. Community and recreational uses and facilities such as clubhouse and similar facilities that serve as an integral part of a residential development. 2. Shuffleboard courts, tennis courts, swimming pools, children's playgrounds and other facilities intended for outdoor recreation. 3, open space uses and structures including, but not limited to nature trails, riding trails, fitness trails and shelters, boardwalks, landscape nurseries gazebos, and picnic areas. 4. Pedestrian and bicycle paths, or other similar facilities constructed for purposes of access to, or passage through the Recreation District. 5. Utility, water management and rights-of-way/access easements, 6. Lakes and water management facilities. 7. Land use and/or landscape buffers, which may or may not be easements, depending on the buffer use. 8. Lake excavations as permitted by Division 3.5 of the LDC. B. Accessory Uses: Customary accessory uses or structures incidental to recreational areas and, or facilities, including structures constructed for purposes of maintenance, storage, recreation or shelter with appropriate screening and landscaping. M Signs as permitted by the LDC in effect at the time permits are requested, except as modified herein Section 2.17. Any other accessory use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and is approved through the process set forth in the LDC in effect at the time of the request for such use. 4.4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS A. Principal structures shall be set back a minimum of 10 feet from "REC" District boundaries and private roads, and 25 feet from all PUD boundaries and residential tracts, except where the PUD abuts a public right of way, in which case the setback shall be one half the height of the structure. In no instance shall any structure encroach into a required landscape buffer. 1. Accessory structures shall be set back a minimum of five feet from "REC" District boundaries and private roads, and 20 feet from all PUD boundaries and residential tracts, except where the PUD abuts a public right of way, in which case the setback shall be one half the height of the structure. 2. Lighting facilities shall be arranged in a manner, which will protect roadways and residential properties from direct glare or unreasonable interference. 3. Maximum height of buildings — 35 feet. 4. Minimum distance between principal or accessory structures which are a part of an architecturally unified grouping —10 feet. 5. Minimum distance between all other principal structures —15 feet. 6. Minimum distance between all other accessory structures —10 feet. Minimum floor area - None required. B. Minimum lot or parcel area - None required. 9. Standards for parking, landscaping, signs and other land uses where such standards are not specified herein are to be in accordance with LDC in effect at the time of site development plan approval. GENERAL NOTES i) nc Eo%>wx MD ca+naw�nox n DrEo sous. �DaYnu- aaewm:w W{Es FxD mwr-Dc-wr .IE s -W1ur saw: 'smaY rpn uusx.nx R-SIW M'D P@YRINSG £D�GC.S£ µCN[UAMYS 9 (w.W ME uwDnu�s w.onrt Dwcna+ v maiEi,nwa uvD u2 m[s uD* aamare TMs wm use •uucArax .VR MEA Y�Y g YnUSD /S NWIMER ISI[➢ Vg LAND USE SUMMARY ® R -18R-2 RESIDENTIAL 60 REC RECREATIOW - 3.1 ®® PRYATE ROADWAY 7.6 � L LANE - 14.5 PRESER4E PRESERVEWfMIN - 4.0 DRAWAAGEmEASEM1 T Cl OPLENN "UFFERS - 30.1 SPM QlfS TOTAL -149.0 EXHIBIT A PU � MASTER PLAN L!V STOO N LL GE M cc H n�,1 1� ud�Y seas: � .zoo' V.� 0301007,01 P -s, w J�"a y V'.' C7 _. rn STATE OF FLORIDA) rn COUNTY OF COLLIER) ym I, DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk of Courts in and for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, Collier County, Florida, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of: ORDINANCE NO. 2003-23 Which was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on the 13th day of May, 2003, during Regular Session. WITNESS my hand and the official seal of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this 19th day Of May, 2003. r DWIGHT E. BROQK Clerk of Courts and Clerk Ex -officio to Board,.bf' County Commissioners By; Marie C1os, Deputy Clerk -��\PY .IieNi Ilgk�l��_ March 16, 2016 The City of Fort Myers Community Development Department Administration 1825 Hendry Street, Suite 101 Fort Myers, Florida 33901 • 239-633-5114 Mr. Michael J. Toll GL Building Corporation 1600 Sawgrass Corporate Parkway, Suite 400 Sunrise, FL 33323 Re:, Planting Suspension of Live Oak Trees/Landscape Certificate of Compliance. Dear Sir: Please advise all your contractors suspension, The City is taking this precautionary action based on some residents' concerns about these street trees that were planted and, growing within their development, Specifically, they claim that some of the maturing street tree roots are damaging sidewalks, driveways, underground utilities, and irrigation systems because the trees were incorrectly planted too close to this Infrastructure. In addition, some residents have also. expressed 'concerns over tripping over exposed tree roots. City Code section 30-58(d) contains the standards for tree planting expressed as providing "sufficient ciearanpd' and "suggested as a gulde" keeping trees so many feet away from certain objects (enclosure). City staff made contact with several of the residents and then drove through Botanica Lakes, Olympia Pointe, Pelican Preserve, and Reflection Isles to determine the scope of the problems being caused by the Live Oak tree roots. Staff has examined available landscaping plans for the respective subdivisions. We have also. examined: our records for the required Landscape Certificate of Compliance (LCC) of each development and have found no records. as MUlred by UtV Code section 30-35 (enclosure) within 30 days. This section was enacted In July of 2005. It states that a Landscape Architect shall inspeck.and certify in writing that all open space areas, landscaping, and irrigation systems are in substantial compliance with the record set of landscape and irrigation plans held by the City. In addition, an "as -built" landscape or irrigation plan, highlighted with any major changes from the original permitted set of plans must be included when the written certification is submitted to the City. I -70 It V0, , The City of Fort Myers Community Development Department Administration 1825 Hendry Street, Suite 101 Fort Myers, Florida 33901 239-533-6114 For your information, the City is hiring the consulting firm of David Jones Jr. and Associates (DMJA), ASLA, ISA. DMJA will be our consultant regarding the street tree selection and planting requirements. DMJA will review the City's Vegetation Code and the City's Land Development Code for inconsistences and offer suggestions for improvement. DMJA will also take soil samples, examine the existing Live Oak plantings, observe the tree surroundings, and provide a report with recommendations. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please me at 239-633.-5144. Thank you. 1C -CBO Copies to: Saeed Kazemi, City Manager Nicole DeVeughn, Planning Manager Cheryl Riccobono, Zoning Officer Enclosures § 3o -ea FORT MYERS CODE thirty (30) days of receiving notice issued by the city. Trees shall be planted in accordance with these requirements in the manner assigned. (c) The trees sball be set back outside the existing or future R.O.W. (right-of-way) line as presented on map G of the comprehensive plan, so that the trees are planted on private property in a row facing the roadway. Setbacks shall be. as near to the R.O.W. line as the following requirements and standards allow. Setbacks and spacing ar- rangementa between shale trees and/or clusters of trees aball, as much as practical, be consistent with trees previously planted along other proper- ties on the same street. (d) The following standards for tree planting all apply: (1) The number of trees to be planted shall be the front footage of the property divided by the spacing requirement indicated be. low for the street that the property fronts on. (2) The location of trees calculated above shall be altered to fit the clearance sug- gestions below and shall be consistent with trees, if any, previously planted along the same street. (3) Sufficient clearance (five (6) feet sug- gested as a guide) from berm or curb, and aidewalk or other pavement. (4) Sufficient clearance from thepoint ofnear- est intersecting curbs or curb lines to allow for minimum eight distance appli- cable to the roads involved. (5) Sufficient clearance (ten (10) feet sug- gested as a guide) from fire hydrants. (6) Sufficient clearance (thirty (30) feet eug- geated as a guide) from any overhead utility wire, pole or building. (7) Sufficient clearance (ten (10) feet sug- gested as a guide) from any underground utility line or culvert. Supp. No. 37 2000 (e) Standards for specific areas shall be as follows: (1) ClevelandAvenuefrom the Caloosahatehee River to the city limits: - a. Royal Palm trees fourteen (14) foot overall height, five (5) feet of greywood, installed on fifteen (15) to twenty (20) foot centers. (2) Colonial Boulevard from McGregor Bou- levard to Fowler Street: a. Tree types: Six (6) Royal Palms al- ternated with one (1) Dwarf Royal Poinciana. b. Spacing: Palms twenty-five (25) feet apart, alternated with a. single Poinciana twenty-five (25) feet from palms, c. Minimum size at planting: Palms ten (10) f"t high with -eight (8) inch minimum to twenty (20) inch maxi- mum greywood. PohWana ten (10) to twelve (12) feet high with three (3) to four R inch caliper at twelve (12) inches from base of trunk. (8) Colonial Boulevard, &m Fowler Street to Interstate 76: a. Tree types: Waehingtonia Palms al- ternated with Live Oak. . b. Spacing; Two (2) clusters of Washingtonia Palms, one (1) cluster with five (6) triangular spaced trees and one (1) with.saven (7) triangular 'spaced trees; palma installed twelve (12) feat apartwith palm clusters forty (40) feet on center; alternate three (3) Live Oaks fifty (50) feet apart, twenty-five (26) feet from the palms and then ,repeat pabn clus- ters. c. Minimum size at planting: Pabu clus- ters at staggered heights between ten (10) test and fourteen (14) feet (overall height). Oaks ten (10) to twelve (12) feet high withthree (3) to four (4) inch caliper at twelve (12) inches from base of trunk. VEGETATION seals the plans must have been involved in their preparation, Such plan, sketch, or layout shall show title and address of the project, project owner's name, scale, north arrow, easements, location and dimen- slons of all entrances and exits, necessary sleeves, moisture (rain) sensor, automatic controller, water meter or well, backflow prevention device and all necessary lines, valves, and spray heads. Details shall be provided for the installation of all equip- ment, The irrigation system shall be de- signed to avoid the application ofwater to impervious surfaces, adjacent properties, and existing native vegetation. Site areas of one (1) acre or less, or total building square footages of ten thousand (10,000) square feet or less, do not require plans to be prepared by and bear the name and seal of a landscape architect. Site areae of one (1) acre or less, or total building square footages of ten thousand (10,000) square feet or leas, do not require plans to be prepared by and bear the name and seal of a landscape architect. (2) The .requirement for an irrigation plan can be met through the addition of notes or drawings on the landscape plan sbeet. Notes must include the type of automated irrigation system proposed, the installa- tion of a moisture (rain) sensor located so that it will receive direct rainfall, the source of water and use of a backflow prevention device, if required, and that' the irrigation system has been designed to eliminate the application of water to impervious areas, adjacent properties, and, existing native vegetation. Sleeves are required for irrigation lines to be located under paved areas and must be shown on the landscape and grading/paving pians. (GMC ¢ .014(F)(7); Ord, No. 82778, § 9, 5-18-05) See. 80-35, Landscape certiffert a of compli- ance. The landscape architect must inspect and cer til'yin writing that all open space areas, landscap- ing, and irrigation systems are in substantial compliance with the record set of landscape and Supp. No. 37 1999 030-58 irrigation plans held by the city. An "as -built" landscape or irrigationplen, highlighted with any major changes from the original permitted set of Plans, , must be included when the written certifi- cation is submitted to the city, (Ord. No. 3278, § 10, 5-16-05) sec. $0.86. Completion. The required planting shall be completed within sixty (60) days subsequent to starting work on any area required by this article to be landscaped. (GMC § .0140(6); Ord. No: 3278, § 11, 5-16-05) Sees. 30.37-40.56, Reserved. ARTICLE W. TREES*, DIVISION 1. GENERALLY Sec, 80.57. Compliance required. It shall be unlawful to out down, damage, poison, or in any other manner destroy or cause to be destroyed any tree as covered by the terms of this article, except in accordance with all of the provisions of this article. (GMC § .014(0)(1); Ord. No. 2579; § 9(.014(G)(2)), 11-5-90; Ord No. 3278, § 12, 5.16-05) Editor's note --Ord, No. 8278, § 13, adopted May 16, 2008, deleted former § 8057 in itsentirety, which pertained to the minimum canopy required and derived from Ord. No, 2679, § 9(0114=11), adopted Nov. 8,1990; and Ord. No. 2804, § 1, adopted Aug, 19, 1991. Section 12 of Ord. No. 3278 amended and renumbered former § 3056 as 180-57, See. 30.58: Street tree requirements, (a) All new streets constructed must beplanted with street trees. (b) Owners of property fronting any thorough- fare listed below shall plant street trees on such property at the time this property is developed or earlier. Each property ownermust maintain these trees and replace these trees if they die within *Cross refereneea Flanting of certain trees prohibited, § 11.6; damaging certain ornamental trees prohibited, § 11.7; removal of living palm trees on McGregor Boulevard right-of- way, prohibited, § 16.81, ,, ,f N -t-Q-t - 4. Protective barriers shall be Installed and maintained beyond the dripline of all retained vegetation unless site improvements prohibit installation of barriers beyond the drlpllne, and shall remain in place for the duration of the construction process phase. Prohibited Plant Materials. Prohibited species. The following plant species shall not be planted: All Category I Invasive Exogcs as listed on the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council's website: [wwwfIeppc,org] This list is routinely monitored and updated by the FLEPPC. Plus the following species: b. Melia. azedarach (Chinaberry tree). Dalbergia sissoo (Indian rosewood). Prohibited exotic species. In addition to the prohibitions outlined in section 4.08.05 E. above, the species enumerated in section 3.05.08 or seeds thereof shall not be grown, offered for sale, or transported inter -county or intra -county. 3. Prohibited exotic plants. All prohibited exotic plants, as defined in this Chapter as well as Chapter 3, shall be removed during each phase of construction from development areas, open space areas, and preserve areas pursuant to this Chapter as well as,Chapter 3. Following site development, a maintenance program shall be Implemented to prevent reinvasion of the site by prohibited exotic species. This plan shall describe control techniques and inspection intervals, shall be filed with, and be approved by, the development services director prior to approval of the improvement plans and final subdivision plat. Flexibility, in the form of area tradeoffs or mitigation, may he allowed in the determination of areas within developments to be preserved. 4. Native habitats. Developments shall Identity, protect, conserve, Incorporate and use native vegetative communities pursuant toChapter 3 and identify, protect and conserve wildlife habitat. G. Requirements to remove prohibited plant materials. For these requirements, see section 3.05.08 of this Code. H. installation and selection requirementsforplant materials 1 1, 2. a. An approved toot barrier system�shall be:installed when.tlie following occurs: Large canopy trees are planted closer #han`.15;ft; #o.aibulltling: Largg.capopy trees are planted closerthan 1011: to a sidewalk, Underground utility or paved area with no curbing or curbing which extends less than 18;fnch; betow grade (seeFigure A.06.05'H.Ar below), Attachment D MINUTES OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF MARBELLA LAKES OWNERS ASSOCIATION ON September 22nd, 2016 Present: Jennifer Fazio, Kevin Kowalke, Michael Avalone, Brett Cohan, Michael Francis 1. Call to Order Meeting called to order at 6:00pm by Jennifer Fazio. 2. Establish Quorum Quorum was established with all five board members present. 3. Proof of Notice Proof of notice was given 48 howl in advance. 4. Approval of Minutes Mike Avalone made a motion to approve the .fuly meeting minutes, Keven seconded, all in favor motion passed. 5. Treasurer's Report Mike Francis reported as of August 31 ", 2016 we have total operating cash of $516,450.17, $9,083.13 in accounts receivable and $254,924.35 in current liabilities. 6. Property Manager Update Jelin repotted our property manager candidate accepted the position. GRS was still conducting background checks and the board will send out a notice when she officially stalls. Muleh is scheduled for October and power washing is scheduled for November. 7. Irrigation Pumps — Hoover Update Mike Francis rcported that we have spent approximately $74,000 since October 2012 on our current irrigation system and problems still exist. A new non -pressurized custom system was investigated to replace all existing pumps with a warning system enabled. .Tenn made a motion to approve $92,412.71 for the flew system, Kevin seconded, all in favor motion passed. 8. Oak Tree Update — PUD Change Proposal Since the settlement with GL Homes we are now revisiting the oak trees. Brett explained that a large percentage of oak trees do not have root barriers which are required. In order to move forward with any oak tree changes, whether removing or replacing, the Marbella Lakes PUD needs to be amended. Brett reached out to the engineering company Hole Montes for this purpose. A handful of steps may be required and they gave a draft estimate of $15,000. After discussion Brett made a motion to request Hole Montes put together a written proposal and to proceed if similar to the draft . Jenn seconded, all in favor motion passed. 9. Upcoming Changes to Rules — Amenities, Car Covers, ARB Jenn said that per the Florida 720 law homeowners will be receiving a notice about some changes in our by-laws and these changes are mostly grammar changes to adhere to current laws. There will also be proposed rules for acceptable car covers and some ARB modifications. These modifications include propane tank rules and a small wet check fee when excavation is required. 10. Adjournment Jenn Fazio adjourned meeting at 7:00 pm. Marbella Lakes HOA Board Meeting Draft Minutes I Marbella Lakes Community Website Page 1 of 2 Marbella Lakes Community Website Marbella Lakes HOA Board Meeting Draft Minutes Posted on 10/26/2n16 Board of Directors (HOA), Notice MINUTES OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF MARBELLA LAKES OWNERS ASSOCIATION ON October 25th, 2016 Present: Jennifer Fazio, Michael Francis, Brett Cohan and Cheryl McFarland (Community Manager) 1. Call to Order Meeting called to order at 6:00pm by Jennifer Fazio. 2. Establish Quorum Quorum was established with three board members present. 3. Proof of Notice Proof of notice was given 48 hours in advance. 4. Approval of Minutes littp://marbellalakeshoa.conl/marbella-lakes-hoa-board-meeting-draft-minutes/ 1/31/2017 Marbella Lakes HOA Board Meeting Draft Minutes I Marbella Lakes Community Website Page 2 of 2 Brett made a motion to approve the September meeting minutes, Jennifer seconded, all in favor motion passed. 5. Treasurer's Report Mike Francis reported as of September 30th, 2016 we have total operating cash of $492,818. There is $7,189 in accounts receivable and $197,581 in current liabilities. Mike also reported on budget line item variances. 6. Property Manager Update Jennifer introduced our new manager Cheryl McFarland. Cheryl comes with years of experience and is excited to be on board. Cheryl spoke to those in attendance and all welcomed her to the position. Jennifer thanked Mike Francis for the countless hours he spent volunteering his time in the office during the transition period. Jennifer also recognized our Social Director, Card Adam for going above and beyond during this time. 7. Budget Meeting Update The Budget Meeting is scheduled for November 15th. The proposed budget and meeting notice will be distributed to all owners in approximately one week. 8. Oak Tree Update Brett advised that we hired the engineering firm Hole Montes for the purpose of amending the community PUD. The County must approve a revision to the community PUD prior to the consideration of any removals. A pre -application meeting took place with the County a week ago. As a result of that meeting Hole Montes will submit a revised PUD application to the County within the next 2-3 weeks. 9. Adjournment Jennifer adjourned the meeting at 6:45 pm. Cheryl McFarland General Manager Marbella Lakes H.O.A "Proudly Managed by GRS Management Associates" 6664 Marbella Lane, Naples, FL 34105 cmcfarland WQrsmat.com I www.marbellalakeshoa.com D: 239-430-5690 1 F: 239-262-0113 http://marbelialakeshoa.com/marbelia-lakes-hoa-board-meeting-draft-minutes/ 1/31/2017 Attachment E m CCPC RESOLUTION NO. 17 — A RESOLUTION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR AN INSUBSTANTIAL CHANGE TO ORDINANCE NO. 03-23, AS AMENDED, THE LIVINGSTON VILLAGE PUD, TO MODIFY PROVISIONS RELATING TO STREET TREE STANDARDS. THE SUBJECT PUD PROPERTY CONSISTS OF 148.98± ACRES, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF LIVINGSTON ROAD, APPROXIMATELY ONE MILE SOUTH OF PINE RIDGE ROAD IN SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 29 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. [PL201600027481 WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (Ordinance No. 04-41, as amended) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission is authorized by the Board of County Commissioners to grant insubstantial changes to PUD Ordinances in accordance with Subsection 10.02.13.E.2 of the Land Development Code; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission, being the duly appointed planning agency for the area hereby affected, has held a properly noticed public hearing and has considered the advisability of the requested insubstantial change to modify provisions relating to street tree standards as shown on the revised Section 2.9 of the Livingston Village PUD attached as Exhibit A, for the property hereinafter described, and has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by said regulations and in accordance with Subsection 10.02.13.E,2 of the Collier County Land Development Code; and WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given opportunity to be heard by this Commission in public meeting assembled and the Commission having considered all matters presented. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: Petition No. PDI-PL20160002748 filed by Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP, of Hole Montes, Inc„ on behalf of Marbella Lakes Owners Association, Inc., with respect to the property described in Ordinance No. 03-23, as amended, the Livingston Village Residential Planned Unit Development, also known as Marbella Lakes, be and the same is hereby approved to modify 9/20/17 Livingston Village PUD (Marbella Lakes) PD1-PL20160002748 ] J provisions relating to street tree standards, as shown on the revised Section 2.9 of the Livingston Village PUD attached hereto as Exhibit A. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this Commission and filed with the County Clerk's Office. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote on the day of 2017. ATTEST: Thaddeus Cohen, Department Head Growth Management Department Approved as to form and legality: Scott A. Stone Assistant County Attorney J 46 R/aa/1i COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Karen Homiak, Vice -Chairman Attachment: Exhibit A — revised Section 2.9 of the Livingston Village PUD 9/20/17 Livingston Village PUD (Marbella Lakes) PDI-PL20160002748 2 06 J SECTION 1I PROJECT DEVELOPMENT 2.9 LANDSCAPE BUFFERS, BERMS, FENCES AND WALLS Landscape buffers, berms, fences and walls are generally permitted as a principal use throughout the Livingston Village PUD. Except as specifically provided in Paragraphs A through K.. the Provisions of the LDC shall apply, as applicable to landscape buffers berms, fences, and walls The following slla dai _u_„ K. Street Trees previously required Pursuant to the Street Tree Master Plan may be removed. Such trees are not required to be replanted. All single family lots must meet the minimum planting requirements set forth in the LDC Prior to the removal of any Street Trees Marbella HOA shall submit an insubstantial change to the approved vroject landscape plan identifying the fact that the Street Trees are to be removed and identifying any single family lots that do not meet the LDC minimum tree requirements The revised landscape plan shall include one or more typical planting Plans for such lots that do not meet the LDC minimum tree requirements, and evidence that the necessary Plantings have been installed by the Marbella HOA at their expense on common area property or on the single family lot with the homeowner's written consent ON I A 0 ON Page 1 of 2 Words underlined are added; words ugh are deletions C:\Users\karhynellerotteau\AppDala\r.ocal\Microsoa\Windows\INctWehe\ConienL.Oullook\YI I IJZG5\Livingston Village PUD (PDI- PL20160002748) (9-21-2017).docx Page 2 of 2 Words underlined are added; words stfHek4hfough are deletions C\Users\kuthynelIcroaeau\AppData\Loeal\Microsoll\windows\INe(Cache\CntenLOutlook\YI ITJZG5\Livingston Village PUD (PD I- PI-20160002748)(9-21-2017).docx AGENDA ITEM 9-D Co Fier County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING DIVISION — ZONING SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT - PLANNING & REGULATION HEARING DATE: NOVEMBER 16; 2017 SUBJECT: PUDZ-PL20160001089, LOGAN/IMMOKALEE COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (CPDD) COMPANION ITEM TO GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT PETITION CP-2016- 2/PL20160001100 PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT: Owner: Immokalee Road Associates, LLC 1600 Sawgrass Corporate Parkway, # 400 Sunrise, FL 33323 Agents: Mr. Tim Hancock, AICP Mr. Bruce Anderson, Esquire Stantec Cheffy Passidomo, P.A. 5801 Pelican Bay Boulevard # 300 821 5a' Avenue South Naples, FL 34108 Naples, FL 34102 The petitioner requests that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider a rezone of the subject site from the Rural Agriculture (A) zoning district to a Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPDD) zoning district for the project to be known as the Logan/Immokalee CPUD, to allow a maximum of 100,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area for specific commercial uses. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject CPUD, consisting of 18.6± acres, is located in the southeast corner of Immokalee Road and Logan Boulevard, in Section 28, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (See location map on following page) PUDZ-PL20160001089, LOGAN/IMMOKALEE CPUD November 2, 2017 Page 1 of 17 a LOCATION PROJECTII Location Map Petition Number: PL20160001089 Zoning Map 150 � ¢a las mEU f iaa E TRncros�s 147 „p c Q ® QdE=„ PUD TMCT Rt Location Map Petition Number: PL20160001089 Zoning Map Deviations: Zoning: Loring: Olde Cypress DRI RPUD Deviation N1 - zi\ Land Use: Land Use: - - - - Golf Course Single Family Residential Deviation N2 - Z11A f IMMORALEE ROAD Deviation N3 - L31 26 Type D - �_ Landscape /3 —Buffer I T / Ag 3 2 it ASf6nage 1 I Building d--ing !water Feature N2 I Q:) nBmtd�"ng III I Futae Aws ZOn10g: I II caemen t Estates LanUse: ffi 1Landscape IMisc. Agriculture f 11 11 ' c � _ i• � Buffer ji --� i� i l l l l l l lI f" _III 11 1 Agriculture Land Use: zo' T e'D // i I - �� �('i Misc. J)l i l l Ann Pnpn ' _ C' ' i�'` i VstJ _ I Agriculture Buffer rl ((�J�I Retail — Is, A Zoning: Estates Land Use: g�+ �2.6��- ,� �� 1 Property VacantResidential d � '�� y Grocery V Line 1.-15'.Type'B' I Landscape pp4 ( Buffer Retail 6 F B Zoning: Agriculture mess Use; land Use: Misc. j ' z Agriculture + rl — ve L 10 Type A 2 I Landscape V Buf(er. il � Lake '1 Zoning: 1 - - Agriculture I Ili Land Use: iWI I Misc. Agriculture I I t✓I I 19 TypeA'___1- _. _- _- Landscape Preserve I � Buffer - � Ingress/ O.R 1189 PG 2052 _ 0,R. 156, PG 411 Egress --- -- Easement IiPreserves may be used to satisfy the landscape buffer O.R. 5291, 1 Zoning: requirements after exotic vegetation removal in accordance PG 3496 Agriculture with LDC sections 4.06.02 and 4.06.05.E.1. Supplemental Land Use: plantings with native plant materials shall be in accordance Saturnia Misc Agriculture with LDC section 3.05.07. Lakes Site Data: Open Space. Site acreage: +/-18.6 acres Required: 30%of+/48.6 acres =+/-5.58 acres Buildings: +/-100,000 SF Provided: +/-5.58 acres minimum Lake: +/-2.39 acres 112.85 % of site)' _Preserve Area: Preserve: +/-1.0 acres 15.4'3, of site) Required: 15% of +/-13.29_ acr—es = +/-1.99 acres Provided: +/-1.0 acres minimum' 'D. not include Water Feature The balance of the Preserve 1'I-1.o arra) will be pronded for o f-site in aaordance.nth the IT 9ertion 3.65.07M.1.f. in effect as of the date of this application, January 3, 2017. The petitioner proposes a maximum of 100,000 square feet of retail and office uses on an 18.6± acre site; it is also a part of a companion Small Scale Growth Management Plan GMP Amendment. A majority of the subject site is undeveloped and a portion of the site is currently used for miscellaneous agricultural purposes. The Master Plan, located on the previous page of this Staff Report, depicts the area of proposed building, parking, vehicular circulation, water management area, and preserve. The Master Plan shows a minimum of 30% open space is provided. It also depicts a proposed a 1± acre preserve and a 2.4 ± acre lake, located to provide buffering to the adjacent residences in Saturnia Lakes, which is located diagonally opposite of the proposed commercial development. The petitioner proposes a maximum zoned building height of 35 feet and a maximum actual building height of 47 feet. There is a proposed 20 -foot wide Type D landscape buffer [trees at 30 feet on center and a hedge where there is adjacent vehicular use areas] along Immokalee Road and Logan Boulevard. Along the east property line, a 15 -foot wide Type B landscape buffer [trees at 25 feet on center and a 6 - foot height hedge, fence or wall] is proposed. Along the southern property line where there is no preserve and along a portion of the internal west property line that is not located along Logan Boulevard, a 10 -foot wide Type A landscape buffer (trees at 30 feet on center) is proposed. Three deviations from the Land Development Code (LDC) are being sought as part of this rezone petition. For further information, refer to the Deviations section of this Staff Report on page 13. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: Immokalee Road, a 6 -lane arterial roadway, then an existing residential development with a zoning designation of Olde Cypress Planned Unit Development (PUD), and then an existing residential development with a zoning designation of H.D. Development PUD East: An existing Agricultural use with a zoning designation of A (Rural Agriculture) and then 63 residential dwelling units or 200 unit senior group housing with a proposed zoning designation of Cleary RPUD South: An existing Landscape contractor business and landscape nursery uses with a zoning designation of A (Rural Agriculture) West: Logan Boulevard, a 2 -lane collector roadway, and then existing single-family homes with a zoning designation of E (Estates) PUDZ-PL20160001089, LOGAN/IMMOKALEE CPUD November 2, 2017 Page 4 of 17 AERIAL PHOTO GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The proposed PUD rezone is consistent with the FLUE of the GMP pending approval of the companion small scale GMP Amendment. See attached Exhibit C: Consistency Review Memorandum dated October 19, 2017. Transportation Element: In evaluating this project, staff reviewed the applicant's Traffic Impact Statement for consistency with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP using the 2016 Annual Update and Inventory Reports (AUIR). Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states: "The County Commission shall review all rezone petitions, SRA designation applications, conditional use petitions, and proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) affecting the overall countywide density or intensity of permissible development, with consideration of their impact on the overall County transportation system, and shall not approve any petition or application that would directly access a deficient roadway segment as identified in the current AUIR or if it impacts an adjacent roadway segment that is deficient as identified in the current PUDZ-PL20160001089, LOGAN/IMMOKALEE CPUD November 2, 2017 Page 5 of 17 AUIR, or which significantly impacts a roadway segment or adjacent roadway segment that is currently operating and/or is projected to operate below an adopted Level of Service Standard within the five year AUIR planning period, unless specific mitigating stipulations are also approved. A petition or application has significant impacts if the traffic impact statement reveals that any of the following occur: a. For links (roadway segments) directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; b. For links adjacent to links directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; and C. For all other links the project traffic is considered to be significant up to the point where it is equal to or exceeds 3% of the adopted LOS standard service volume. Mitigating stipulations shall be based upon a mitigation plan prepared by the applicant and submitted as part of the traffic impact statement that addresses the project's significant impacts on all roadways. " The proposed PUD on the subject property was reviewed based on the applicable 2016 AUIR Inventory Report. The TIS submitted in the application indicates that the proposed development will generate approximately 449 net, new PM peak hour, two-way trips, on the adjacent roadway segments. The proposed development will impact the following roadway segments with the listed capacities: Roadway Link 2016 AUIR Current Peak Hour Peak 2016 Remaining Existing LOS Direction Service Capacity Volume/Peak Direction Immokalee Logan Boulevard to D 3,200fEast 637 Road Collier Boulevard Immokalee Logan Boulevard'. to 1- D 3,5001East 616 Road 75 Logan Immokalee Road to C 1,000/North 380 Boulevard Vanderbilt Beach Road Based on the 2016 AUIR, the adjacent roadway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed trips for the project within the 5 -year planning period. Therefore, the subject rezoning can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP. Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental review staff found this project to be consistent with the CCME. The project site consists of 13.29 acres of native vegetation; a minimum of 1.99 acres (15%) of the existing native vegetation shall be placed under preservation and dedicated to Collier County. PUDZ-PL20160001089, LOGAN/IMMOKALEE CPUD November 2, 2017 Page 6 of 17 GMP Conclusion: The proposed PUD rezone may be deemed consistent with the FLUE of the GMP, contingent, in part, upon the companion GMP amendment petition CP -2016-2/ PL - 20160001100 being adopted and going into effect. STAFF ANALYSIS: Staff completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition including the criteria upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in LDC Subsection 10.02.13 B.5., Planning Commission Recommendation (commonly referred to as the "PUD Findings"), and Subsection 10.02.08 F., Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission Report (referred to as "Rezone Findings"), which establish the legal basis to support the CCPC's recommendation. The CCPC uses these same criteria as the basis for their recommendation to the BCC, who in turn use the criteria to support their action on the rezoning request. An evaluation relative to these subsections is discussed below, under the heading "Zoning and Land Development Review Analysis." In addition, staff offers the following analysis: Environmental Review: Environmental Planning staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD Document to address environmental concerns. The PUD Master Plan provides one (1) acre of Preserve on-site and the balance of the Preserve (1.0t acre) is proposed to be provided for off-site. The off-site preserve is in accordance with LDC Section 3.05.07.1111. for "Off-site vegetation retention," in effect at the time of this application. Specifically, LDC Section 3.05.07.H.l.f.i.a) provides the following Applicability: "Properties zoned commercial where the on-site preserve requirement is less than 2 acres in size." In addition, 3.05.07.111.£ii.c) states, "Remaining portions of on-site preserves must be a minimum of one acre in size and shall not meet the off-site criteria of sub -section 3.05.07 H.l.f.i.(f) and (g) above, unless preserved with higher quality habitat not qualifying for the off-site native vegetation retention alternative." Therefore, based on the current LDC, this petition meets the current LDC off-site vegetation retention criteria. At the time this staff report was written, an LDC Amendment for off-site preserves was scheduled for the October 19, 2017 CCPC hearing and a December 12, 2017 BCC hearing, but that will not impact this application because this petition was submitted prior to any amendment to the LDC. There were no listed species observed on the site. Bear nuisance calls have been documented within the vicinity of the subject property. Therefore, a commitment requiring the submittal of a Bear Management Plan with the Site Development Plan (SDP) and/or Plat has been included in the PUD Document Exhibit F. Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) Recommendation: This project does not require Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) review, as this project did not meet the EAC scope of land development project reviews as identified in Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Codes of Laws and Ordinances. PUDZ-PL20160001089, LOGAN/IMMOKALEE CPUD November 2, 2017 Page 7 of 17 Transportation Review: Transportation Planning staff finds this project consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP. This project shall not exceed a maximum of 449 net new PM peak hour, two-way trips. Utility Review: Public Utilities Department staff has reviewed the petition and recommends approval subject to the developer providing a 15 -foot Collier County Utility Easement (CUE) and this has been included in the PUD Document Exhibit F. Emergency Management Review: Emergency Management staff indicated that they have no concerns or outstanding issues with this project. Zoning Review: Staff has evaluated the uses proposed and their intensities; the development standards such as building heights, setbacks, landscape buffers; building mass; building location and orientation; the amount and type of open space and its location; and traffic generation/attraction of the proposed uses. The total amount of allowable commercial square footage, 100,000 square feet, is in compliance with the limitations of the Logan Boulevard/ Immokalee Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict (which is being proposed in the companion GMP Amendment). The minimum setback from the southern property line that is diagonally opposite of Saturnia Lakes is 300 feet. The minimum setback from all other PUD boundaries is 25 feet. The actual building heights are not to exceed 47 feet and the zoned heights are not to exceed 35 feet. This is the same as the 35 -foot zoned height on the adjacent Agricultural zoned properties to the east and the south. As previously stated, there is a proposed 20 -foot wide Type D landscape buffer along Immokalee Road and Logan Boulevard. Along the east property line, a Type B landscape buffer is proposed. Along the southern property line and a portion of the internal west property line a Type A landscape buffer is proposed. These buffers will mitigate the impact of the proposed development on the adjacent properties. REZONE FINDINGS: Staff completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition including the criteria upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in LDC Subsection 10.02.13 B.5., Planning Commission Recommendation (commonly referred to as the "PUD Findings"), and Subsection 10.02.08 F., Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission Report (referred to as "Rezone Findings"), which establish the legal bases to support the CCPC's recommendation. The CCPC uses these same criteria as the basis for their recommendation to the BCC, who in turn use the criteria to support their action on the rezoning request. An evaluation relative to these subsections is discussed below, under the heading "Zoning and Land Development Review Analysis." In addition, staff offers the following analysis: PUDZ-PL20160001089, LOGAN/IMMOKALEE CPUD November 2, 2017 Page 8 of 17 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies and future land use map and the elements of the GMP. The Comprehensive Planning staff has indicated that the proposed PUD rezone is consistent with all applicable elements of the FLUE of the GMP upon the adoption of the companion small scale GMP amendment. 2. The existing land use pattern. The neighborhood's existing land use pattern is characterized by Immokalee Road to the north, a 6 -lane arterial roadway, then a portion of the Olde Cypress golf course and then single-family homes within the H.D. Development PUD. To the east is an agricultural business use with a zoning designation of Rural Agriculture. To the south is a landscape contractor business and landscape nursery use with a zoning designation of A (Rural Agriculture). To the west is Logan Boulevard, a 2 -lane arterial roadway and then single-family residences with a zoning designation of Estates. Staff is of the opinion that this project can be deemed consistent with GMP FLUE Policy 5.4. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. The subject parcel is of sufficient size that it will not result in an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. It is also comparable with expected land uses by virtue of its consistency with the FLUE of the GMP (upon adoption of the companion small scale GMP amendment). 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. As shown on the zoning map included at the beginning of this report, the existing district boundaries are logically drawn. The proposed PUD zoning boundaries follow the property ownership boundaries and coincide with the GMP subdistrict boundaries. The location map on page 2 of the staff report illustrates the perimeter of the outer boundary of the subject parcel. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary. The proposed PUD rezone is not necessary, but it is being requested in compliance with the LDC provisions to allow the owner the opportunity to develop the land with uses other than what the existing zoning district would allow. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed PUD rezone, with the commitments made by the applicant, can been deemed consistent with the County's land use policies upon adoption that are reflected by the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the GMP (upon adoption of the companion small scale PUDZ-PL20160001089, LOGAN/IMMOKALEE CPUD November 2, 2017 Page 9 of 17 GMP amendment). Development in compliance with the proposed PUD rezone should not adversely impact living conditions in the area. Z Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety. The roadway infrastructure has sufficient capacity to serve the proposed project at this time. The project is subject to the traffic commitments contained in the PUD document. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. The proposed development will not create a drainage problem. Furthermore, the project is subject to the requirements of Collier County and the South Florida Water Management District. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. The PUD document provides adequate property development regulations to ensure light and air should not be seriously reduced to adjacent areas. The Master Plan further demonstrates that the locations of proposed preserve and open space areas should further ensure light and air should not be seriously reduced in adjacent areas. Additionally, roadways separate this project from adjacent uses on two boundaries—Immokalee Road to the north and Logan Boulevard to the west. 10. Whether the proposed change would adversely affect property values in the adjacent area. Staff is of the opinion this PUD rezone will not adversely impact property values. Zoning by itself may or may not affect values, since value determination is driven by market demand. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. Properties surrounding this property are partially developed as previously noted. The basic premise underlying all of the development standards in the LDC is that sound application, when combined with the site development plan approval process and/or subdivision process, gives reasonable assurance that a change in zoning will not result in deterrence to improvement or development of adjacent property. Therefore, the proposed zoning change should not be a deterrent to the improvement of adjacent properties. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare. The proposed PUD rezone does not constitute a grant of special privilege. Consistency with the FLUE is further determined to be a public welfare relationship because actions consistent with plans are in the public interest. PUDZ-PL20160001089, LOGAN/IMMOKALEE CPUD November 2, 2017 Page 10 of 17 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. The subject property could be developed within the parameters of the existing zoning designations; however, the petitioner is seeking this PUD rezone in compliance with LDC provisions for such action. The petition can be evaluated and action taken as deemed appropriate through the public hearing process. Staff believes the proposed rezone meets the intent of the PUD district and believes the public interest will be maintained. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the county. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed PUD rezone is not out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or County. 15. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. There may be other sites in the County that could accommodate the uses proposed; however, this is not the determining factor when evaluating the appropriateness of a zoning decision. The petition was reviewed on its own merit for compliance with the GMP and the LDC; and staff does not review other sites in conjunction with a specific petition. 16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. Any development anticipated by the PUD document would require considerable site alteration and this project will undergo extensive evaluation relative to all federal, state, and local development regulations during the site development plan approval process and again later as part of the building permit process. 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County GMP and as defined and implemented through the Collier County adequate public facilities ordinance. The development will have to meet all applicable criteria set forth in the LDC regarding Adequate Public Facilities. The project must also be consistent with all applicable goals and objectives of the GMP regarding adequate public facilities. This petition has been reviewed by County staff that is responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP as part of the rezoning process, and that staff has concluded that the developer has provided appropriate commitments so that the impacts of the Level of Service will be minimized. PUDZ-PL20160001089, LOGAN/IMMOKALEE CPUD November 2, 2017 Page 11 of 17 18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. To be determined by the BCC during its advertised public hearing. PUD FINDINGS: LDC Section 10.02.13.13.5 states that, "In support of its recommendation, the CCPC shall make findings as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the following criteria." 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. The type and pattern of development proposed should not have a negative impact upon any physical characteristics of the land, the surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. Furthermore, this project, if developed, will be required to comply with all county regulations regarding drainage, sewer, water and other utilities pursuant to Section 6.02.00 Adequate Public Facilities of the LDC. 2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contract, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Documents submitted with the application provided satisfactory evidence of unified control. The PUD document and the general LDC development regulations make appropriate provisions for the continuing operation and maintenance of common areas. 3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives and policies of the GMP (GMP). County staff has reviewed this petition and has offered an analysis of the relevant goals, objectives, and policies of the GMP within the GMP discussion of this staff report. Based on that analysis, staff is of the opinion that this petition can be found consistent with the overall GMP upon the adoption of the companion GMP amendment. 4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. As described in the Staff Analysis Section of this staff report, staff is of the opinion that the proposed project will be compatible with the surrounding area. PUDZ-PL20160001089, LOGAN/IMMOKALEE CPUD November 2, 2017 Page 12 of 17 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The amount of open space set aside for this project meets the minimum requirement of the LDC. 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. The roadway infrastructure is sufficient to serve the proposed project, as noted in the Transportation Element consistency review. Operational impacts will be addressed at time of first development order (SDP or Plat), at which time a new TIS will be required to demonstrate turning movements for all site access points. Finally, the project's development must comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals, including but not limited to any plats and or site development plans, are sought. Z The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. The area has adequate supporting infrastructure such as wastewater disposal systems and potable water supplies to accommodate this project. Furthermore, adequate public facilities requirements will be addressed when development approvals are sought. 8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. This criterion essentially requires an evaluation of the extent to which development standards and deviations proposed for this PUD depart from development standards that would be required for the most similar conventional zoning district. The petitioner is seeking three deviations to allow design flexibility in compliance with the purpose and intent of the Planned Unit Development Districts (LDC Section 2.03.06 A). This criterion requires an evaluation of the extent to which development standards and deviations proposed for this PUD depart from development standards that would be required for the most similar conventional zoning district. Staff believes that the deviation proposed can be supported, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13 A.3., the petitioner has demonstrated that "the elements may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community" and LDC Section 10.02.13 B.5.h., the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Please refer to the Deviation Discussion portion of the staff report below for a more extensive examination of the deviation. PUDZ-PL20160001089, LOGAN/IMMOKALEE CPUD November 2, 2017 Page 13 of 17 Deviation Discussion: The petitioner is seeking three deviations from the requirements of the LDC. The deviation is directly extracted from PUD Exhibit E. The petitioner's rationale and staff analysis/recommendation are outlined below. Proposed Deviation # 1 "Deviation # 1 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.04.F.1.c., "On -premise signs," which permits a maximum sign area of 80 s.£, to allow for a maximum sign area of 160 s.f. (please see illustration on PUD Exhibit G). The copy area will contain only the project name (to be determined) with no tenant information allowed." Petitioner's Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation: This element as proposed is generally an aesthetic and design enhancement to create a project identification sign to establish a `sense of place' for the project and the surrounding neighborhood. The copy area will be limited to 160 square feet and no tenants or businesses will be advertised on this sign. An elevation of the proposed project identification sign (Exhibit G) is attached to the PUD Document. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL finding that in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10 02 13 B 5 h the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meetingpublic purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Proposed Deviation # 2 "Deviation # 2 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.04.F.2.b., "Outparcel signs,"which permits a single ground sign for outparcels having a frontage of 150 feet or more, not to exceed 60 square feet to permit a single ground sign up to eight feet in height and 60 square feet for each of the buildings identified on the MCP as Buildings 1, 2, 3 and 4, regardless of whether each building lies on a separate, platted outparcel." Petitioner's Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation: This deviation allows for Buildings 1, 2, 3 and 4 as shown on the MCP to have pole or ground signs Just as if they were stand-alone outparcels. Each building if part of a platted lot would meet the minimum frontage requirements for signage but since they will not be on separately platted lots, this deviation is required. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL finding that in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has PUDZ-PL20160001089, LOGANAMMOKALEE CPUD November 2, 2017 Page 14 of 17 demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.133.51, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Proposed Deviation # 3 "Deviation # 3 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.02.C.4.a., "Buffer Requirements," which requires trees to be spaced no more than 30 feet on center in the landscape buffer abutting the right-of-way or primary access road internal to a development, to exceed the minimum spacing requirement to permit the clustering of the required trees within the perimeter landscape buffer between Buildings 2 and 3, provided that spacing shall be no greater than 60' between required trees or clusters of trees. While this deviation allows clustering, the minimum number of LDC required trees shall riot be reduced." Petitioner's Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation: Consistent with Deviation request #1, the expense of creating the water feature and project identification sign to provide an up -scale feel and `sense of place' would be negatively impacted without the ability to cluster shade trees and palms in a way that does not reduce the minimum number of trees but still preserves key views of the hardscape and water scape at the corner. This deviation is intended to promote a high-quality design element and to allow for flexibility in design without reducing the number, height or quality of landscaping required by the LDC. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL finding that in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10 02 13.B.5.h the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal plication of such regulations." NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): The agent/applicant duly noticed and held the required NIM on March 6, 2017. The following commitments were made by the applicant: - The development will be limited to 100,000 s.f. - No individual tenant will be greater than 45,000 s.f. - Spatial separation will be provided between Saturnia Lake and the proposed commercial buildings. - A grocery store and restaurants are proposed. - There is "a lot of landscaping, a lot of greenery." - There is "a lot of paver work." - Bars and land uses that generate loud music will be restricted. - Dry cleaners, car washes, tire stores and automobile repair land uses are prohibited. PUDZ-PL20160001089, LOGAN/IMMOKALEE CPUD November 2, 2017 Page 15 of 17 Surplus stores and used merchandise stores are prohibited. Amusement centers, carnivals, laser tag, and trampoline facilities are prohibited. Adult stores are prohibited. Movie theatres, funeral parlors, coin operated laundry, and bars are prohibited. Bowling alleys, pool halls, skating rink, animal raising and storage facility are prohibited. Hotels are prohibited. Churches, gun ranges, and occult sciences are prohibited. Nursing homes, tobacco stores and hookah lounges are prohibited. Gas stations and convenience stores are prohibited. The above commitments have been made part of the proposed PUD Ordinance. For further information regarding the NLM meeting, please see Exhibit C: "Transcript of' the Neighborhood Information Meeting. " COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney Office has reviewed the staff report for Petition PUDR-PL20160001089, Logan and Immokalee CPUD, revised on October 26, 2017. RECOMMENDATION: Planning and Zoning Review staff recommends that the CCPC forward Petition PUDR- PL20160001089, Logan/Immokalee CPUD, to the BCC with a recommendation of approval. Attachments: Exhibit A: Proposed PUD Ordinance Exhibit B: Future Land Use Element Consistency Review Exhibit C: Transcript of the Neighborhood Information Meeting PUDZ-PL20160001089, LOGAN/IMMOKALEE CPUD November 2, 2017 Page 16 of 17 IU7117\:70111.106 WA4 " �t/�l/� � NANC LACH, AICP, PLA PRINCI L PLANNER ZONING DIVISION -ZONING SERVICES SECTION N MIKE BOSI, AICP, DIRECTOR ZONING DIVISION -ZONING SERVICES SECTION APPROVED BY: 4 -TAMES FRENCH, DEPUTY DEPARTMENT HEAD GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT PUDR-PL20160001089, LOGAN AND IMMOKALEE CPUD October 20. 2017 Page 17 of 17 r, I= a, ;. to L4 17 ATE /0 -ZS - DATE 17 DATE ORDINANCE NO. 17 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2004-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH ESTABLISHED THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM A RURAL AGRICULTURAL (A) ZONING DISTRICT TO A COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (CPUD) ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS THE LOGAN/IMMOKALEE CPUD, TO ALLOW A MAXIMUM OF 100,000 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS LEASABLE FLOOR AREA FOR SPECIFIC COMMERCIAL USES, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF IMMOKALEE ROAD AND LOGAN BOULEVARD, IN SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 18.6± ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Immokalee Road Associates, LLC, represented by R. Bruce Anderson and Tim Hancock, AICP, petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to change the zoning classification of the herein described real property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SECTION ONE: The zoning classification of the herein described real property located in Section 28, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, is changed from a Rural Agricultural (A) Zoning District to a Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) Zoning District for a 18.6-t/- acre parcel to be known as Logan/Immokalee CPUD, in accordance with X17 -CPS -01633/1372938/11 10/31/17 Logan/Immokalee CPUD PL20160001089 Page 1 Exhibit A Exhibits A through F attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. The appropriate zoning atlas map or maps, as described in Ordinance Number 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, is/are hereby amended accordingly. SECTION TWO: This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State and on the date that the Growth Management Plan Amendment in Ordinance No. 2017- becomes effective. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super -majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this day of 2017. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA in Deputy Clerk Approved as to form and legality: Scott A. Stone Assistant County Attorney By: Exhibit A: Permitted Uses Exhibit B: Development Standards Exhibit C: Master Plan Exhibit D: Legal Description Exhibit E: Requested Deviations from LDC Exhibit F: Developer Commitments Exhibit G: Project Identification Sign Exhibit Penny Taylor, Chairman 7 [17 -CPS -01633/1372938/11 10/31117 Logan/lonnokulee CPUD PL20160001089 Page 2 EXHIBIT A FOR THE LOGAN/IMMOKALEE COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (CPUD) PERMITTED USES The Logan/Immokalee Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) totals approximately 18.6 ± acres of property and is located within the Logan/Immokalee Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict. A maximum of 100,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area for commercial uses derived from the permitted and conditional uses of the C-3 zoning district may be allowed, with a maximum of 45,000 square feet of building area for each use. The project will be developed in accordance with the development standards outlined in Exhibit B of the PUD. A. Permitted Uses: The maximum development intensity allowed is 100,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area with a maximum of 45,000 square feet of building area for each use. 1. Accounting, Auditing, and Bookkeeping services (SIC 8721), 2. Apparel & accessory stores (SIC 5611 - 5699), 3. Auto and home supply stores (SIC 5531, except tire dealers, and tire, battery, and accessory dealers - retail, and auto supply stores with service bays, lifts or other facilities for installing such automotive parts. Any sales of home supplies must be accessory and secondary to sales of auto supplies), 4. Banks, credit unions and trusts (SIC 6021 - 6062, limited to one (1) drive-through lane), 5. Barber shops (SIC 7241, except for barber schools), 6. Beauty shops (SIC 7231, except for beauty schools), 7. Computer and computer software stores (SIC 5734), 8. Dance studios, schools, and halls (SIC 7911 except dance halls and discotheques), 9. Drug stores (SIC 5912), 10. Drycleaning plants (SIC 7216 non -industrial drycleaning only, limited to contemporary, environmentally -friendly or "green" cleaning methods and practices), 11. Eating places (SIC 5812, except dinner theaters, drive-in restaurants, industrial feeding, contract feeding, food service, institutional, and theaters, dinner), 12. Food stores (SIC 5411 - 5499, except Convenience food stores), 13. Hardware stores (SIC 5251), 14. Health services, offices and clinics (SIC 8011 - 8049), 15. Home furniture and furnishings stores (SIC 5712 - 5719), 16. Home health care services (SIC 8082), 17. Household appliance stores (SIC 5722), 18. Insurance carriers, agents and brokers (SIC 6311-6399, 6411), 19. Medical equipment rental and leasing (SIC 7352), 20. Musical instrument stores (SIC 5736), Revision Date: October 30, 2017 Logan / Immokalee CPUD, PL20160001089 Page 1 of 12 0 t� 21. Paint stores (SIC 5231), 22. Personal services, miscellaneous (SIC 7299, limited to depilatory salons, hair removal, tanning salons, massage parlors and other establishments which could not be construed to be a "sexually oriented business" as defined in the Collier County Sexually Oriented Businesses Location and Regulation Ordinance, and is part of an establishment such as a day spa providing other legitimate personal services or fitness facilities), 23. Photographic studios, portrait (SIC 7221), 24. Physical fitness facilities (SIC 7991), 25. Radio, television and consumer electronics stores (SIC 5731), 26. Real Estate agents and managers (SIC 6531), 27. Record and prerecorded tape stores (SIC 5735), 28. Retail nurseries, lawn and garden supply stores (SIC 5261), 29. Retail services - miscellaneous (SIC 5921, 5941 - 5949, 5992, 5994 - 5999, except auction rooms, awning shops, building materials, fireworks, gravestones, hot tubs, monuments, swimming pools, tombstones and whirlpool baths), 30. Security and commodity brokers, dealers, exchanges and services (SIC 6211, 6282), 31. Schools and Educational services (SIC 8299 only), and 32. Wallpaper stores (SIC 5231). Prohibited Uses: Any use or structure permissible by right or as a conditional use or accessory use within the Commercial Intermediate District (C-3) which is not identified above. No other commercial or professional use may be deemed to be comparable in nature with the foregoing Logan/immokalee CPUD list of permitted uses or with the purpose and intent of the Logan/fmmokalee Commercial Infill Subdistrict. Any of the foregoing uses that are subject to a gross floor area limitation by the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) shall be permitted by right without the maximum floor area limitation. B. PRESERVE (P) No building, structure or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or part, for other than the following subject to permitting: Principal Use: a. Preserve 2. Accessory Uses: a. All accessory uses as permitted in LDC Section 3.05.07.H.1.h b. Water Management as permitted in the LDC for Preserves Preserves may be supplemented with native plant materials to meet buffer requirements. Supplemental plantings within preserves shall be in accordance with LDC section 3.05.07. Revision Date: October 30, 2017 Logan / Immokalee CPUD, PL20160001089 Page 2 of 12 EXHIBIT B FOR LOGAN/IMMOKALEE CPUD DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Table I sets forth the development standards for land uses within the Logan/Immokalee CPUD Tract. If the parcel is served by a public or private right-of-way, the setback is measured from the abutting right-of-way line. 2. If the parcel is served by an internal access way, the setback is measured from the back of curb or edge of pavement. TABLE I LOGAN/IMMOKALEE CPUD DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Requirements Principal Use/Structure Minimum LotArea 10,000 square feet Minimum Lot Width 100 feet Maximum Lot Coverage None Maximum Hei ht 35 feet zoned 47 feet actual Minimum Distance Between Buildings 15 feet (3) Minimum Floor Area 700 square feet (ground floor) Minimum PUD Building Setbacks Minimum setback from Southern Property Line adjacent to Saturnia Lakes 300 feet Minimum setback from all other perimeter property lines 25 feet Setbacks for Internal Property Lines Minimum Front yard 15 feet Minimum Rear yard 15 feet Minimum Side yard 15 feet or 0 feet 131 Minimum Side yard 25 feet (1) Waterfront 0 foot setback to LME or retaining wall if constructed at lake control elevation (2) Page 3 of 12 Revision Date: October 30, 2017 Logan / Immokalee CPUD, PL20160001089 00 Principal Setback 15 feet Accessory Setback 10 feet Preserve 25feet (i) Lakesetbacks are measured from the control elevation established forthe lake. (2) All L.M.E.'s shall be platted as separate tracts or shown as separate tracts on the Site Development Plan (SDP), unless a retaining wall is constructed at the lake control elevation. (3) The minimum separation may be 0 feet where two structures are built under separate building permits but with abutting perimeter wall(s). Page 4 of 12 Revision Date: October 30, 2017 Logan / Immokalee CPUD, PL20160001089 EXHIBIT C FOR LOGAN/IMMOKALEE CPUD MASTER CONCEPT PLAN (MCP) (I page) Page S of 12 Revision Date: October 30, 2017 Logan / Immokalee CPUD, PL20160001089 Drsviatlrinq, Deviation //1 � /1\ Deviation N2 - /2\ Deviation //3 - Zoning: Estates Land Use: Misc. Agriculture i Zoning: Estates Land Use: Vacant Residential Future Access I- Eammeu I i 1 I I 20'Typc O' Landscape Buffer Zoning: Olde Cypress DRI Land Use: Golf Course 20 Type D Landscape Land Use: Single Family Residential IMMOKALEE ROAD S,gnaye — — t 1 Building T I Watc+r Feature H2 ` I 1 L i at jiI L + 7 —1—�- Sitina4e ,� �zl 1i A f %c 11 11 ' ` Retail T \ Land Use: Misc. Agriculture -10 TypeA 1 landscape P reserve Buffet I Zoning: I Agriculture A Land Use: I�lo �!I Misc. Agriculture O.R. 1189 10 T e A O.R. 156, PG 411 ._. �� Grocery Al / \, o --� 1 te_ _ 2p'lak M en n o o Future Access yEasement }-15' Type 'B j Landscape Buffer I Zoning: Agriculture Land Use: Misc, Agriculture I I ,I Property Line 1— 15' Type'B' I Landscape Buffer Zoning: 1 Agriculture I Land Use: Misc, Agriculture Lake .I yp Land Use: Misc. Agriculture plantings with native plant materials shall be in accordance Saturnia Landscape • P reserve - Buffer . Site acreage: _ Required: 30% of H-18.6 acres = +/5.58 acres Ingress/ O.R. 1189 PG 2052 '--- O.R. 156, PG 411 ._. �� +/.2.39 acres (12.85 %of site)' Egress — — — — — — — Easement Provided: +/-1.0 acres minimum' Preserves may be used to satisfy the landscape buffer O.R. 5291, Zoning: requirements after exotic vegetation removal in accordance PG 3496 Agriculture with LDC sections 4.06.02 and 4.06.05. E. 1. Supplemental Land Use: Misc. Agriculture plantings with native plant materials shall be in accordance Saturnia with LDC section 3.05.07. Lakes Site Data: Open Space_ Site acreage: +/-18.6 acres _ Required: 30% of H-18.6 acres = +/5.58 acres Buildings: +/-100,000 SF Provided: +/.5.58 acres minimum Lake: +/.2.39 acres (12.85 %of site)' Preserve /area: Preserve: +/-1.0 acres (5.4 % of site) Required: 15% of +/-13.29 acres = +/.1,99 acres Provided: +/-1.0 acres minimum' • Does not include water Feature 'The balance of the Preserve (+/-1.0 acre) wilt be provided for ofbsitein accordance with the LDC Section 3.05.07.11.11. in effect as of the date of this application, January 3,2017. EXHIBIT D FOR LOGAN/IMMOKALEE CPDD LEGAL DESCRIPTION A TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF COLLIER, LYING IN SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, BEING A PORTION OF A PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 4313 AT PAGE 2422 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF SAID COLLIER COUNTY AND FURTHER DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCE AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST; THENCE 589"58'22"E ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 28 ALSO BEING THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF IMMOKALEE ROAD (150 FEET WIDE) FOR 390.37 FEET; THENCE DEPARTING SAID NORTH SECTION LINE, SOUTH 00"01'38" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 166.85 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF SAID IMMOKALEE ROAD AS DESCRIBED IN ORDER OF TAKING, OFFICIAL RECORD 3888, PAGE 1611 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, SAID POINT ALSO BEING THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY, SOUTH 89"58'22" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 606.56 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE EAST LINE OF THE WEST 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 AND WEST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 28; THENCE CONTINUE ALONG SAID EAST LINE OF THE WEST 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 AND WEST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 28, SOUTH 02"11'25" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 1,169.86 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NW '/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 28; THENCE CONTINUE ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 28, NORTH 89"58'00" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 660.43 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE WEST LINE OF THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 28. THENCE CONTINUE ALONG SAID WEST LINE OF THE EAST I/2 OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/40F SECTION 28, NORTH 02"11'07" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 285.D8 FEET; THENCE NORTH 87"49'20" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 147.65 FEET TO A POINT ON A NON-TANGENTIAL CURVE, SAID POINT BEING ON THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF LOGAN BOULEVARD( RIGHT OF WAY WIDTH VARIES); THENCE CONTINUE ALONG SAID EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY THE FOLLOWING SIX COURSES; COURSE ONE: NORTHERLY, 190.25 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CIRCULAR CURVE, CONCAVE EASTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 2,132.54 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 05"06'42" AND BEING SUBTENDED BY A CHORD THAT BEARS NORTH 12"16'34" EAST, 190.19 FEET TO A POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE; COURSE TWO: THENCE NORTHERLY, 328.45 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CIRCULAR CURVE, CONCAVE WESTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 2,461 .50 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 07"38'43" AND BEING SUBTENDED BY A CHORD THAT BEARS NORTH 11 "00'33" EAST, 328.20 FEET; COURSE THREE: THENCE NORTH 17"32'26" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 52.62 FEET; COURSE FOUR: THENCE NORTH 05"21'54" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 53.61 FEET TO A POINT ON A NON-TANGENTIAL CURVE; COURSE FIVE: THENCE NORTHERLY, 209.81 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CIRCULAR CURVE, CONCAVE WESTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 2,471.50 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 04"51'50" AND BEING SUBTENDED BY A CHORD THAT BEARS NORTH 02"18'18" EAST, 209.74 FEET; COURSE SIX: Page 6 of 12 Revision Date: October 30, 2017 Logan / Immokalee CPUD, PL20160001089 THENCE NORTH 00"07'37" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 22.84 FEET; THENCE NORTH 45"3716" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 49.26 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. TOGETHER WITH DESCRIPTION (EASEMENT 1) A PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN SECTIONS 28, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AND BEING MORE PARTICUARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCE ATTHE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST; THENCE RUN ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION, SOUTH 02"10'58 EAST, A DISTANCE OF 964.50 FEET; THENCE DEPARTING SAID WEST SECTION LINE, NORTH 87"49'02" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 203.41 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF LOGAN BOULEVARD (RIGHT OF WAY WIDTH VARIES) AND TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 87"49'20" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 126.91 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 02"11'07" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 90.26 FEET; THENCE NORTH 87"49'20" WEST, ADISTANCE OF 147.65 FEET TO A POINT ON A NON-TANGENTIAL CURVE AND TO THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF SAID LOGAN BOULEVARD; THENCE ALONG SAID EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY, NORTHERLY, 91.07 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CIRCULAR CURVE, CONCAVE EASTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 2,132.54 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 02"26'49" AND BEING SUBTENDED BY A CHORD THAT BEARS NORTH 10"56'37" EAST, 91.06 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL CONTAINS 12,385 SQUARE FEET OR 0.28 ACRES, MORE OR LESS . TOGETHER WITH DESCRIPTION (EASEMENT 2) A PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN SECTIONS 28, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AND BEING MORE PARTICUARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCE AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST; THENCE RUN ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION, SOUTH 89"58'22" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 990.47 FEET; THENCE DEPARTING SAID NORTH SECTION LINE, SOUTH 02"1 1'25"E, A DISTANCE OF 166.97 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF IMMOKALEE ROAD (150 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY) AND TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 0211'25" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 150.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89"58'22" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 90.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 02"11'25" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 150.00 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE SOUTH 89"58'22" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 90.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL CONTAINS 13,490 SQUARE FEET OR 0.310 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. TOGETHER WITH DESCRIPTION (EASEMENT 3) A PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN SECTIONS 28, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AND BEING MORE PARTICUARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCE AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTHWESTER QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST; THENCE RUN Revision Date: October 30, 2017 Logan / Immokalee CPUD, PL20160001089 Page 7 of 12 u ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID QUARTER QUARTER SECTION, SOUTH 89058'00" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 879.64 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE DEPARTING SAID SOUTH LINE OF SAID QUARTER QUARTER, NORTH 43"55'18" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 153.91 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 0211-25" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 1 1 1.00 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH SAID SOUTH LINE OF SAID QUARTER QUARTER; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE, NORTH 89"58'00" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 1 11.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL CONTAINS 6,156 SQUARE FEET OR 0.14 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, OVERALL PARCEL CONTAINS 18.64 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. Page 8 of 12 Revision Date: October 30, 2017 Logan / Immokalee CPUD, PL20160001089 /'on EXHIBIT E FOR LOGAN/IMMOKALEE CPUD LIST OF DEVIATIONS Deviation #1 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.04.F.1.c., "On -premise signs," which permits a maximum sign area of 80 s.f., to allow for a maximum sign area of 160 s.f. (please see illustration on Exhibit G). The copy area will contain only the project name (to be determined) with no tenant information allowed. 2. Deviation #2 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.04.F.2.b., "Outparcel signs," which permits a single ground sign for outparcels having a frontage of 150 feet or more, not to exceed 60 square feet to permit a single ground sign up to eight feet in height and 60 square feet for each of the buildings identified on the MCP as Buildings 1, 2, 3 and 4, regardless of whether each building lies on a separate, platted outparcel. 3. Deviation #3 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.02.C.4.a., "Buffer Requirements," which requires trees to be spaced no more than 30 feet on center in the landscape buffer abutting the right-of-way or primary access road internal to a development, to exceed the minimum spacing requirement to permit the clustering of the required trees within the perimeter landscape buffer between Buildings 2 and 3, provided that spacing shall be no greater than 60' between required trees or clusters of trees. While this deviation allows clustering, the minimum number of LDC required trees in the subject buffer shall not be reduced. Page 9 of 12 Revision Date: October 30, 2017 Logan / Immokalee CPUD, PL20160001089 EXHIBIT F FOR LOGANAMMOKALEE CPUD LIST OF DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS 1. TRAFFIC A. The project shall not exceed a maximum of 449 net new PM Peak Hour 2 -way trips. 2. ENVIRONMENTAI A. The minimum preserve area required by the Land Development Code is 1.99 Acres (±13.29 acres x 15% = ±1.99 acres). A minimum preserve area of 1. 0 Acre will be provided on-site as shown on the MCP and the balance of the Preserve (±1.0 acre) will be provided for off-site in accordance with LDC Section 3.05.07.H.1.f. in effect as of the date of this application, Jan. 3, 2017. B. A management plan for Florida black bear shall be submitted for review and approval at time of final plat or SDP for the project, whichever is applicable. 3. PUBLIC UTILITIES A. Owner shall provide a 15' Collier County Utility Easement (CUE), at no cost to the County, free and clear of all liens and encumbrances, along the western boundary of the property within 90 days of the request by the County, when and if the County installs a force main in the future along the east side of Logan Boulevard. Any landscaping placed within the CUE shall be removed by the County but must be replaced (as required) at the owner's expense, in accordance with the Collier County Utilities Standards and Procedures (Ord. 2004-31). 4. PROJECT DESIGN ELEMENTS The project design as shown on the MCP shall incorporate the following design elements to enhance the appearance and quality of the project: A. In addition to LDC code requirements, a minimum of an additional 1,500 square feet of Building Foundation Planting shall be provided. B. In addition to LDC code requirements, a minimum of an additional 9,500 square feet of Special Paving Area shall be provided. C. In addition to LDC code requirements, a minimum of an additional 800 square feet of Landscaping shall be provided in the Vehicular Use Area. Revision Date: October 30, 2017 Page 10 of 12 Logan / Immokalee CPUD, PL20160001089 D. In addition to LDC code requirements, a minimum of an additional 19,000 square feet of Green Space shall be provided in the Vehicular Use Area. E. A minimum of one Native Live Oak or Holly tree, 10 feet in height at the time of planting, for each 22 linear feet, totaling a minimum of 29 trees between the vehicular use area and north side of the lake. Specialty lighting (similar to outdoor string lights) will be utilized in the plaza area between the Retail A building and the Grocery building. G. Overall design will be architecturally unified and will apply to buildings, signage and site lighting. 5. MONITORING REPORT Immokalee Road Associates LLC (hereinafter the Managing Entity) shall be responsible for CPUD monitoring until close-out of the CPUD, and this entity shall also be responsible for satisfying all CPUD commitments until close-out of the CPUD. Should the Managing Entity desire to transfer the monitoring and commitments to a successor entity, then it must provide a copy of a legally binding document that needs to be approved for legal sufficiency by the County Attorney. After such approval, the Managing Entity will be released of its obligations upon written approval of the transfer by County staff, and the successor entity shall become the Managing Entity. Should the Owner and Developer sell off tracts, the Managing Entity shall provide written notice to County that includes an acknowledgement of the commitments required by the CPUD by the new owner and the new owner's agreement to comply with the Commitments through the Managing Entity, but the Managing Entity shall not be relieved of its responsibility under this Section. When the CPUD is closed -out, then the Managing Entity is no longer responsible for the monitoring and fulfillment of CPUD commitments. b: MISCELLANEOUS Issuance of a development permit by a county does not in any way create any rights on the part of the applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the county for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law. All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the development. Revision Date: October 30, 2017 Page 11 of 12 Logan / Immokalee CPUD, PL20160001089 EXHIBIT G FOR LOGAN/IMMOKALEE CPUD PROJECT IDENTIFICATION SIGN EXHIBIT Revision Date: October 30, 2017 Logan / Immokalee CPUD, PL20160001089 Page 12 of 12 0 PROJECT ENTRANCE SIGN, SEE ELEVATION BELOW s 66 0 ae $ L----�-----------� I I a j Identity Sign Rendering - d iii U SCALE:N.T.S. Identity Siqn Location Plan 2 -_ SCALE:N.T.S. it J t, 3'-0" HIGH METAL � VAT—ENT—RAN—CE LETTERSSIGN AREA = 160 S.F. i (sign area = 110 S.F.) _ 60'-0" (n —PRECAST I; Z COLUMN CAP �z . .:------- -- --- --- — — ---- Tv. ¢w PRECAST TRIM, IJ< b- -_- ---------- ----� TYR _. 1 0 — STONEVENER, .. - - TYP. -- -- - 2'-0" HIGH RAISED CENTER SIGNAGE TO WALL LETTERS, OFFSET NOTE: FROM FACE OF STONE- 1-2 FINAL PROJECT NAME TO BE DETERMINED (sign area = 32 S.F.)==e DURING SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW q£a -01 n Identity Si n Elevation a� Yip LJ SCALE. 3/8"=V-0" gene nm i0 iaeenq Sig A104 GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT ZONING DIVISION CONSISTENCY REVIEW MEMORANDUM To: Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner, Zoning Services Section From: Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner, Comprehensive Planning Section Date: revised to October 30, 2017 Subject: Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Consistency Review of the Logan/Immokalee Commercial Planned Unit Development (2"d memo) PETITION NUMBER: PL20160001089 [REV: 2] PETITION NAME: Logan/Immokalee Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) REQUEST: The petitioner seeks to establish the Logan/Immokalee CPUD to develop up to 100,000 sq. ft. of gross leasable floor area of commercial land uses for specific commercial uses that are permitted by right and/or conditional use within the C-3 zoning district. LOCATION: The subject site, consisting of approximately 18.64 acres, is in the southeast quadrant of the Immokalee Road (CR 846) - Logan Boulevard intersection, in Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 26 East. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS: The Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan (GMP) designates the subject property Urban -Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict. This petition relies, in part, on a companion GMP amendment to FLUE provisions toward achieving consistency. That amendment [ref. PL20160001100/CP-2016-21 establishes the Logan Boulevard/Immokalee Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict. Relevant to this petition, the Logan Boulevard/Immokalee Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict provisions allow up to 100,000 sq. ft, of gross leasable floor area of a limited selection of commercial land uses from the C-3 zoning district, suited to the proposed upscale development, and limits any single use to no greater than 45,000 sq. ft. of floor area. This proposed PUD includes these square feet limitations and the uses are consistent with those allowed by the proposed subdistrict. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) reviewed the companion GMPA petition (PL20160001100/CP-2016-2) and provided recommendations. Those recommendations are not applicable to the GMP amendment however, but are pertinent parts of the PUD rezone - and they are incorporated [paraphrasing] herein. The subject property is within the primary range of the Big Cypress population of the Florida black bear and in the South Bear Management Unit identified in the 2012 Bear Management Plan. The FWC received 96 reports of human -bear contact within roughly a one -mile radius of the subject property since 2011, and the potential for contact exists within and around the area. While black bears that live in remote areas tend to shy away from people, they are adoptable -1- Exhibit B and will take advantage of human -provided food sources. [in reviewing the list of commercial uses above, it is evident that eating places and food stores are principal human -provided food sources.] Once bears become accustomed to finding food around people, their natural wariness is reduced to the point that there is an increased risk to public safety or private property. Early planning and coordination with local governments and land owners prior to development can prevent or reduce conflicts with bears by incorporating some of the following measures: Incorporating best management practices during construction by: • Requiring clean construction sites with wildlife -resistant containers for workers to use for food -related and other wildlife -attractant refuse, and • Requiring frequent trash removal and the use of proper food storage and removal on work sites. Measures to prevent attracting bears into the development, and working with tenants on how to avoid human -bear conflicts are also recommended. Exhibit F, List of Developer Commitments, 4. Environmental, item B. now commits to [submitting a] management plan for Florida black bear for review and approval at the time of final plat or SDP for the project, whichever is applicable. While this language is typically acceptable where management plans for bear are required, it is not consistent with the direction of the FWC - and this case is not typical. The FWC direction to incorporate best management practices during construction may not be possible if a management plan is merely "submitted" before construction begins. In accordance with FWC direction, staff recommends that this developer commitment be revised to ensure said management plan is prepared in accordance with the recommendations above so it will be reviewed and approved prior to initiating construction. Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Policy 5.4 requires new developments to be compatible with the surrounding land area. Comprehensive Planning leaves this determination to the Zoning Services staff as part of their review of the petition in its entirety. However, staff notes that in reviewing the appropriateness of the requested uses/intensities on the subject site, the compatibility analysis is to be comprehensive and include a review of both the subject property and surrounding or nearby properties with regard to allowed use intensities and densities, development standards (building heights, setbacks, landscape buffers, etc.), building mass, building location and orientation, architectural features, amount and type of open space and location, traffic generation/attraction, etc. FLUE Objective 7 and Policies 7.1 through 7.4 promote smart growth policies for new development and redevelopment projects pertaining to access, interconnections, open space, and walkable communities. In order to promote smart growth policies, and adhere to the existing development character of Collier County, the following FLUE policies shall be implemented for new development and redevelopment projects, where applicable. Each policy is followed by staff analysis [in bold text]. Objective 7: Promote smart growth policies, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and adhere to the existing development character of the Collier County, where applicable, and as follows: -2- Policy 7.1: The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their properties to fronting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code. [The corner property fronts Immokalee Road and Logan Boulevard. The Master Concept Plan depicts access to Immokalee Road, classified as an arterial road in the Transportation Element; and to Logan Boulevard, classified as a minor collector road.] Policy 7.2: The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic signals. [The Master Concept Plan depicts an internal array of vehicular traffic areas, parking areas and aisles that provide customer and service access to the individual commercial establishments.] Policy 7.3: All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and/or interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type. The interconnection of local streets between developments is also addressed in Policy 9.3 of the Transportation Element. [The site abuts developed or developable properties on two sides. Interconnections with properties to the east and to the south were previously depicted on the Master Concept Plan as either a "Possible Future Connection" or as an "Ingress/Egress Easement". Such labeling has been removed as the Plan has been revised; and presently, no labeling accompanies the two interconnections depicted. Without such labeling, it cannot be determined if, or to what extent, interconnection will be provided at these locations. Such labeling should be added back onto the face of Exhibit C, Master Concept Plan, or similar commitments to complete these interconnections as the adjoining properties develop can be added to Exhibit F, List of Developer Commitments - or utilize both methods - to provide clear indication how interconnection will be provided as encouraged by this Policy. If no changes are made, or if the changes made result with no indication or commitment to complete these interconnections, then the applicant's compliance and consistency (narrative) statements to both LDC provisions and FLUE Policies that application materials provide will be recognized as outdated, indicating only what the application provided in earlier iterations. Staff suggests the applicant revise (outdated narrative statements) accordingly to reflect current application materials.] Policy 7.4: The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities with a blend of densities, common open spaces, civic facilities and a range of housing prices and types. [For the most part, this policy has only limited applicability to this project; as a limited selection of general commercial use types are allowed. Regarding providing walkability, this policy promotes projects that make it safe and convenient to walk and encourages pedestrian activity. The Master Concept Plan illustrates an all -to - common arrangement of individual lots for commercial buildings generally surrounded by auto - oriented parking and circulation areas where vehicles mix with pedestrians. The project will be subject to LDC requirements for provision of sidewalks. Open space will be provided as required per the LDC. Given the size and land uses proposed, the remainder of this Policy would not apply.] -3- REVIEW OF PUD DOCUMENT: Please note the Logan/Immokalee PUD petition is contingent upon approval of the companion GMP amendment petition PL -20160001 100/CP-2016-2. Based upon the above analysis, the proposed PUD may be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element of the GMP, contingent, in part, upon the companion GMP amendment being adopted and going into effect. It is recommended that Exhibit C, Master Concept Plan provide clear indication how interconnection will be provided, or Exhibit F, List of Developer Commitments provide commitments to complete these interconnections as the adjoining properties develop - or both methods be utilized - as encouraged by FLUE Policy 7.3. The PUD Ordinance also needs to provide for an effective date to be linked to the effective date of the companion GMP amendment. PETITION ON CITYVIEW cc: Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager, Zoning Services Section David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Manager, Comprehensive Planning Section Michael Bosi, AICP, Director, Zoning Division G Comp\ Consistency Reviews\2017 Ilbcc.colliergov.netldata\GMD-LDSICDES Planning ServiceskConsistency RevleW20MP1JDZIP1JDZ PL2016-1089 Logan Immokalee R2 Con Rev_FNLr2.docx 11111112111111111 Tim Hancock: Well, my iPhone time I have 5:32 and I think that's official. My name's Tim Hancock with Stantec. We do have a microphone available, but can everyone hear my voice okay? Audience: Yes. Tim Hancock: Okay, great, sometimes the microphone actually makes it a little bit worse, but if you have any problem hearing or understanding me or any of the presenters, please just raise your hand, let us know, and we'll either speak up or use the microphone. 170306_0020 I'm with Stantec, I'm the planner for this project. I have the pleasure of work with GL in bringing this project to [inaudible]. Before starting the presentation, a couple of quick safety items. In the event that we had to evacuate the building for any reason, the exit is to your rear, there also is one down this hallway, and one out this way as well. Not that I expect that to happen, this is not Naples High School, but we should be okay nonetheless. Also, for you comfort and convenience, restrooms are down this hallway, you don't need to raise your hand and you don't need my permission, please help yourself if you need to use the facilities. I want to introduce members of our team that are here this evening with. With Geo, we have Mr. Kevin Ratterree here in front, some of you have met him before. We also have Mr. Michael Freedman. We've got a couple other folks with GL, but we've told them we wouldn't make them say anything, so I'm not going to introduce them. We also have with Stantec, Mr. Jeff Perry who's in charge of our transportation planning. Jeff has the unenviable position of talking to you about [inaudible 00:01:57] go and why. Wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy, but Jeff prepared the analysis and calculations in helping to determine the potential traffic impact from the project. In addition to making a presentation, he also is here to answer any questions you may have. We also have reviewers with Collier County. The way this process works is, we develop and file an application, that application is then reviewed by up to 14 or 15 county departments simultaneously. We have two applications going forward and they're both running concurrently, at the same time. The first one is an application to amend the Collier county growth management plan. Now, the growth management plan is an umbrella plan helps determine where particular types of land usage makeup. For example, it may designate that commercial is appropriate here, residential here, industrial here. As the county evolves and changes, that plan gets amended periodically. Sometimes it's amended by the county, sometimes it's amended by private land owners. So we have filed an application to amend the plan, to take this 18.6 acre parcel and designate it from what it is currently, urban residential, to what's call a commercial infill subdistrict. That application, the lead reviewer for that is Mr. Corby Schmidt, who has got his hand up over there. Corby works for Collier County, so I'd just like to tell you, if you have any Exhibit C Page 2 of 33 problems with your commissioners, talk to Corby. Oh I'm sorry. 1 meant if you love your commissioner, please talk to Corby. We are blessed with a good board, but anyway, Corby is in the comprehensive planning department, they handle the growth management plan side of things. The second application we have is a rezone application. If the growth management plan is an umbrella that says these are the types of usage you can have, and I'm being very simplistic in this, the rezone delves into the details. What are the setbacks, what are the building heights, what does it look like, what are the specific usage you can have, and what are some of the usage you can't have? So the zoning works with the growth management plan, in concert, they have to be consistent with each other, and there's a separate county department that reviews zoning applications. Our lead planner on that is Mr. Daniel Smith. Speaker 3: That's me and if you have any questions, call Corby. Tim Hancock: Right. Speaker 3: My card is out there, too. Me and Corby's card is out there. Tim Hancock: Both Corby and Daniel did leave their cards out there, I have a stack of mine as well afterwards if you want them, if you're trying to see who has the best hand with your cards at the end of the night, feel free to come ask me for that, as well. I'll kind of give you an overview. The process going forward is that the growth management plan amendment tracks a little bit ahead of the zoning. The reason is that the growth management plan amendment has two cycles. One is, it gets reviewed by the local governing bodies and then it's transmitted to the State Department of Economic Opportunity for review. They then send it back and there's a second hearing for ultimate decision or adoption of that amendment. The zoning only has one set of hearings. So the growth management plan will actually have a hearing for transmittal, when it comes back, both the growth management plan and the zoning will be heard at the same time. So tonight's presentation deals with both applications because really, we need to look at them together. One of them allows certain broad land, set of land uses and the other one delves into the details, together they'll give you a clear picture of exactly what is that's being requested [inaudible 00:05:38]. As you came in, there was a sign in sheet, if you did not sign in, please do so. It helps us be able to record how many people were here and if you raised your hand and said, "My name's John Smith and I've got a question," if I have your information at the end, I can circle back to you through that contact sheet. So if you didn't sign in, please do so before you leave tonight. Also on the table is a copy of the exact wording of the growth management plan amendment that we have requested and also is a copy of what's called the commercial planning unit 170306 0020 Page 3 of 33 development, or CPDD document, that's the zoning document, that's the one with all the more meaty details in it. That is still in draft form, by the way, we have made one submittal to the county and gotten comments back, we're working on a re -submittal on that. So the growth management plan amendment is pretty close to what we're going to see going forward. The CPUD document may have a few more changes that go into it. With that, I'm going to turn this over to Mr. Kevin Ratterree who is going to walk you through the presentation for the project. Then Mr. Perry is going to give you a little bit of transportation information. I'm going to wrap up with a few more comments, and we're going to do our absolute best to have this wrapped up and get you out of here, back home where we all want to be. Mr. Ratterree? Kevin Ratterree: Thank you. Okay thank you Tim. Can everybody hear me? Audience: Yes. Kevin Ratterree: For those of you that don't know me, my name is Kevin Ratterree and I'm with GL Homes, I work out of the corporate office [inaudible 00:07:07]. 1 work out of the corporate office over on the east coast of Florida. I have been dealing with the GL Naples division since its inception, I was part of the team that made the decision to move to GL from the east coast over to the west coast. I was intimately involved with the initial Saturnia Lakes project. I was intimately involve with the Riverstone and obviously with Stone Creek, so I've had a lot of history with GL relative to this particular corridor and know a lot about how these approvals came about and the history of those. Instead of you trying to remember how to spell my last name, I'm just going to tell you I have business cards up here, but just think battery, Ratterree, for pronunciation which one of my kids' teachers came up with that. If you want to spell it, think Tallahassee, you're probably going to be pretty good. A lot of doubles in there. Let me start off by saying, some you I recognize, I have been doing this traveling road show for a while on this project. We have already presented it to Longshore Lakes, Old Cypress, Saturnia Lakes, Riverstone. Part of this process, this neighborhood information process, it's a little bit broader scale in getting to a few more areas and geographic components that we haven't gotten to in terms of the overall presentation. If you could, I know some of you have questions, if you could just kind of let me get through the presentation, I found a lot of times I answer your question as I go through. Then at the end, we're all here to answer your questions as best we can. If you ask a question we don't know the answer to, we'll take your name down and we'll get back to you when we get an answer to that question. So just wanted to kind of go through that. Let me start off with, that name, Naples Garden Shops, that's not going to be the name. So the first slide in our presentation is wrong and the reason it's wrong is because we have been told by Collier County that we cannot use the name Naples Garden Shops. Naples and garden has been too used over here, so we 170306_0020 Page 4 of 33 need to come up with another name. So Michael Freedman over here will take you to dinner if you want to give us a name and we end up using that name, we will be happy to have Michael take you dinner on his tab. We'll be coming up with another name as we discuss this project with the project planners and in- house folks about it. Let me just start off by geographically orienting everybody. This area in pink is the 18.6 acre site that's the subject of the application. This is Logan boulevard right here, this is Immokalee road right here. The estates are over here. The area in blue is owned by Oakwood Park West, is the legal name, you may know it more as Landscape Workaholics, LRM, Cullen Walker, who operates his landscape maintenance service company out of this property here and also owns this piece of property here. Mr. Walker also owned this little triangular piece right here which was .99 acres in size, we bought that from Mr. Walker so it is part of the GL Homes ownership, it's part of that the GL homes buildership, it makes up the 18.6 acres. The reason we bought it relates to access, which will be my next slide, but I wanted to kind of bring everybody up to speed with what you're looking at here. Again, Mr. Walker here, Raymond Cleary owns this piece of property here. Some of you may be aware that they have initiated some discussions about doing a kind of group living facility, ALF type facility on that site, but it has nothing do with our particular application. This is the main entry for Saturnia Lakes right here, that's one of the northerly pods of Saturnia Lakes. Geographically, everybody good? Everybody got what we're talking about here? Okay, so instead of spending a lot of time trying to figure out the site plan, I'll get to that in a minute. I brought this up to talk about access. We have two points of proposed access to the site. One on the far easterly side of the site, fronting on Immokalee, that will be a right in, right out only. So if you're traveling eastbound on Immokalee, you will be able to take a right into the shopping center. If you're in the shopping center, you'll be able to take a right out of the shopping center. You bypass the Saturnia lights because there's no left turn. If you wanted to back west, you would go to the next U-turn and take a U-turn. The second point of ingress and egress is right here, it's on the extreme, and I'm going to call it western side, southern side is across on Logan Boulevard. That triangular piece that I was referring to earlier is that piece of property right there. The reason we bought it from Mr. Walker was to get that access point as far south as we possibly could with the goal of having a left turn in movement. So if you're traveling on Logan boulevard, you would be able to take a left and go into the center. It would have its normal right out, it would have its normal right in. There is also discussion with Collier County about the possibility of a left out. That left out depends entirely on whether Logan stays as a two lane road or whether Logan ultimately gets built as a four lane road. We as GL, for those of you who don't know the history, that built Logan Boulevard for the county, many years ago, a little over $10 million, a little spare change for what we had going on at the time. The whole point of that is that left out is a possibility while it is a two 170306 0020 Page 5 of 33 lane section, but they're kind of giving us warning that the left out will probably go away if in fact they end up four lane in that roadway. Our project is not tripping the need for the four lane, but the county at least has expressed some interest in making sure that we understand from an access standpoint the left out could go away. So that's the ingress, egress. If you notice right here on the plan, there's a little arrow that goes to the east and there's a little driveway connection that goes here. As part of our discussion with Mr. Walker to buy that acre piece of property, that triangular piece, we also wanted to set up future access to his properties so that in the event. Mr. Walker decides to convert use, his access would be a connection point to right there, so that we would have one common point of ingress and egress versus multiple curb cuts along the roadway. That's really designed to kind of control the flow of traffic from those several properties so that they're all coming in and out at one geographic location. Audience: Can you start over? Because everyone from Riverstone got sent to the wrong location. Can you kind of recap what you just said? Kevin Ratterree: Yeah, okay. Everybody here love what we're doing? Audience: [crosstalk 00:14:22] Kevin Ratterree: Did I summarize it good for you? Audience: [crosstalk 00:14:30] Kevin Ratterree: All right, I'm going to do it really quickly, if you don't mind, okay? This is the 18.6 acre site that's located on the southeast corner of Immokalee and Logan. Access, one access point on Immokalee on the far east side and one access point on Logan on the far west side up against Logan boulevard. That's as far as I've gotten so far. A little more detail that I did and I'll do that after the meeting with you, if you don't mind. This is the overall plan of development. You may remember, for those of you that have been around for a while, that a couple years ago there was an application filed to change the land use on this property and seek commercial zoning on it, and the rumor going around was that Lowe's was the interested tenant for the site. So Saturnia Lakes, Old Cypress, and a couple other communities were very fearful of that application. I don't want to speak for you guys, but there was a lot of concern regarding that potential type of use. What we're trying to do is bring in a very high end neighborhood scale shopping center. What I mean by that is, what we're trying to do is make sure it is a grocery anchored shopping center. That it's not designed to accommodate and we are put in restrictions to preclude those big box tenants, like the Lowe's and the Home Depots of the world, need to be able to fit on a commercial property. 170306_0020 Page 6 of 33 So when I say neighborhood scaled center, the prior application is seeking over 200,000 square feet of commercial space. We are going to limit this site to 100,000 square feet maximum retail site. We are also going to limit the scale of the users, that no individual tenant can be over 45,000 square feet. The purpose of that is to make sure that a Walmart, a Target, a Lowe's, a Home Depot, all of those guys that need 75,000, 80,000, 100,000 plus, they can't locate on this center. Again, the purpose of this is to accommodate the grocery anchor on a neighborhood scale setup. In sales, in Saturnia Lakes, in Riverstone, in Stone Creek, we have received a lot of feedback over the years about there not being a higher end shopping center that's designed to cater to some of the higher end neighborhoods that are in this geographic area. With all due respect to Target down the street, and some of those other users, it's really been something that we have heard on our sales floor that we really want to see something that has a nice grocery store, it's got great elevation, it looks good, it has restaurants that we want to go to, those types of things. So again, the whole purpose of this application is to bring in that neighborhood scale shopping center. From the site plan, what you'll see again is the grocery anchor, this is a Immokalee, this is Logan, we have put in the main retention area on the extreme southern side of the site. The reason for that because if you recall from the earlier graph that is Mr. Walker's property right there, but catty -corner to over here is Saturnia Lakes, so we were trying to provide as much spatial separation between Saturnia Lakes and where our buildings would start. In doing that, we had kept that retention area, and a native preserve area, and a buffer along that southern, eastern, and western side. Again, the access on Immokalee here, the access on Logan, this being local retail, local restaurant space, and then we're going to try anchor this corner with two restaurant pads, and I've got some elevations to show you if we get through this process. Again, goal number one is to limit the scale and size, we've done that by limiting ourselves to 100,000 square feet. Goal number two was to make sure that we couldn't accommodate, nor would we allow, a Home Depot or Lowe's scale tenant in this space. Again, talking about spatial separation, this is that cul de sac in Saturnia Lakes, it's about 575 feet to the western side of that rear grocery store and about 525 feet from the eastern side of that store, just to give you a spatial separation. This is the first of our elevations, again, disregard that name for a minute. I had a little fun with this, [inaudible 00:19:12], these mountains back here [crosstalk 00:19:15], but they're here. [crosstalk 00:19:21] Some of our rendering guys have a little fun sometimes, but this whole [inaudible 00:19:28] was designed to give you orientation and scale. The pointer would be sitting at the corner of Logan and Immokalee. So I referenced earlier those two restaurant pads in that corner leg, those are those two restaurant pads, and directly across is the grocery 170306_0020 Page 7 of 33 anchor. So you get a scale, it's kind of set on a diagonal, which is a little different than a traditional shopping center. Again, part of that is designed to kind of create that neighborhood scale that we're trying to accommodate with this application. This is some of the local retail space. What you'll notice here is we're spending a lot of time with the elevations of this site, coloring, we're carrying a lot of stonework, we're carrying a lot of woodwork, we're making these part of the application so that they're part of the review. Then we need a little bit of flexibility depending how and what tenants we get in here, but the overall scale and scheme of this is being set not only the land use amendment process, but the zoning process. Same picture, a little bit higher elevation. Again, notice try to deal with the pedestrian scale here, a lot of landscaping, a lot of greenery, and again the elevations to give you an idea of what we're trying to accomplish here. A lot of paver work. Again, all of that is designed to bring that upscale amenity to the area. This is that corner, so the grocery store is going to be way over here to the right, this is that corner over on Immokalee road side. Again, trying to accommodate that local retail, local restaurant space. Again, you'll notice we're spending a lot of time with a little open space area, pedestrian scale, walk ability of the overall center. This is the grocery store front. So, somebody's going to ask me, or all of you are going to ask me, who are your tenants going to be? Okay. Let me start with the big one, which is the grocery anchor. We are under a confidentiality agreement with one of those four right there, okay? All right? So, everybody hear me? That will give you an idea of the grocery anchor. Audience: When you say confidentiality agreement, is this a signed deal that you're saying is absolutely 100% done that is going to be one of those four candidates? Kevin Ratterree: It is. Already gone through their real estate committee, their real estate committee has approved, the paperwork is being executed as we speak. Before this thing is finally approved, that will be an ink deal. [crosstalk 00:22:091 Audience: [crosstalk 00:22:09] [inaudible 00:22:121 Kevin Ratterree: If you wouldn't mind, let me just get through the presentation and I'll get the questions in the end just to get you a little sporadic. All right, so let me go back to restaurants. Michael Freedman who Ken introduced is the VP of promotion for GL. Michael is the guy that does all of our leasing for GL's commercial centers, and don't let the name GL Homes confuse you, we are both a residential home builder, Saturnia Lakes, Riverstone, Stone Creek, we are also a commercial 170306_0020 Page 8 of 33 builder. We have a commercial division, we've got several centers on the east coast of Florida, this is our first foray over on the west coast. Michael's been the guy that's been dealing with all these folks. When you ask those questions later, I'm going to let Michael answer those because he's the guy that's been dealing with them. Since we have done the neighborhood information meetings that we had with the communities, we have received at least 20 inquires from people that know somebody, who know somebody, that was at that meeting who had called us an inquired about leasing spacing in the center. So there are the tenants that Michael is trying to get to, again, retail down at the bottom, but again, the whole thing is premised on that grocery store anchor. Okay, this is probably the slide that most people want to spend a little time on. In addition to the 100,000 square foot cap, the 45,000 square foot max per tenant, one of the things that we get a lot of feedback on is, "Well, are you going to allow," I'm sorry for doing this to you, WaWa in here, "Are you going to allow WaWa in your center? Are you going to have 24 hour fuel and convenience store? Are you going to have a theater? Are you going to have adult entertainment? Are you going to have ..." Start going down the list of all these things that folks have concern about being potentially located in proximity to the neighborhood. So what we have done as part of this process, is we have then included a list of uses that will be prohibited so that they are, by zoning development order, restricted on the property, we cannot cite them on the site. We have provided that as part of our CPUD application. It's a little hard to see it at that you're at, but just to run through them, discount dollar stores, the Dollar Tree, Family whatever, those types of uses will not be allowed. Those types of uses that create loud noises, we get a lot of people concerned about, "Are you going to have a bar in here that's going to have live music?" The answer is no, we're restricting both bars and we're restricting uses that generate loud music. Sound is regulated by the Collier County code, I've been asked especially in prior meetings, we are going to add outdoor seating areas. If you've been to a restaurant with outdoor seating areas a lot of times have speakers outside where they pipe in music. The music is not so loud that you can't have your conversation while you're eating dinner with your family. So the idea is we're going to ask ambient music allowed for the outdoor seating areas, but you would not have live entertainment or anything like that outdoors that would create the type of music that would be objectionable to you in the immediate area. Manufacturing facility, that's kind of a no-brainer. Dry cleaners, a lot of people have concerns about dry cleaners, especially areas that have well proximate to it, they're worried about chemicals potentially getting in their well system. Car washers, tire stores, automobile repair, those guns that they use to take tires off are some of the loudest things out there, you can hear those things for miles, so it's prohibited for those reasons. Salvation Army, Goodwill, again, they all do great services for the community, but those are the types of uses that are being prohibited. 170306_0020 Page 9 of 33 Surplus stores, overstock stores, stores that you see that typically are bigger box type users with [inaudible 00:26:10]. Amusement center, carnivals, laser tag, trampoline facilities, those are all prohibited under our application as well. Massage parlor, kind of goes without explanation, but there it is. Adult bookshop, adult movie theater, mortuary, funeral parlor, coin operated laundry, cocktail lounge, bar, tavern, night club, cinema, or theater. It's an interesting one because I get a lot of people that would say, "We would love to have a theater pretty close to our house," and then you have a lot of people that say, "I would hate to have a theater close to my house." Generally, those uses are very intense on Friday and Saturday nights, they go to early hours of the morning, there's a lot of traffic trips attributed to them, so we have just decided to prohibit that use in the center. So those of you that wanted to have a movie theater there, my apologies, but those are the types of things that we're trying to do to keep the scale of this down to a neighborhood center. Bowling alley, pool hall, skating rink, animal raising and storage facility. You saw earlier about PetSmart, it's not designed to be overnight boarding or that type of facility, but a retail store like a PetSmart would be something that would be allowed. Hotels, motels, lodging facilities, again prohibited. With all due respect to where we are, churches would be prohibited. [inaudible 00:27:35], sorry, but churches would be prohibited. Gun range, occult sciences, I don't know what those are, but okay. Nursing home, old age center, tobacco store, hookah lounge, electronic cigarettes, all of those things are just things that we have prohibited through this application and inclusive of what will be gas station, convenience store, gas sales, we're not going to have any of that. Let's spend a little time with buffers, I don't know that it's necessary to go through it unless I get a question, but these are some examples of some buffers. I think the best way to talk about what we do in terms of buffering is, go and drive down communities and see what we do. We have always been known to be a landscape heavy company, sometimes we get complaints in our communities that we were too landscape heavy, but we really try to do as much landscape ... This is a commercial center, so obviously visibility's important, but obviously we're trying to do this in an upscale manner, so the landscaping that we do will be. This is an actual picture, this our Canyon Town Center over on the east coast. For those of you who happen to be over there, I would encourage you to take a drive by and see what we do from a commercial ... It's off of the Florida turnpike's Florida Beach boulevard. Just head west, you're going to run right into it. This is a shopping center we built back in 2005, Mike? Michael F.: Eight. Kevin Ratterree: 2008, 1 was close. It's anchored by a Publix, but just to give you an idea of scale and elevation, it's got a Panera Bread in it here, that's the Publix corner over there. There's the Publix elevation there. They have [inaudible 00:29:19], and a Wells Fargo. This is an actual picture as well, yes the grass is actually that green. I 170306_0020 Page 10 of 33 don't know why, but it is that green. This is an actual aerial photograph of the shopping center. This is a main street right here, this is the Publix anchor over here. This is part of a civic site that we gave to Palm Beach County. There's an amphitheater back here that events are held at and we built in soccer fields as kind of a temporary because the kids are having a hard time getting of the soccer fields out there. When the county builds this park over on this property, they'll get rid of that soccer field, but it's something we did as part of the overall site. Tim can probably get into a little more detail of this, if necessary, but I want to talk about subdistrict because one of the questions that I get a lot is, "If we allow this to be approved, does that mean that everybody next to us, the barn doors open, and now suddenly everybody can come in and request a commercial designation?" It's a very important question I want to make sure we spend a little time talking about. First off, anybody can come in and file an application with Collier county to change land usage, it's the right of any property on Earth to do that. So I can't preclude Mr. Walker or Mr. [Courier 00:30:37] or anybody coming in and making an application. What we tried to do when we set this application was to set it up as an infill subdistrict and that's important because what we want to have a property owner do is go through the entitlement process, very similar to what we're doing, where they have to go through public hearings, they have to do community meetings, they don't have to labor of information meetings. You want to be involved in the process, you want to know what's going on. What we did with the subdistrict was we set it up where this particular standard right here, on one side [inaudible 00:31:17] commercial side is not [inaudible 00:31:19] urban commercial district. What that really means is, if we got commercial on this property, the adjacent property, just a commercial designation, the adjacent property could come in and seek commercial zoning without going through the land use amendment process because there's a standard in Collier County development regulations that allows that to happen. However, by creating this as a subdistrict, we have preempted that property owner's right to do that, they would have to go through the same process that we go through relevant to notice to homeowners and request that through a public [inaudible 00:31:56] process. Lighting, we've got our lighting plan. The Collier County standard is zero foot candles when you get off the property. We've done a lot of [inaudible 00:32:09] plan to show that. We're hitting zero foot candles on the adjacent property. This is done, just for an example of the lighting fixture. These are the new state of the art LED lighting fixtures that are going in. The whole purpose of those is really refine the light and direct it down so that you don't have a lot of ambient light coming out. [inaudible 00:32:28] be able to see the light. If you're across the street and you're staring at a shopping center, you're going to be able to see the light. The question is, is the light getting to you? That's spill over in the foot candles. You can see light, but the question is, is it spilling over to the point 170306_0020 Pagell of33 where you're being lighted by the light. The answer is, that standard of Collier County, is to get to 0.00 foot candles on the property. Here's an example of that. These are much taller LED fixtures, but if you'll notice, very bright around the base of them, but as you get off the light fixture itself it gets very dark very quickly. Okay, I'm going to turn it over to Jeff, let him talk about the traffic a little bit. I know that's probably a good bit of the questions that are going to come up tonight, so I'm going to let Jeff handle that. Then I'll be back up to kind of summarize and get questions. Jeff Perry: [inaudible 00:33:21] Okay. Good evening. For the record, my name is Jeff Perry, a transportation planner with Santec consulting. I prepared the traffic analysis for this particular project for both applications. As Kevin and Tim said, there are two companion applications moving together. There will actually be a third analysis that will be required by the county. You have one for the conference of planning, you have one for zoning analysis, and then you also have one for the actual site development plan. When this project, if it's approved, it moved forward through site development plan review where we get down really down into the weed about engineering and the very fine details of a site design, building permits, there's a traffic stuff that's done, again. That's important because if there is any lag between a project's zoning approval and when the site plan approval comes in, you want to make sure that the site plan zoning analysis, traffic analysis, is up to date. That it's the most current available the time, that analysis of is done in a timely fashion. When we do an analysis like this, we follow the county's regulations, there is a standard set of guidelines, we establish a study area, look at the different roadways that are likely to be impacted by a particular project and we do what's called trip generation. We look at the project form the standpoint of the amount of development that's being proposed. We can then use national standards for determining how many trips will generated to and from a project. In the case of residential, we know that residential projects are generators. When a 100 units, or 1,000 units or developed, people move into those homes, they are generating traffic. It's brand new trips, coming and going to their homes. Commercial on the other hand is what we call attractors. They are the places where people go to. The people that leave their home and go to the grocery store, or go to work, go to an office, they are actually going to that destination or to that attractor. Commercial shopping centers of this type, neighborhood commercial centers, also have the advantage of capturing traffic that's already on the roadway. So we see that there's traffic moving along Immokalee road, this is Logan Boulevard here and the shopping center here. There's traffic already on Immokalee road. As it passes by the shopping center, on your way home from work to get to your residence, you stop at the grocery store. You stop at the drug store, or whatever it is that you want to stop at. It's called a pass by trip, so it's not generating new 170306_0020 Page 12 of 33 trips. There are some employment numbers, people that are working here are coming from their home, they're going to a particular place, but generally speaking, a project like this is capturing quite a bit of traffic along the existing route, and especially during the peak hour. When we analyze traffic, the county is most concerned about the peak hour of the day, which in also every case, is the evening. It just so happens on Immokalee road the AM peak hour of background traffic, the current volumes, are a little bit higher in the morning going inbound, going towards Naples, than they are in the afternoon going out. But generally speaking, generators, those that are generating traffic, are generating either in the morning or in the afternoons. Attractors like shopping centers typically have a much higher PM peak traffic, there's very little activity going on here at 7:00, 8:00 in the morning. You have some grocery stores that might be open at that hour, but many of the retail establishments, small offices that might be in there, are not open at that particular hour in the day, so people are not coming in and out of the shopping center in the morning. So we're required to look at the evening, PM peak hour, how many trips will come into and out of the site relative to the amount of traffic on a particular road. These particular numbers ... This traffic analysis is available in the public record, we can get you copies of it if you're interested in the entire report. We've analyzed the traffic signals, we've analyzed the amount of traffic coming into and out of the site. We've estimated, with all these little blue arrows, the amount of traffic that will go in each direction because obviously as Kevin had said, there's a right in and a right out on Immokalee road. We're proposing right out, left out, left in, and right in on Logan boulevard, so we've assigned what we believe is a distribution of traffic in each of these movements in each of these directions. There will be some people that will be coming down on Immokalee road westbound and will want to make a U-turn and come back around into the shopping center. There will be others that will want to come down here and use the access off of Logan. So we tried to account for all of the movements that will people will make into and out of the shopping center. These numbers, the red numbers, are the numbers that are the total driveway volumes so that includes the trips that are already on the roadway that someone stops and says, "Oh, I'm going to go into Publix," got a call, turn and go into the grocery store get a quart of milk and then turn around and come back out once they get whatever it is you need. So these are the active driveway volumes. That's not the net new traffic that would ultimately be added to the roadway. These are the volumes on the roadways today. In the morning, and this is a peak hour, there's 2,200 vehicles an hour traveling on Immokalee road westbound. In the evening, a little bit less than that, about 1,900 vehicles per hour traveling in that direction. Our traffic, as you can see, is 124, 173 coming in and turning in this way. The total numbers, as I said, are the driveway volumes coming in. A small fraction of the amount of traffic that is currently on the road and some of 170306_0020 Page 13 of 33 that traffic that is currently in this, what we call the travel screen, this numbers up here, will actually be showing up in these numbers in the driveways because they'll be turning in off of a driveway. We've conducted the analysis for the county. Our analysis shows that there is existing failures at the intersections, the volumes on the roadways are not significant enough to require additional travel lanes on the roadways, but we do know that there are problems at some of the intersections. The county is aware of these problems. The problems are not caused by this particular project. The county is currently pursuing a study of the entire corridor of Immokalee road to try to identify what improves are ultimately going to be needed and then using their impact fees and assessments of individual projects, determine what improves have to be constructed and who has to pay for them. So when this project comes in for its site development plan, we'll go back through another analysis and if there's a proportionate share or some improvement that the county feels is the responsibility of this developer, then they would contribute that particular portion to fixing one or more of these intersection problems. These are problems that exist today that are not the responsibility of this developer so we have to assume that the county's going to fix these in the future, but if the developer is contributing any deficiencies, then they are required, any developer, is required to pay a proportionate share to remedy that particular problem. I think that's it. We will answer any questions a little bit later. Kevin Ratterree: Michael told me I needed to clarify my statement on the massage parlors. Not a frequenter of massage parlors, so Massage Envy is different than a massage parlor. That's the way he's tried [crosstalk 00:41:42]. Before we get to questions, there are these things called deviations. Deviations are, code says you can do this, you request a deviation to allow you to do this. We do a lot of deviations when we deal with our residential PUDs and I'll have Tim come up here and go through those really quickly. It's kind of a standard procedure that we have to ask for them, but we have to kind of inform you what those deviations are. A lot of it relates to the signage on the corner, trying to make sure we can accommodate that signage and that it has that scale to it, but I'm going to let him go through them real quick. Tim Hancock: [inaudible 00:42:29] Okay, it'll be little more helpful with this slide to discuss this with you. As Kevin said, again, for those of you who came in late, my name is Tim Hancock with Stantec, I'm the planner for this project. There are, in our current document, there are a total of three deviations being requested. The deviations are form what's called the land development code. That is, in essence, the rules and regulations of development for Collier County. Just like any code, it's not really a one size fits all. One of the nice things about a planning unit development or a PUD, which is this project is, is that we can tailor the land uses, we can tailor the standards to meet an intended result. That's really what the deviations do, is they take what you've seen here today and they make sure 170306_0020 Page 14 of 33 that's what you're going to get. So let me go over these quickly and most of them deal with signage. The first deviation on our document dealt with parking. Well, that deviation actually is going to go away. The reason is because GL has reduced the square footage to 100,000 square feet or less, normally a parcel of this size would have 150,000 square feet or more. Because of that, there's no squeeze on parking, there's no parking issues. So deviation number one in the document is going to go away, we don't need to talk about that. Deviation number two is really about the exhibit that you see here. This is a project identification sign. Collier County code really isn't set up for most projects to have these. As a matter of fact, how many of these have you seen Collier County that are not in a residential development? Not many, but it's a very key feature for the aesthetics and the treatment you see here, that tells you, you have arrived somewhere special. So rather than just having grass and a lake, we think this project identification sign is important. We're asking, and by the way, this doesn't identify any of the businesses in here, it's simply the project name, which again, for those of you who showed up late, it will not be Naples Garden Shop or Naples Village Shops, we're having to go back to the drawing board because we're using some overused names. So there's a contest out there, if anyone comes up with a name, see Michael. He doesn't have to have dinner with you if you win the contest, you can go on your own. This project identifier, we had a deviation that says, "Yes, we can do this," because the code really doesn't allow for that type of signage. The second deviation ... Let's see. In most shopping centers, and you've probably heard them called out parcels. Usually when you have a building along the perimeter of the project, they design these ... We do this from a fit standpoint as, you put this out parcel here, and then this one, and this one, and this one. You just line them up like soldiers. The reason is, you normally carve out a piece of property and you sell the land itself fee simple to whoever's going to develop it. Each of those out parcels is allowed to have what's called a ground sign, which is, I believe, it's 12 feet in the code, maybe eight feet. Because it is not our intent to carve out and sell out parcels, it is actually GL's intent to lease the pads so that we can have this nice continuous flow of parking and not break every little site up, which really makes it harder to walk from one to the other, and just gives you more of what I call a campus effect where you can move freely on the site. When you break it into out parcels, you lose some of them. Once we're no longer carving out parcels, the county code doesn't let us have those little ground signs. So our deviation is to ask for the ability for each one of these buildings to have one ground sign out here, eight feet tall, no more than 60 square feet in size. Very small, very low profile, but again, very important in order to get quality tenants in these buildings, they really have to have their ground signs. So just because we're not breaking them into out parcels, we have to request a deviation for that. 170306_0020 Page 15 of 33 Deviation number goes away, number two and three I just described to you. We did discover a third deviation for the grocery anchor here. For the size that we have planned, the county allows 200 square feet of total signage on the front of that grocery anchor. Picture a Publix, if you will, and they normally have like Publix, then they have pharmacy, and something else over here, they kind of break it up into three pieces. Because we're doing a little smaller anchor here, we don't have enough frontage ... We can have our 200 square feet, but we can't break it into three pieces that when you add them up, then they make 200 square feet. We met with the sign reviewer today at the county, we're requesting a deviation so that we're not going to have any more signage than we're allowed by code, we just want to be able to have those little signs that the grocery anchor may need in order to advertise the total business that its performing. So that's the third deviation. None of them terribly significant, most of them are signage and aesthetics. There are things that are very important to the folks, the high end businesses, that are looking to go here, and things that we think don't attract them. As a matter of fact, we think many of the deviations will add to the aesthetics of the project. Those are the deviations as we've had them, but last thing I want to mention is, the zoning is still in process. So as we go forward and we resubmit, there will be minor changes to the zoning. Now, the things that you have been told tonight, things such as no massage parlors, and I've got to figure how to allow Massage Envy, but not have a massage parlor, I'm not sure how we do that, but we'll figure that out. Those things are commitments that we've made to you and we're not going to waver in those, but there may be things that get added and taken out through the process of reviewing the staff. If any time in this process you want to know what's in there, all you have to do is call or email me, I will send you the document. I have my business cards here when you leave. Everything we submit is public record, you can call Mr. Smith or Mr. Schmidt and they'll provide it to you, or call me and I'll provide it to you. When I do, I usually copy them anyway so that they know that we're responding to those things. So if you have any questions after you leave here today, we remain available throughout the process to address those questions. What I'd like to do now is, is turn it back over to Kevin. He gets all the hard questions, but if you have any easy ones, I'll be over there. Kevin Ratterree: Tim, thanks. [inaudible 00:49:34] Assuming that the application's approved and we continue through this process, our goal is deliver the grocery pad first quarter of 2019, so that's the anticipated timing. Somebody's going to ask me, "Well, GL Homes gets it approved and then they flip it, sell it to somebody who builds it." First off, I've been with GL for 18 years, we've never sold a single piece of property, we are going to develop them, we are not a seller. We have a complete division that is designed for the purpose of leasing and operating commercial 170306_0020 Page 16 of 33 shopping centers Our intent and our end product will be a center built by GL, a center maintained by GL, a center operated by GL. So if anybody's concerned about building a high quality center, we are. Why are we going to be concerned about that? Because we're selling right up the street Stone Creek, we want to utilize this center as an amenity to the folks that are coming onto our sales floor. So understand from our perspective, this is a GL center, this is not an approval that gets done and then flips to somebody else. So understand that from [inaudible 00:50:51]. Finally, lastly, as Tim said, please, by all means, if you have any questions that didn't get answered, you think of something at night, if you're like me you wake up at 3:00 in the morning and go, "Ah, totally forgot that," just send us an email and we'll get an answer back to you ask quickly as we can. All right, questions. Let me see if I can do this in a framework that is logical. People are going to raise their hands, I'm not being gender specific or color specific, or I like you, I don't like you, I'm just going to do them as I go along. If you just ask your question and we'll see what we can do to answer it. Yes, sir? Speaker 7: You said first quarter 2019 for the pad for the grocery store, is that the first one, the last one, the middle one? Kevin Ratterree: That's the first one. Speaker 7: Okay. It'll all be built at one time though? Kevin Ratterree: Yeah. The goal is to get the grocery, and we're going to build everything at the same time, but our target is to get that grocery pad up. Yes, ma'am? Second row. Sorry, I'll get you. Speaker 8: Okay, my concern is traffic. We live in [inaudible 00:51:53] and stranger danger is leaving our community, I wonder that when you did your analyzing, I have several questions. First of all, did you consider the schools that are there? Number one. The other thing was, when we talked to the police officers who have come into our community, they constantly tell us the lights are on timers, however, they never consider the fact that there's a right on red at the corner of Logan and Immokalee. So even though that light may change and become red and gives us an opportunity to cross three lanes, which they tell us is illegal, but if that's the only way we get to get inside, the fact that it's right on red deters us from ... Again, we still have traffic coming through. So I guess my question to you is, was that looked at, at all? Or are you just concerned with the area from Logan and Immokalee? Jeff Perry: The answer is yes ... The answer is no, we did not look at that far off away from the project. Once the traffic gets into the travel stream, depending on how much traffic is being generated, and I can share with you some of the numbers up there, 133 trips, stuff like that, the county only requires us to go so far because after that, it attenuates off, some of it goes into Saturnia Lakes, some of it goes a 170306_0020 Page 17 of 33 little further, goes into another driveway. It ultimately gets reduced. So a much larger project, for instance, the project that Kevin mentioned that previously had been [inaudible 00:53:35] here, 200,000 square feet would generate twice as much traffic and this would. The traffic analysis would have extended out a little further, it would have looked a little bit further, perhaps to the next intersection beyond. But once you get to a certain point, the amount of traffic that's being added to the travel stream no longer becomes an issue as far as levels of service. Not withstanding your problem of getting into and out of the projects, and we've seen that on Saturnia Lakes, we've seen it in just countless situations where the access connections that don't have a traffic signal, don't have the luxury of having a traffic signal, have to deal with median openings that divert traffic, that only allow you one way in and one way out to have to make a right turn and go down, make a U -turn - Speaker 8: We only have one in and out, that's all. We don't have the [inaudible 00:54:31] like Saturnia Lakes can get out on Logan or Immokalee- Jeff Perry: Right. Speaker 8: We have no choice. Jeff Perry: The county's cover their ears. The county's responsibility to main the level of service of the roadway, it is not to make your access convenient. They need to make sure that your access is safe, so they don't want to put you in harm's way, but the access into and out of a project is regulated by access management standards. Not everybody can have a full median opening, not everybody can have a traffic signal, so there are standards that are adopted, and when these projects are developed, you have to live with those particular standards. As inconvenient as it might be to be able to get into and out of a project, those are based on the standards that we're faced with. We would love to be able to provide much more convenient interconnections for projects when we sponsor these projects to the county, but their responsibility is the mainline, your movements along the major highways. Speaker 8: My concern isn't convenience, my concern is safety. There are a lot of accidents in that area and you're talking schools, you're talking [inaudible 00:55:421 - Jeff Perry: Right. Speaker 8: There are accidents there all the time. Jeff Perry: The county's traffic operations staff looks at those accidents, they get accident reports, crash reports from all the accidents, from all the crashes. They look at the crash reports, if there are geometric problems with an intersection, or with a turn lane, or something like that, they can take steps to correct it. More often 170306_0020 Page 18 of 33 than not, crashes are not caused by geometric or engineering problems, they're caused by driver behavior. The county's response to those kinds of changes is to, in fact, limit some of the movements that are causing the problems. For instance, if there's a connection that allows you to cross over three lines of traffic and it becomes a problem, becomes a crash problem, the county can close that access so that you have to turn right and go down, make a U-turn, and make some other movements to get into and out of a project. So, the problem that we have is that everybody would love to have the most convenient, safe access connections that they can, into and out of a development, but often times what you get is not convenient. It's supposed to be safe, it's designed to be safe, driver behavior plays a big role in whether or not you have crashes at a particular area. The amount of traffic that this project is generating is, to use the term, dropping the bucket from the amount of traffic that is on this road today and is going to grow from projects further east, that are going to be developed, that are going to come into 1-75 and so forth. What this development does, what this commercial development does, is gives people today, leaving Saturnia Lakes, or leaving one of the other developments in this particular area, have to travel three, four, or five miles to get to a grocery story. You won't have to do that with a neighborhood center like this. Likewise, people traveling that long distance along the road will not have to stop at one other place or go out of their way, they'll be able to stop at this particular commercial, if they need to stop and get groceries or something like that. That's a long winded answer, but - Speaker 9: [crosstalk 00:57:57] If you pull and if you want to go west, you go up a short distance and make the U-turn . Speaker 8: [inaudible 00:58:02] the school. Speaker 9: [crosstalk 00:58:05] Speaker 8: I was just saying, are all of these cars who are going to pull out of there, they're going to have to go that same U-turn to head west, so it will be that much busier for [inaudible 00:58:15]. Speaker9: [crosstalk 00:58:17] Jeff Perry: No, hold on for a second. Yeah. Speaker 9: [crosstalk 00:58:20] Jeff Perry: Please, here's what ends up happening, if everybody starts talking over each other, it's complete anarchy. Based on the conversation, understand what people do from a traffic pattern standpoint, what you're referring to is 170306_0020 Page 19 of 33 somebody who's going east, to go west. Now, think about your driving pattern. If you're going west, what exit are you going to go out of? The logical exit is that you're going to come out on the Logan boulevard side, take a right, and go up to a signalized intersection to take your left. Very few people, there will be some, again, driver patterns are driver partners, that will take a right out and then try to get over to whatever will be the first legal U-turn that they can make, to do a U-turn. Most people who go ... I go to pretty much the same grocery store, the same several grocery stores every time I shop, I know the traffic pattern in terms of how it works best for me, being able to get in and out. So folks that are traveling west, or folks that are going to Old Cypress, or Riverside, or Stone Creek, they're going to do this movement here. There's going to go come and do this or they're going to come out and do that because that is going to be the most convenient and it's going to be the safest. So to just kind of expand the (inaudible 00:59:52] of your comment. Speaker 9: That makes sense. Jeff Perry: Okay. Yes, ma'am? Speaker 10: Yes. With the traffic study, do you take into consideration that there is a proposed school coming in Stone Creek that will cause a lot of bus traffic, school children on buses, this is already ... Immokalee Road is already very heavily traffic and the school and all the new cars from Stone Creek, was that in to the study? Jeff Perry: It is. The background traffic, what we call background traffic, not related to this particular project, is in the existing numbers as well as in our forecast. So when we analyze something five years out into the future, or 10 years out into the future, we have to grow the traffic or inflate the traffic numbers to represent traffic from developments that are outside the area that are traveling along the roadway. This traffic is going to grow 2% per year or 3% per year, whatever the number happens to be based on historical trends and modeling. Those number! are all considered in the analysis. Speaker 10: So the school was in it? Jeff Perry: Yes. Speaker 10: The new school? Jeff Perry: Also, keep in mind, this is an important thing that people sometimes don't think about in terms of shopping centers, hours. So school has a peak time at around, I'm going to say, just to be conservative, 6:30 to 8:30, okay? This is a peak time for a school. Well most of the tenants in a shopping center are not open yet. If you have a coffee shop, they will be open, grocery probably is open, they probably open at 7:00 or 8:00 in the morning, but all your local retail, unless you're restaurants, they generally don't open that early in the morning. So it's a little bit off an off peak to peak review that you need to be thinking about. Then 170306_0020 Page 20 of 33 in the afternoon, the peak time of a school is a little earlier in the afternoon than the peak time the county uses in terms of the PM peak hour which is generally 4:00 to 6:00, that time frame, most schools are out and have completely dissipated by then. Again, just something to think about. We did take it into account there is a little bit of different in peak hour traffic, but we were ... [inaudible 01:02:12] that school site was part of our [inaudible 01:02:16] approval to dedicate that school site to Collier, I'm not aware that that school's been funded yet, but Collier County, to my knowledge, has not been funded, so they would have to put that in their five year capital plan, they would have to do the construction drawings, they would have to do all that. It's years off in terms of the planning provided for that, but even if it were there, it's going to be a little bit different peak hours in terms of the peak hour of the shopping center compared to the peak hour of the elementary school. Yes, sir? Speaker 11: There's a school being built by Stone Creek, north of us. Jeff Perry: There is a school site dedicated to the Collier County school district, it's secured. If you've been out to Stone Creek and you go into Stone Creek, you take a left off of Logan boulevard, the school site is directly north of that, a vacant piece of property that is part of Collier County's obligation in the project [inaudible 01:03:09] approval process which we've dedicated that school site potentially for a future school. Somebody's going to ask me about Logan boulevard? Speaker 11: Is it a high school, a middle school? Jeff Perry: It's an elementary school. Audience: Elementary school. Jeff Perry: Hold on one second, let me just address the Logan boulevard thing for a second. Somebody's going to ask me what's the timing of Logan boulevard? The answer is, we have to have that road [inaudible 01:03:30] when we reach 297 certificates of occupancy in Stone Creek and we have to build it within one year of starting construction. So it is not imminent, imminent, but it's on the horizon. That's something that over the next couple of years, that link between Bonita Beach and Immokalee is going to be built. Somebody is going to ask me, is it going to be a four lane section? That one I can definitely say no because when Old Cypress first dedicated the right of way they only dedicated 60 feet for the future roadway, so there's not enough right of way for a four lane section to be built. Now, the county could have the right to come in and condemn property and do all that, but the whole ... If you've been part of that public participation in the discussion on Logan boulevard, that [inaudible 01:04:20] had been planned to be a two lane road. Yes ma'am, over here? 170306_0020 Page 21 of 33 Speaker 12: I have a question, so what about Logan boulevard between Immokalee and Vanderbilt? Is there a plan or availability to widen that? Jeff Perry: There is right of way available, the road was designed ... Yep, I'm going to take the blame for it, you can blame me for a few things out here, but Logan boulevard was built by GL, we obtained the right of way for the construction of Logan, for that length of Logan, so [inaudible 01:04:46], there's right of way for a four lane section. It's actually design to accommodate a four lane section. It is not funded by Collier County, there's nobody on the book who has the obligation to four lane it, but it has the potential of being four laned. Speaker 12: In this development, you said this is [inaudible 01:05:071 owned by GL homes - Jeff Perry: Yes. Speaker 12: And operated by GL homes? Jeff Perry: Yeah, Immokalee Road Associates LLC is a affiliated entity of GL. Speaker 12: Do they have other commercial properties? Jeff Perry: Yes, we do. Yes, sir? Speaker 13: You mentioned high end a few times, so would it be like a smaller version of Mercado's? Jeff Perry: I'm going to let them speak to you about that. Kevin Ratterree: It won't be sort of Mercado, effectively it's a mix of these projects, residential and I think they have an office there, it's going to be a neighborhood shopping center, we're going to aim for the higher end restaurants, [inaudible 01:05:44] restaurants that you stop in front, but no, it won't be a full mixed use project. Speaker 13: Because I have a house in Old Cypress and for me to get out of my development, by the time you get to Mercado's [inaudible 01:05:531. So obviously we know [inaudible 01:05:56], there is traffic, and because of that I think it's cool if there's that kind of, if we could have that smaller venue closer - Speaker 14: Yeah, if I could piggy back on his question, I live in Saturnia Lakes and this is going to put a lot of stuff within a walk from me. So it's going to get me out of my car a lot, do I really have to wait until 2019 to get it? [crosstalk 01:06:22] Speaker 13: [inaudible 01:06:27] 1 don't need to go there for lunch, but a cool place to go to have a nice dinner, without having to go to fifth avenue, which I could fly a plane down to, or or just, to me, is more convenient because of the traffic. When you say high end, I think that's a cool, it's like a fresh market, it tells us what it is. Whether a Whole Foods, [inaudible 01:06:49] a Publix, like a smaller [inaudible 170306_0020 Page 22 of 33 01:06:51], would be a hell of a lot more convenient than driving to the East Springs or down the 41. Kevin Ratterree: Right, and again, to reiterate again something I said earlier today to you that may have come in late. That was really the driving force behind us buying the property and assembling with Mr. Walker's acre, is to try to come in and do a very high end shopping center because we were hearing the same thing that you're saying, from the folks that were buying from us. Speaker 13: [crosstalk 01:07:17] Kevin Ratterree: That's great, but I have to drive 25 minutes to get to a reasonably good restaurant or whatever, I'd like to have something a little more convenient. So that was a driving force [crosstalk 01:07:31]. That is how long it takes us to get through a regulatory approval process. It is what it is, for those of you have been around a GL homes project, you know we build relatively fast. Speaker 13: Yeah, that's for sure. Kevin Ratterree: So when we get the ability to go, we're going to go. If we get the ability to go. Speaker 13: Super. Kevin Ratterree: Cool, yes ma'am. Speaker 15: In the list of [inaudible 01:07:501 uses, you keep driving around the term high end, high end, high end, and I understand that's what you want, but reality is something different as to who wants this shopping center and who wants to be there. The two restaurant pads that you had [inaudible 01:08:06], is there any way for you to guarantee us that that's not going to be a fast food, a drive through Starbucks, a Chipotle, a Taco Bell, something like that? I don't think we need any more of that. Speaker 13: We might need Starbucks. Speaker 15: 1 don't. Kevin Ratterree: [crosstalk 01:08:30] This is the part of the meeting where people start getting mad at each other. [crosstalk 01:08:34] Speaker 13: 1 do have a second question to follow. Kevin Ratterree: So everybody has their own opinions of what they like. Some people like Chipotle, some people like [inaudible 01:08:41], some people like Starbucks, some people like Dunkin Donuts. Our site plan is not set up to have fast food, drive through, on those front outposts. The goal is to have sit down restaurants. 170306_0020 Page 23 of 33 We haven't gotten into the leasing process with those restaurants yet because we have this approval process in front of us. Speaker 13: That's your goal, but I'm saying, you're trying to get the neighborhoods approval or support, and I'm saying you're saying high end, but you're not saying, but we won't take a McDonald's, we won't take a Burger King. Kevin Ratterree: There's a ton of leases out there and we don't know who they are yet - Speaker 13: But you decide who's going to be in the shopping center. Kevin Ratterree: Absolutely. Speaker 13: That's my point. So in the [inaudible 01:09:23] uses, and you say it's going to be high end, maybe it should say, we won't. Tim Hancock: I'm sorry, if I may, I think this is where I come in. This is a zoning process and zoning has certain criteria that it can and cannot apply. In the zoning document, to say that we will not have this brand name is not something that is either typical and may not even be [crosstalk 01:09:49]. So, [inaudible 01:09:511. [crosstalk 01:09:56] We get into another problem when you say, we don't want a drive through. [inaudible 01:10:001 dry cleaners has a drive through. Panera Bread, do you like Panera bread? Speaker 13: They're like a Target. Tim Hancock: That isn't the question, my question is, do you like Panera Bread? Speaker 13: Yes. Tim Hancock: If they have a drive through, do you like them less? Speaker 13: Yes. Tim Hancock: Because Panera now has drive throughs. So we get into this really strange conversation, so I just want to ... We're dealing with land use right now - Speaker 13: [crosstalk 01:10:21] community and the community know honestly what's going to be there. Tim Hancock: Right, understood, so what I'll tell you is, the way in which we're going to ensure quality is through high end site design at this stage. I have done hundreds, I have not had developers, at this stage, showing the degree of architecture that you see here. Usually it's very speculative at this stage, they don't even know what the buildings are going to look like. I think what you're seeing is the commitment. They even asked to put the elevations in the zoning document and we were told that you can't, but you can make it an exhibit at the hearing, so they're willing to 170306_0020 Page 24 of 33 commit to what you see here, which is high end. I just wanted to kind of give you a framework, there are things we can commit to, and the things in the zoning document are difficult to [inaudible 01:11:13] commit to, so I just don't want it to appear that they're being difficult, we do have [inaudible 01:11:17]. Speaker 13: So what you're saying is, it could end up being a fast food restaurant, right? Kevin Ratterree: The site design of the two pads is not fast food, the site design doesn't show a fast food lane, it shows a sit down restaurant - Speaker 13: [crosstalk 01:11:32] [inaudible 01:11:34]. Kevin Ratterree: Okay. If the center was 100% leased before we started, we already be out of business. That's not how centers operate. The goal, number one, is to get the grocery anchor locked in, and Michael, as I said earlier, before we go through the final approval process, that grocery anchor will be ink. Whether or not they will allow us to say who it is, that's up to them, but one of those four will be ink signed, sealed, and delivered before. Rule number one is getting the high end grocery anchor. Then we start dealing with, now we know who that is, all the other retail guys start to fall in place, all the other restaurant guys start to fall into place. We're not going to lease a center that's going to be crappy little uses because it's just going to be a detraction from what we're trying to accomplish, which is to have a high end center. I understand your concern, but we wouldn't be doing the detail, and the commitment, and the things that we're doing if we weren't convinced and we know that we're going to get those type of tenants here because we've been getting the calls from the tenants that are interested in coming to the center, already, and we have to tell them, we're not ready and we're not to that stage yet. We have to get to a point where we're farther along in the approval process. Yes, sir? Speaker 16: Yes, when you looked at the traffic pattern, [inaudible 01:12:59]? Kevin Ratterree: I'm sorry. Speaker 16: [crosstalk 01:13:02] Kevin Ratterree: The answer is yes. If you're showing a drive through, you would have to [crosstalk 01:13:08] - Speaker 16: So if you did [crosstalk 01:13:10] drive through, [inaudible 01:13:12] - Kevin Ratterree: Revised traffic. Speaker 16: [crosstalk 01:13:15] 170306_0020 Page 25 of 33 Kevin Ratterree: What was the question? Speaker 16: If the study is based on not a drive through restaurant, then if they did lease to a fast food restaurant, I assume the traffic patterns would increase. Kevin Ratterree: It's use is going to be determined at the [S and P 01:13:38] for transportation, so I wouldn't be able to answer that question until ... That would be something you would be welcome to give me a call, my card is out there, and I can put you in with our transportation [inaudible 01:13:53]. Speaker 16: Okay. Yeah. Kevin Ratterree: [inaudible 01:13:581 showing it on the [SDP 01:14:00], your traffic has to account for it. Jeff Perry: That's that third analysis I was talking about. Kevin Ratterree: Right. Speaker 16: [inaudible 01:14:061 Speaker 17: As far as Saturnia Lakes, on the south and the southeastern [inaudible 01:14:141, it is a [inaudible 01:14:22] space. What is the size of the trees you're putting in there so we can ... That is still fairly close to the homes on those two streets, what is the level of foliage that's going to be there to have kind of a [crosstalk 01:14:38]. Kevin Ratterree: That whole green area right there is set up to be a preserve, so the existing vegetation that's there remains, we just pull out the exotic vegetation, the material that we have to take out, so the existing native vegetation that's there will remain. Speaker 17: Okay. Preserves don't last forever, is there something [inaudible 01:14:57] with the regular PUD, you can't plant in there unless you get special permission and everything. If that dissipates or goes away, [crosstalk 01:15:07] Kevin Ratterree: We can certainly - Tim Hancock: Yeah. Once something is designed a native preserve, fire county standards require that all three strata be present, ground cover, mid story, and canopy. If over the course of time one of those strata were to be adversely impacted, for whatever reason, you have to replant. So yes, ma'am, the [crosstalk 01:15:311. Speaker 17: So now we can set our camp is 60 feet, is that what those trees are out there now or what? [crosstalk 01:15:38] 170306_0020 Page 26 of 33 Tim Hancock: Most of what you see there that are on canopy are pines and their canopy can start as low as 15 or 20 feet and go up to 60 or more. So yes, that's what I would call canopy in that area. The mid story in there is also a place that is very thick as well. Then the one thing you don't see in that is, on the back side of that, across the lake, we also will have some buffering there as well. So we'll be doing even more than what would be ... This one doesn't quite show it, that southeast corner, actually the lake shape is a little bit different, we have it cut at an angle to allow for more native vegetation there closer to the residences. Speaker 17: And there'll be additional plantings that you put in there? Tim Hancock: [crosstalk 01:16:21] What's there has done a great job over the last century. Speaker 17: Yeah. Tim Hancock: So we want to leave as much of that as we can. Speaker 17: That's what I was concerned about. The other thing that I do want to say to people in here, I've known Kevin and dealt with Kevin and GL Homes for the last six years, and they are [inaudible 01:16:39] Saturnia and they are people with integrity and they stand behind their word. They're not going to sell [inaudible 01:16:46] because they still want to build in Naples and I know they've got other property down on Immokalee, they're not going to shaft people in the neighborhood. They're here to be a partner and I applaud them for it. They stand behind their word and [inaudible 01:17:03]. Kevin Ratterree: I think that's the first time I've heard that kind of testimonial in 27 years. Thank you. Speaker 17: Thank you. Kevin Ratterree: I take back all the other [inaudible 01:17:14]. Yes, ma'am? Speaker 18: We've all seen developments and construction projects that have failed in these last few years, I'm thinking Vanderbilt Galleria, but what you can tell us about this one that we can have confidence? Building on your point here that that's not going to be happening here. Kevin Ratterree: So the primary driver of the shopping center being the grocery, they typically like to locate with about 10,000 residents at a minimum. So if you take this broad area, east of 75, up to [Veneta 01:17:50] Beach, south of Vanderbilt, eat to wherever you want to go, you have on Publix [inaudible 01:17:58] area. So, most people [crosstalk 01:18:02]. West of 75. Most people don't like to deal with the interchange, most people feel that's a natural buffer, but if you add up the amount of residential units now and in the future, there's a significant need for more grocers. Obviously that debatable, how far you want to drive, where you want to drive, and what store you want to go to, but in that general vicinity 170306_0020 Page 27 of 33 there's one primary grocery story in Collier county. So we've had a significant amount of interest from multiple grocers, as I said, one of those four, we could probably swap out most of them for interest level. So we think that that would be the driving force of the shopping center. Most shopping centers feed off of the grocery store. If you look at this overall market as a whole, it's probably 98% leased, it's very, very vacancy. Anywhere you go on Immokalee, especially the Publix, both public centers, [inaudible 01:19:041, so we feel good about the market from the demand side. Tim Hancock: The other thing you mentioned is you mentioned Galleria shops. I want to point something out to you. After Gallerias shops at the ... Are familiar with the intersection at [inaudible 01:19:181 and [inaudible 01:19:19] road? Speaker 18: Mm-hmm (affirmative). Tim Hancock: On that southeast corner, that center struggled. The reason it struggled was, when I originally designed it, it looked like this. Somebody took it, and what they did was, to maximize the square footage they started putting buildings in front of buildings, in front of buildings. If you've ever been in there, you notice you can stand in front of retail shopping, you can't see anything but the building? Speaker 18: Mm-hmm (affirmative). Tim Hancock: So because of the high intensity of square footage per acre, and poor visibility, who wants to put their business money in there when they can go somewhere that has got great visibility? When GL first brought this project to me, I looked at 18 acres and thought, "Oh, they're going to be building about 150,000 square feet." It's 100,000 square feet. What you get with this lesser square footage is, you get view windows, openings, a sense of air and light, these are the things that help centers sustain and maintain a high rent such as what [inaudible 01:20:15] are looking for. I don't want to Kevin's economics, but I can tell you, the lower intensity of this, the less square footage, is a premium development. So the one you sited specifically suffered from just the opposite. So from a planning standpoint, that's something I see as being significantly different about this project. Kevin Ratterree: Yes, ma'am. Speaker 19: Yeah, I might have missed this at the beginning. On the traffic flow questions, first question is, at what time was that traffic flow, what month of the year was that done? Number one. Number two, I know you sort of compartmentalized the area of your traffic flow, however, our [inaudible 01:20:591 between Collier and [inaudible 01:21:02] going in where the Oaks Farms and that sort of tricky traffic signal and what's going to be happening there, we're already jammed up and can't even turn out of Logan sometimes through a whole light because they're in the middle of the road, and you say, "Well that's people, they're not driving right," but this is a very significant thing already. We're adding another one, and 170306 0020 Page 28 of 33 for a two lane road that can never be anything but a two lane road, for all the community, [inaudible 01:21:31] Riverstone, that poses a potential jam up on what we already have. Jeff Perry: Well to answer you first question, the traffic numbers that I displayed there were peak seasonal, daily volumes ... I'm sorry, peak season, peak hour volumes in each direction. So those are, for lack of a better term, the worst traffic of the year, basically, going in the morning peak hours and in the afternoon peak hours. Some roads have midday peaks, typically there's a high peak in the morning and a high peak ... Especially on a commuter route like Immokalee road, serves a tremendous amount of development, residents, east of Collier, east of here certainly, and east of Collier, that are traveling inbound to get to 1-75 or to get into Naples or to take other routes. There will be some improvement as the network expands, as construction on 951 south of [inaudible 01:22:361 road, all the way down to Green Boulevard, once that's completed, a lot of people are diverting, so there's ... Traffic sort of seeks its own level. In this particular instance, keep in mind that we're not adding a significant amount of new traffic during these worst hours of the day. That we're talking about if the number was 126 or 130, it's about two vehicles per minute, one every 30 seconds, leaving the driveway. You could sit here for a minute, or 30 seconds and say, "Oh, there goes another car," and 30 seconds from now we could say, "There goes another car." We're not talking about a significant amount of traffic here. We're talking about a lot less traffic than had previously been proposed for this particular site. The type of use we have here is the perfect type of use for this particular location. This is use is absent anywhere between 1-75 and 951. Kevin Ratterree: Jeff, to add on to something you said earlier, regardless of whether this project moves forward or not, isn't the county doing a study on Immokalee at those points right now? Jeff Perry: Right. Kevin Ratterree: To look at improvements and modifications, and this project will be, if it goes forward, will be a part of some of those improvements [crosstalk 01:23:55] - Jeff Perry: Right. The county understand that there's problems on this particular roadway, starting at 1-75, even west of 1-75, and they will look at these individual intersections, try to figure out what needs to be done, we've given them some hints in our analysis as to what we think needs to be done to solve their problem, the existing problem that needs to be corrected. If there is contribution that has to be made by this developer, or another developer, impact fees are paid by developers, whether they're commercial or residential, to add capacity to the roadway system. So all of these kind of things are in play. Doesn't help you tonight or tomorrow morning when you try to get out of your driveway, to get 170306_0020 Page 29 of 33 out onto the roadway, you're still dealing with all of that background traffic that is not associated with this particular project. Fortunately, we're not adding a significant amount of traffic to the travel street, and part of the traffic that we are capturing here is already on the roadway. It's you driving past this intersection, on your way home you stop to go to the grocery store or stop for happy hour, or whatever you want to do, this is the place where you would be able to do that without having to go all the way to 951 and turn around, and go all the way back down Saturnia Lakes to go into your development. Speaker 19: So for the [inaudible 01:25:17] this is not part of the traffic statement [crosstalk 01:25:20] - Jeff Perry: We did not have to - Speaker 19: [crosstalk 01:25:201 Jeff Perry: No, we did not have to go beyond 1-75 to look at the traffic impacts. Speaker 19: And that's [inaudible 01:25:28]. But you're not hitting the traffic that you got [inaudible 01:25:31] for dinner. You got that with your dinner, you go [inaudible 01:25:35]. [inaudible 01:25:37] that traffic that's on the other side of 1-75? To me, [inaudible 01:25:40] go to dinner here than the traffic going out that way. [crosstalk 01:25:45] Jeff Perry: Yes, sir? Speaker 20: Yeah, I wondering if you had considered a site design that included a parking garage? The reason I ask is that with a parking garage, you wouldn't need so much of the site dedicated to parking and impermeable asphalt and paved over surfaces that require large water retention areas, a lot of run off, and parking lots are not exactly pedestrian friendly either. I mean, two of the six buildings in the site design are adjacent to each other, they do not require crossing a parking lot, but the other four buildings are surrounded by parking lots and require walking across a parking lot to get to them. Jeff Perry: It's not economically viable typically for a shopping center to put a parking garage in a situation like this. We're already pretty under density as these guys alluded to with our square footage. We're trying to make parking be convenient for all the uses. So we do have those uses and we do have parking accessible to all those buildings, and to not be a parking disaster as I think the Galleria may have been. Speaker 20: Yeah. 170306_0020 Page 30 of 33 Jeff Perry: We're balancing the economics of the project along with convenient parking in close proximity - Speaker 20: Yeah. I just like to add quickly that one of the things that people like about a place like Mercado's, as someone else was saying earlier, is that it's walkable, it's not a strip mall with giant parking lots, that's why people like going there, walking around, saying things that [inaudible 01:27:33]. Makes it more of a destination rather than just a shopping center where you drive to and [crosstalk 01:27:40]. Jeff Perry: Mercado's a great project, no doubt about it, but it's a totally different animal than this from the density, and the masses that they have. This is a suburban shopping center with surface parking. We are taking that and trying to take it to the other level where it is a destination with higher end restaurants, with an upper end grocer, but it is still a suburban shopping center that is balancing parking needs. Kevin Ratterree: I kind of joke, this is kind of like Mercado and a public shopping center having a baby. You've got a little bit of both in there. Speaker 20: Yeah, exactly. [crosstalk 01:28:20] Kevin Ratterree: Doesn't it? Speaker 20: [crosstalk 01:28:21] a strip mall. Kevin Ratterree: Yeah, it doesn't, it's a different design. The truth is, Mercado's require a huge number of rooftops within their proximity plus a resort [inaudible 01:28:32]. You can't drop a Mercado in the middle of suburbia and be successful. I've watched it happen and fail in a lot of [inaudible 01:28:42]. So you have to be ... The demographics have to match a project and I think that's [crosstalk 01:28:45]. Speaker 21: A couple questions for the folks, particular in Oaks. We've worked really hard in the last 15, 18 years to make sure none of our streets got connected to Logan boulevard. So first question is, no connectivity to Logan for those streets, particular Autumn Oaks, Hidden Oaks, Golden Oaks, and - Kevin Ratterree: We're not proposing any changes to access on our western [crosstalk 01:29:09] - Speaker 21: Second part, the Logan interchange there, you're not proposing a light at this time, at all, at that in/out on Logan? Kevin Ratterree: No, we don't think we're going to meet the spatial separation to even have a light, it's going to be too close. Speaker 21: Okay, and last question on that, again, for that last stretch there, once it gets the site plan approval and everything, we would be particularly concerned about 170306 0020 Page 31 of 33 some screening and other buffers as much as possible because Autumn, Hidden, and Golden are ones that are exposed most to Logan and uses along here. Kevin Ratterree: I'm happy to have a conversation with you about that. There's two ways you can skin a cat, sorry for that analogy, I don't have a cat. Speaker 21: Or you wouldn't have said that. Kevin Ratterree: Obviously, visibility is important for a shopping center, you want people to kind of be able to see it. It may be something we can do, some landscaping on your side - Speaker 21: Okay. Kevin Ratterree: Of the lines, so to speak, but that would be the other way to skin the cat. Speaker2l: Gotcha. Kevin Ratterree: Yes, ma'am? Speaker 22: Nobody has mentioned this, but I've refrained from [inaudible 01:30:18] Old Cypress, and she is just delighted with the fact that she could probably be able to walk. Kevin Ratterree: Or ride a bike. Speaker 22: Or ride a bike. [crosstalk 01:30:301 Kevin Ratterree: Ma'am. Speaker 23: Nobody thinks ever thinks about the pedestrian that's walking in those parking lots. I saw one of your photographs where you had a wide walkway with [inaudible 01:30:48] either side, that would be great. You could walk on the walkways instead of dodging cars that are backing up. Kevin Ratterree: Right. [crosstalk 01:30:59] Speaker23: Yeah. Kevin Ratterree: That's designed to be a walkway that connects here, all the way to here- Speaker23: Yeah. Kevin Ratterree: And the only place that you have breaks in that walkway is that connection right there, that's that [inaudible 01:31:10] there, and then obviously the drive over here. The whole purpose of that is to give you a safe place to be able to walk from one side to the other only crossing the street twice. Yes, ma'am? 170306_0020 Page 32 of 33 Speaker 24: When I bought my home in Riverstone, I was very happy that there is a large preserve. I was told that that is because of the migration of the birds, that it's very important environmentally. I was just wondering if you had enough of a preserve area. You have all this asphalt that [inaudible 01:31:43] water, the groundwater supply, and I just think that Collier County needs to be more understanding of these preserve for the future generations more of land for the animals and for the water supply. Kevin Ratterree: What I would say to you, I am the last person you should direct that question to because if you look at the design of Riverstone and you look at the design of Stone Creek, about a third of each of those properties was set aside for low light and for preservation. So we have spent a considerable amount of our development area, in Collier county, setting up additional preserve area. What you see here complies with the Collier County code, it complies with all the standards that we're required to do, but as a developer, I think those two projects alone give you the idea of the commitment that we made to participate in those low [inaudible 01:32:51] concepts and preservation of that area. That's a lot of property that we gave up, developable property, for those preservation areas. So realize that I'm the last person because I get a lot of heat from my corporate office about the amount of land we had to set aside for environmental purpose and we did exactly that. Speaker 24: Is that what's required? Are you just doing what's required? Are you doing any more than what's required? Kevin Ratterree: On this site, we're doing what's required in terms of preservation, correct. Off site purchase, [inaudible 01:33:20]. Tim Hancock: We've been at this for 90 minutes, I promised when we started that I would try my best to get you back where you want to be, home. There are my business cards and [inaudible 01:33:35] business cards out on the table. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact any of us. We want to be conduits of information for you. On behalf of GL and everyone present, we want to thank you very much for your time tonight. [crosstalk 01:33:50] • rflyraro r If you raise this transcript 3 or below, this agent will not work on your future orders 170306_0020 Page 33 of 33