Loading...
CCPC Minutes 10/05/2017October 5,2017 TRANSCRIPT OF TI{E MEETING OF TTM COLLIER COUNry 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, ZonngManager Jeftey Klatzkow, County Attorney Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney Tom Eastman, School District Representative Page 1 of98 October 5,2017 PROCEEDINGS CHAIRMAN STRAN: Good moming, 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 STRAN: Thank you. Will the secretary please do the roll call. COMMISSIONEREBERT: 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 staffto consider the items towards the end, if we run out of time or we're getting close to our cutoffpoint today, to continue those to another date, and we're looking at the 19th of October. Most likely the ALIIR 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 aftemoon, 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 Cim.rs 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 Id suggest about a 4:00 cutoff. Does that work for everybody? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAN: 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 STRAN: Okay. And that brings us to Planning Commission absences. Our next meeting is October l9th. Does anybody know if they can't make it on the l9th? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Looks like we'll have a quorum then. Which brings us to the approval of the minutes. Now, we've got the July 2fth minutes. We'll start with those fnst. Is there any changes? If not, is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Karen. Page 2 of98 October 5,2011 COMMISSIONER EBERT: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Second by Diane. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAN: All in favor, sigrriff 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 STRAN: 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 STRAN: Second by Karen. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signi$, by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ayd. CI{AIRMAN STRAN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAN: 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 STRAN: 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. :f :f 'Bltts PL20170000007. It's the Briarwood PUD. This isn't an item for public discussion. We had Page 3 of98 October 5,2011 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 STRAN: 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 STRAN: 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 sfudy 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 staffs judgment the plan complies with the GMP, is consistent with the GMP. Now, just for the sake of comparison, when you look at the staffreport in the Cimrs 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 stafi 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 STRAN: 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 staffand 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. CIIAIRMAN STRAN: Well, Heidi's notthe chairman. Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLATZKOW: The purpose of the consent as was crafted by you and me a couple years ago -- CHAIRMAN STRAN: 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 2l,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 beffer than stucco, and I wouldn't want to see your project having to be restricted because of those two words. Page 4 of98 October 5,2017 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 STRAN: 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, signiff by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CI{AIRMAN 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: Itwas nice and shor! 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-PL2O1700001626. lt's the Cimrs Pointe RPUD. Allthose wishing to testifr on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly swom 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 projecl 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 STRAN: 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 Fial4 I have spoke with stafl and I have a lot of emails. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. I have spoke with some people at the CRA, various residents of Page 5 of98 October 5,2017 Bayshore, Commissioner Fialq Commissioner Taylor, and the applicant at some point over the last month or two, the applicant's representative, at leas! 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 Id 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 STRAN: Yep. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Communications with staff, specifically spoke to Mike Bosi, spoke to Commissioner Fiala about this. As the former administrator for Community Developmen! I'm very familiar with this going back all the way back to when Jim Fields first submitted the application, so Im very familiar with the initial action and the subsequent rezonings up until when I departed the county staffin 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 - staffand 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. CFIAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And before we star! 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 af[ordable housing agreement is provided as part of the Planned Unit Development, but ifs 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. Mayb" 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 zoningright now for 104 units. CHAIRMAN STRAN: 108. Page 6 of98 October 5,2071 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. COMMI S S IONER S CHMITT : 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 andZoningDirector. 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 ou! 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 STRAN: 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 maffer ofjust our opinion? CHAIRMAN STRAN: 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 recomrnendation. This board's weight is with LDC and Growth Management Plan issues. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. CFIAIRMAN STRAN: 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: Butyou also review compatibility. CHAIRMAN STRAN: 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 STRAN: 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. ['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 l0:30 for the court reporter for l5 minutes, then we're break at lunch about -- close to noon. So with that, Karen, it's all yours. MS. BISHOP: We're tying to get used to the system for a second here. For the record, Karen Bishop representing the applican! Macey (phonetic) Creek and Vestcor. This Page 7 of98 October 5,2017 is Ryan Hoover from Vestcor who will be clarifuing 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 modiff 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 6l 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 aflordable 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 conhol 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 lncome 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 clarifo, 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 Page 8 of98 October 5,2011 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 senrice 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 are4 barbecue picnic are4 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 3 0,000 of -- or 3,000 of our affordable units are over 10 years old. That's justto 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 :rl,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 eam 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. KIATZKOW: Is that somewhere in the PUD amendment? MR. HOOVER: The rental requirements? MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. MR. HOOVER: I don'ttllink -- 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 fure. 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 ttrere? 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? Page 9 of98 October 5,2017 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 STRAN: That's already in the affordable housing density bonus is what fm saying. MR. HOOVER: I'm actually not sure. I believe that is. CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I can read it to you when we get there. MR. HOOVER: Okay. It's in -- CHAIRMAN STRAN: 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 ttre - 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 altemative. 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. COMMISSIONERFRYER: 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 l5-year-old property. MS. BISHOP: This is the amenities there. MR. HOOVER: This is all60 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 coflrmon arealclub areas. And, again, here is the last 20 that moved into these - this particular project. All -- their average household income at32,000; the average household size,2.4; and then the Page 10 of98 October 5,2017 occupations of those that are living there at this point. So if you have any other questions. I do want to veri$ 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 STRAN: That was Option A, but Option B has similar language. I just wantto 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 STRAN: 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, Iow, 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 STRAN: 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 ig you kept saying workforce housing. Workforce housing generally means the 6l to 80 percen! but if you look at the title in the LDC, ifs -- 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 parq at least, in trying to understand the agreement. Is that - COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah, that is a large part of it; however, in addition to tha! 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 ceter4 teachers. It's hard for me to visualize who would be living in a 650-square-foot house -- unig 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 - Page 11 of98 October 5,2017 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, oryou're finished with yours? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Let me see if I have another. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Meantime, Stan, did you have anfhing? I saw your -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. I'm an engineer, so I tend to oversimplif, 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 Districts2,4, 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 thek 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 STRAN: 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 czrn see that there are people, like, work at the library, makes l0 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 tlre 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 wha! 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 notjust for fiaffic 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 eveDrwhere. Page 12 of98 October 5,2017 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-l vote that took place on the 5th of September. Irealizr- 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 proposlng. 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 yearc, 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 otler 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 maintenarlce, so I can only fiy to give that level of comfort, but I don't know that I can take away all of their concems. 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 l8 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 conceming 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 STRAN: -- 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 STRAN: 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 allthe 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. Page 13 of98 October 5,2017 They already exist. The existing zoning is there. And correct me if Im wrong, and our speakers may clarifu 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 fee! 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? CI{AIRMAN STRAN: I've had numerous discussions with the CRA. They're concemed about the changes. Th"y - 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 noflring we can do anl,thing about. That's been there for a long period of trme. 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 govemment 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 -- Page 14 of98 October 5,2017 CI{AIRMAN 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 fnst place. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Got it. CIIAIRMAN STRAN: 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. CI{AIRMAN 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: Otherthan 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 t}le 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 STRAN: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- notthe 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 criteriato 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 lSth. 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. Page 15 of98 October 5,2017 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'l7,or is it for'18? CHAIRMAN STRAN: 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 qualiff 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. CIIAIRMAN STRAN: 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 exto4 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. COMMISSIONEREBERT: Okay. Thankyou. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions ofthe applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAN: 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 STRAN: 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. Page 16 of98 October 5,2017 MS. BISHOP: Correc! 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 are4 what analysis did you do for the current amount of affordability in that area compared to the rest of the county? MS. BISHOP: Wel| I have a map from -- and since I'm new at the affordable housing, I've leamed 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 arezrs -- 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 STRAN: 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 ofthe county? MS. BISHOP: Ido. 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 desigration 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 squre 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 stafi 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. CFIAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll move to staffreport. MS. GUNDLACH: Good morning, Commissioners. Staffis 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. Page 17 of98 October 5,2017 MS. GUNDLACH: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAN: With that, we'll go to public speakers, unless there's any questions of staff by the Board. (No response.) CI{AIRMAN STRAN: No. Let's move to public speakers. Now, ladies and gentlemen, we'll call your nurme 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 offcold. 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 moming, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Good moming. MR. GUTIERREZ: My name is Maurice Gutienez. 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 retum 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 Cimrs Pointe, originally agreed with the proceeding redevelopment when Cimrs Pointe didn't get offthe ground. So when I hear things such as, oh, it's only going to be a rental community instead of an ownership communigr, 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 offthe 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 diffrcult 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 no! 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 Page 18 of98 October 5,2017 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 identifi 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 identiff 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. CFIAIRMAN STRAN: Thank you, Maurice. MR. GUTIERREZ: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next speaker, please MR. BELLOWS: Jim McDonnell. MR. MoDONNELL: Thank you for the opportunrty 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 bu! 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 are4 and that's where we come out on it. And I'll be glad to answer any questions anybody has. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody? Page 19 of98 October 5,2017 COMMISSIONER FRYER: Just one quick one. Mr. McDonnell, what was your title, again, sir, in relation to Windstar? MR. MoDONNELL: I'm on the board of directors. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thankyou, 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 reallyjust for myself. And I do agree with a lot ofthe 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 feel plus two-car - two parking -- two-car garage or two-car parking under the building, plus storage, gives at least 164,808 square feet ofair 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 -- ild, IVft. Strain, you were referring to the addendums. Page 33 has the physical description of the affiordable workforce housing units in the current agreement. And in that it talks about the three-bedroom units having cerlain 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 tumed down. Tha:rk you. CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: Thankyou, sir. MR. BELLOWS: Patricia Young. MS. YOI-JNG: 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 concem 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 parlicular 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 Page 20 of 98 October 5.2017 disadvantaged. It's a shocking number. And most of these students live in the CRA area. As often happens with this kind ofschool profile, they have academic ratings ofonly 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 ofthe 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 fiee 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 ofbroadening our economic base to attract businesses other than tourism. The CRA area is one ofthe 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 towl. The CRA has worked very hard at tuming the area around, designing things that will athact a broader based citizenry. In an area with housing varying fiom trailers to elegant single-family homes with a prime urban location, why is there not more representation ofthis economic mix in the school population? Two reasons: A disproportionate amount ofincome-based housing and poor performing schools. Let's promote affordable housing with a small A instead ofclustering affordable housing together as it has been done here in this CR {jurisdiction. Incentivize developers to mir in smaller sized versions ofthe housing they build. That way all children get to afiend 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 profiq notjust the developers making a profi! tapping into federal loopholes in the affordable housing program which, by the way, was recently disclosed in the Wall Street Joumal . Finally, in the CRA, let's work to showcase Avalon ald 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 ofschool 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 liftle 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 ofthe CRA efforts. Well thought-out development of Cirrus Pointe could be a garne changer for all ages. Thank you. CI{AIRMAN 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. ARAIET: Good moming. My name is Sandra Arafet. I'm a full-time resident of the Bayshore are4 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 tlre vision for the area. We dont 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 Page 21 of98 October 5,2077 residents ofthe area are looking for, and please vote against it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAN: 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, Florid4 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" amuch 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 RPTID 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 afterthis one. CFIAIRMAN STRAN: 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 t 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 trme. And I was just wondering if the developer in this case could tell us how many ofthose 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 zrea. 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 offthe 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. Page 22 of 98 October 5,2017 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 corrrmunity and so forth that they've been talking about there for 20 years. So I object to the idea of this tlpe 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 are4 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 STRAN: Thankyou, 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 Ieft offwith 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 communiff 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 disfict. 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 demard 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 offbase. 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 CIub, the Isles of Collier Preserve. Windstar. Botanical Page 23 of98 October 5,2017 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 is244, 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 staffgot 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 l1; Basin Street, two; Areca has 25, 12 of those is a sober house units; Canal Street has four. There's one duplex on Cocoq a two/two. Ifs been available for two months for $ 1 ,l 00, 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 Sheriffs Department and saw the statistics, Bayshore has improved a lot since those Bayshore Club Apartments were torn down and some of these apartrnent complexes were condominiumized. I'm not against affordable housing. I think it's a wonderfi;l 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 are4 and it doesn't Page 24 of98 October 5,2017 align with our mission and purpose for the area. Within a mile from the proposed development, there's l7 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. [n 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 oftrailer 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 JeffScherrer. MR. SCTIERRER: 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. SCI{ERRER: Jeff Scherrer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you spell that last name. MR. SCHERRER: S-c-h-e-r-r-e-r. CHAIRMAN STRAN: 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. Im 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 geffing, I think, about a thousand dollars three hundred (sic) in taxes ayear, rebuilt the home. You're now getting close to 7,000. ['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 tlat'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 ayear. 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 ayear, 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 ifthere'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 Page 25 of98 October 5,2011 riding bikes. They said minimum salary 30,000 ayear. 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 STRAN: Thank you. Ray, were there any other registered speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No other. CHAIRMAN STRAN: 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 staffreport because that is the one that had all the information; is that correct? MS. GI-JNDLACH: 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 notjust 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 staft 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. GTINDLACH: We have our affordable housing staffhere. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, let me go to the staffreport. 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 1l 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. GLINDLACH: That is stillinthe 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 conect? MS. GLNDLACH: 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 staffahead of time. We aren't proposing to put parking undemeath 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 Page 26 of98 October 5,2017 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 tme 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 allthese other affordable housing agreements in the document, and why are they part ofthe 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 identiff yourself. MR. GIBLIN: Cormac Giblin with the Housing Departrnent. The proposed new second amended affordable housing density bonus agreement offers two options. Option A is intended to keep everlthing 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 afterthis 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 STRAN: And we have had projects come in market rate, even, with two separate master plars for multiple kinds of uses. So that is really not unique to this project. We've seen it before. MR. GIBLIN: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anyhing else? Go ahead, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Schmitt made the point that Im 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 STRAN: The way it - under the maximum height -- is that what you're referring to in the table? COMMISSIONER FRYER: ['m looking at this language where it says, "below building parking for two cars and additional storage area will be provided for each unit." CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: What page are you on? Page27 of98 October 5,2017 COMMISSIONER FRYER: Sixteen of 450. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well - COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Page I 1 ofthe PUD, but it's 16 of 450. MS. GUNDLACH: This one's optional. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Page I I 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 staffsee 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 STRAN: 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 staffabout 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 staffis 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. CFIAIRMAN STRAN: 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. GTINDLACH: 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 PI-ID 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 -- Page 28 of98 October 5,2077 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAN: - 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. CFIAIRMAN STRAIN: -- you're only changingthe 1,526 and 650. MS. BISHOP: Thafs it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So all this other stuffwas supposed to remain as-is. You would have gone through today -- MS. BISHOP: I would have changed it. CIIAIRMAN STRAN: -- and you would have come out in the end and found out staffwould 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 goingto 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 hearlache later, atthe 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 are4 that's fine. Im 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 unig 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 I ,526 to 65 0, 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 tying to get commitment. MR. KLATZKOW: Are we doing the storage area or not is what Im getting at. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The storage area is something that's an accessory sfucture. 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. Tha! I though! 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 Page 29 of98 October 5,2017 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 STRAN: 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 feeg 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 STRAN: 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. KIATZKOW: 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 stike 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 iq 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. GLINDLACH: 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 STRAN: 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. Page 30 of98 October 5,2011 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 STRAN: Understand. Okay. Well, we will debate it under that premise then. Joe, did you have anything else? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Diane? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well,I do. Agarn. 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 staffreports 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. CIIAIRMAN STRAN: Joe's on that committee. MR. GIBLIN: He was not present. CHAIRMAN STRAN: 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. Id have to recuse myself. CITAIRMAN 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 staffat this time? Go ahead, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'd just like to - thank you. To be clear, this agreement, this second amended agreemen! 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 staffrepor! 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 projecL 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.) CIIAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Thank you, Cormac. I have a question of the applicant. Do you have - do you have on-site management? Page 31 of98 October 5,2017 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. CIIAIRMAN 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 STRAN: Okay. Thankyou. Anybody have anything else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAN: 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: - bringthatup. 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. Ive 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 nofth, 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 furd. 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, ifthey 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 ou! 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 garagelstorage 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. Page 32 of98 October 5,2017 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 recornmendations to the Board of County Commissioners. And I believe that this project as it's presented, is not consistent with 6, 10, and 1 8 of 1 0.02.08.F. That's the straight rezone. And I think it's also inconsistent and I could not suppoft furdings 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 suffrciently presented to us to identi! 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 jus! 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 desigred 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 STRAN: Okay. Anybody else? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Me either. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Go ahead. Okay. Is there a - well then -- COMMISSIONER HOMLAK: Are we voting on this whole petition? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. We're voting strictly the PUD language fns! 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 conceming 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 are4 but the 650 is smaller than what we've tlzpically 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 atthis point. So I'll support the motion. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor of the motion, signifu by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. Page 33 of98 October 5,2017 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 agreemen! 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 misstatemen! and I think this kind of information shows that the idea of equitably providing affordable housing throughout Collier Count5z, certainly the burden is carried higher in the East Naples and South Naples area than anywhere else in the counf. 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 STRAN: 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 sfeet 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 STRAN: 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 STRAN: Karen, did you want to say something? COMMISSIONERHOMIAK: I'm good. I agree. CFIAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Is there a motion so Patrick can second? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I make a motion to deny PUDA-PL20170001626. Page 34 of98 October 5,2017 CHAIRMAN STRAN: We already did the PUD. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAN: You want to deny the affiordable 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 STRAN: Seconded by Patrick. Discussion? I want to add one more item. I am going to support the motion to deny because of Policy L l0 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 lll 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 STRAN: Motion carries 7-0. Thank you, all, for your participation. (Commissioner Dearborn left the boardroom for the remainder of the meeting.) CIIAIRMAN 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 l2? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. So quarter to 12to 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 lmmokalee Road about a quarter mile east of Logan Boulevard. All those wishing to testifu 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.) CI{AIRMAN STRAN: 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 STRAN: Okay. Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Just staffon 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 Page 35 of98 October 5,2017 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 STRAN: 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 properly; 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. lmmediately 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 hrst 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 staffreport 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 documen! 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 Satumia 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 -- 5O-foot area from the east propefty 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 propefty line of 30 feet. We always agreed to include some construction standards related to the multifamily and group Page 36 of98 October 5.2017 housing, and I'll read them into the record. They're similar to the standards that have been utilized for apartrnents, but since we're not doing senior housing, I don't know that we need the dog park aad 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 ifthey 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 g-foot ceiling heights. We'd have a concrete paver entrance, which we've agreed to on seve.al 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 Satumia Lakes. So for the senior housing we would be allowed to have balconies, but for &ical 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 ofsenior housing that Collier Counqz 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 alrnost every senior housing product that's come through in the last l0 years or so have all asked for the floor area ratio ofa .6 because larger units are builC amenities are provided, thus resulting in higher quality of senior housing product that's found its way to Collier County. Ald 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 ofsenior housing that has been coming to Collier County, and that is why we asked for that deviation. I know Wayne Amold 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 arnenity area would go, so we've come up with typical development standards that Wayne Amold will take you through. Your staffhas reviewed our petition, and all ofthat's already in the record, so I don't need to go through it again, but your staffis recommending approval and has found us consistent with both the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Code. And we are requesting, based upon the staffreport and all the information you have in it, that the Plarming 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 ary questions you may have, or we cal answer questions now depending on the pleasure of the Planning Commission. CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have aay questions at this point of fuch? 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 ofall, with respect to the south border, the preserve are4 what is the distance ofthe south building line to the closest Satumia house? MR. YOVANOVICH: You have that exlibit, 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 krow you can see that. The actual - we have copies for all the Planning Commissioners ifthey'd like a copy of it. But the distance fiom 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 YovANovlCH: From right here, which is existing, to right here, which is the proposed, is Page 37 of 98 October 5,2017 285 feet. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. I got it. Thank you. All right. That answers that question. Let's see. Well, ['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 Satumia 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. CFIAIRMAN 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 Trusl but what I found missing was an instrument showing conveyance from Royal Palm Nursery, which was a general parfnership, 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 parbrership, to Thomas Cleary individually? MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm assuming in order for First American to provide title insurance in these narnes, 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 tlre title search report and whatever backup we have, if you need ig 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. COMMISSIONERFRYER: Those are my questions fornow, Mr. Chair. CI{AIRMAN 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? Page 38 of98 October 5,2017 COMMISSIONER EBERT: Because we've had a lot damage in the area. MR. YOVANOVICH: I know. Well, you live that way. Do you know? COMMISSIONEREBERT: Yes, I do. MR. YOVANOVICH: I haven't looked. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Is itthere? 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 seniorresidence. 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 ag 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. CFIAIRMAN 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 - COMMIS SIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAN: Go ahead, Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Just for Diane's benefig 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 Page 39 of 98 October 5,2017 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. ln 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 aflord the -- anything above Medicaid, and we don't have anl,thing 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 FA& 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 staffhas 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 communigz, 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 STRAN: 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 oflered 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 STRAN: YEP. MR. YOVANOVICH: Where do I find what the measurable standard is that will make the Planning Commission and the Board huppy 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 Page 40 of98 October 5,2017 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 STRAN: 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, lookin g at 4-, 5-, 6,000 a month with a Medicaid offsetting a portion of that and the rest out-of-pocket. Not everybody can aflord 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 Govemor 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 leamed 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 ard 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 - CFIAIRMAN 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 no! 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 moming, again. Wayne Arnold, forthe 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, ofcourse, 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 S0-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 buflering to provide not only the separation and compatibility with Satumia. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's looking north? MR. ARNOLD: Yes. This is the view looking west from Saturnia Lakes, so Satumia 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, theh access road with a landscape median, and then they provided a 3O-foot-wide landscaped area before you get to our property line for over 300 feet of Page 41 of98 October 5,2011 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 nofth 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 CHRZANOWSKJ: 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 stuctures, 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 furd 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 staffreport and Rich mentioned it, is we're asking, because we're a less-than-20-acre property, we qualifu 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 qualifo for it, to help their TDR program, )ou're required to purchase your first bonus unit as TDR units in order to qualif, for that. But the Comp Plan is very clear that we qualifo 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 STRAN: And, Wayne, that probably is a good time to break at this point. We need Page 42 of 98 October 5,2017 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 ofl 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 lgth meeting is the AUIR, the Annual Update and lnventory 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 STRAN: Second by Stan. Discussion? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Motion to amend. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motionto amend? COMMISSIONER FRYER: To include the NIM old business as well, to have that carried over as well. CFIAIRMAN STRAIN: That's great. Okay. Is that a second? And the prime and second agree to that? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Then those two items, which is l0A and 9F, will be continued to the lgth. All those in favor, signiff 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 aftemoon. So with that, Wayne, we left offwith your presentation, so please proceed. MR. ARNOLD: Hi. Forthe 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 STRAN: 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 staffas part of the review to locate the control structure location consistent with the permits that are in Page 43 of98 October 5,2017 place for Satumia Lakes. So that's why you note a location for discharge on our master plan. It's not always corlmon, but staffdid ask us to do that, and we did. CHAIRMAN STRAN: 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 STRAN: Has your firm or someone verified that the discharge system built for Satumia 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 concems 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 faither 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 STRAN: - 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 permig okay. Recogrizing that the water will flow, then, to the east into the adjoining subdivision? MR. DELATE: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Page 44 of98 October 5,2017 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. That was a page from t}e 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 Satumia Lakes, indicates it accepts the flow, but it did not permit, either conceptual or construction-wise, anlrthing outside of the boundary of Saturni4 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 STRAN: Thankyou, Mike. MR. DELATE: Thank you. MR. ARNOLD: Allright. Again, Wayne Arnold. And, Mr. Strain, where I left ofi I really wanted to express from my notes, you had asked us to look at -- since we didn't identifl 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 are4 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 projecl they may have a larger clubhouse sfucture of sorts but probably integrated into the building that's going to meet all the other setbacks anyway. CTIAIRMAN 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 itthe 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 STRAN: 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. Page 45 of98 October 5,2017 CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions of Wayne Arnold? (No response.) MR. ARNOLD: Thankyou. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm not done with you yet. MR. ARNOLD: Oh. CHAIRMAN STRAN: I always defer to the other members first. MR. ARNOLD: Forgive me. CI{AIRMAN STRAN: On Page 2 of your PUD, underthe 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 STRAN: 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: Thatwaythey're at least covered. MR. ARNOLD: Did you say, excuse me, five days, Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAN: 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 yourmultifamily. MR. ARNOLD: Correct and those probably are tlren only recorded as landscape easement buffer easements on a Site Development Plan. CHAIRMAN STRAN: 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 STRAN: 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 STRAN: You're going to ask itjust because I do because -- an)'v/ay, 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? CFIAIRMAN STRAN: 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 Page 46 of98 October 5,2017 and/or lake easements will be recorded or platted as the case may be. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. You can correct that by the time we get back on consent. That way we're covered. In the 3O-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. CFIAIRMAN STRAIN: That's frne. 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 l5 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 parkingareLthat'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. CFTAIRMAN STRAIN: t adies 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 and2. Did you have any problem taking those ofl 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 I and2,andrenumberingNote3 asNote l. 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 migh! 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 -- CFIAIRMAN 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 consfuction standards that was discussed with the concrete structures, et ceter4 would need to be added as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I agree with yoq and I didn't reiterate that because I assume -- I'm assuming the Planning Commission will vote on i! 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 staffreport. MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I add one more thing for the record to clariff 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 Page 47 of98 October 5,2017 understanding, and I believe the code already requires, that the senior housing comply with the countS/'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 STRAN: 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. CIIAIRMAN STRAN: But it's an RPUD. MR. BELLOWS: It's an RPUD. CHAIRMAN STRAN: 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. GTINDLACH: Good afternoon, Commissioners. The subject propefty is consistent with the Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Code; therefore, staffis recommending approval. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Nancy's gotthis down pa! I'll tell you what. Thank you, Nancy. I don't have any staffquestions. Anybody else? Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have several. Let's see, first of all, the ordinance language "compatible with and complementary to," does staffconsider the word "similar" to be the equivalent of those? MS. GLINDLACH: What do youthinlq Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Can you repeat the question? COMMISSIONER FRYER: There are a number of places in the staffanalysis where your affrmative conclusions are based upon hndings 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 staffconsiders 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 properly in question? Are they two miles away, five miles away? MS. GI-INDLACH: Definitely within five miles. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Within five miles. MS. GLTNDLACH: Yeah. Could be three. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So then it comes to the question of the word "sunounding." Does surrounding to staffmean within five miles? MS. GI-INDLACH: It could mean that. COMMISSIONERFRYER: And let's see. MS. GLINDLACH: Commissioner, I just got a clarification. It's less than two miles. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Less than two for these three similar properties? MS. GLINDLACH: 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. Page 48 of98 October 5,2011 MS. GUNDLACH: I'm not sure whatthe question is. COMMISSIONER FRYER: There's single-family, multifamily, and seniors,.ight? Three? Three options. MS. GLINDLACH: 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 STRAN: Okay. Thankyou. 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 staffon 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, Im 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 staffpeople 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 said22 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, at2.42 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. CFIAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any,thing else? Do you have more? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Not at this time. CHAIRMAN STRAN: 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: PatNeale. 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. Im the attomey representing the homeowners -- Saturnia Lakes Homeowners Association. And lve 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 Page 49 of98 October 5,2017 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, tuming in and out of the facility, you may want to consider, when it comes to Site Development PIan phase, to put in a tum 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 generatol 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 concemed 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 presiden! 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 STRAN: 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: Pa! 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, everlthing stays the same. So why was the alternative chosen to do the higher, both density and FA& 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 tha! 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 Page 50 of98 October 5,2011 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. CIIAIRMAN STRAN: Diane, then Joe. COMMISSIONER EBERT: You mentioned aturn 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 ofthe 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. Regardingthe FAR" my understanding, thatthe 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 STRAN: 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 STRAN: Okay. Thank you. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAN: 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 STRAN: 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 STRAN: 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 cant be here today, so he's speaking for him. No, he's not the attorney. Im the -- for this matter, I'm the attorney for the association. Page 51 of98 October 5,2017 COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. MR. NEALE: Thank you. MR. FORTINO: Good aftemoon, 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 presiden! 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 afienuation 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 easVwest 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 fees 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 Satumia 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 Satumia 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 Page 52 of98 October 5,2011 propefty, 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 Satumia Lakes. ln 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 bu! 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 diffrculty 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 tuth. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm assumingyou'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 s ,om and indicated in the affrmative.) 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 concems is the street flooding. When you - and another concem 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 ofthis propefty. 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 yotr, sir. And so to answeryour 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 Page 53 of98 October 5,2017 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. CIIAIRMAN STRAN: That's right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And just understand that in most cases, for the size storm that we had for Irm4 the drainage system is designed that you will get sfteet 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 a25-year three-day storm. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And in a25-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 STRAN: 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 atthe25. So when you get a25-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 gunranteeing 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 mezm -- I live in the Cocohatchee Slough, and it was getting quite high in the back. ln 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 l5 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 staffgage 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. CFIAIRMAN STRAN: And I would expectthat 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 Page 54 of98 October 5,2017 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 STRAN: Frank -- MR. BELLOWS: Thank you for the correction. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Is Frank here? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who was the next one afterFrank? MR. BELLOWS: Ron. CHAIRMAN STRAN: 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. CFIAIRMAN 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 STRAN: 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 untiltoday. 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, Satumia 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 ttrat 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. lf 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 halfivay 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 halfuay 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. fm at five meters above sea level. And let me tell you, when we're talking about that hurricane surge coming in offthe 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 fat 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. Page 55 of98 October 5,2017 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 STRAN: Thank you. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN STRAN: 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 staffand 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 STRAN: 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 attomey. 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: Conect, as approved in adjacent zoning districts. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Zoned heigh! not actual heighg necessarily. MR. BELLOWS: Corect. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Well, I think the question's different than that. And Ned, you can correct me if I'm wrong. What he's saying is, Satumia 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 betterthan 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 zonedheight 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 -- CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. That's what I was tying to get to. Page 56 of98 October 5,2011 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Now, wait a minute. I have to -- again, I've got to deferto 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 diflerent. 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 andZoningDirector. ln 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 ofthose 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 properly should relate to what was actually done in Satumia, 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. Thankyou. Next? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's clear now. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Next speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No other speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAN: 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 swom 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 Satumia Lakes. Three-and-a-halfofthose 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. Page 57 of98 October 5,2017 Yes, sir. MR. GUSTAFSON: Rod Gustafon, a member of Satumia 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 STRAN: Today's meeting is the zoning. MR. GUSTAFSON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAN: It's the -- we make a recornmendation 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, Im 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 STRAN: 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. Page 58 of98 October 5,2017 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. GUSTAI'SON: It was not in favor ofthis 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 ofthe people werejust 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 deshoy our front entrance, because they're going to take away allthe 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'q sir. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Thank you. MR. GUSTAISON: 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 sorryr. 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 concem would be the impairment of use and enjoyment of the property of the homeowners of Saturnia Lakes, primarily those on Butterfly Palm Drive, Triandr4 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 8O-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 enfiance road, and that's a full 20 to 30 feet higher than where my Page 59 of98 October 5,2017 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 ofthis property as envisioned. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Thankyou, 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 Satumia. 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 furd 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 tha! because if you went through just a residential approval, I don't think you'd have the crowd here and the resistance within our cornmunity 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: Thankyou. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. Thankyou. Next gentleman? You already spoke. Just a second? Okay. Come on up. No, just make it shot. 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 streel 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. CIIAIRMAN 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. CIIAIRMAN 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 STRAN: Gotch4 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-foottall building versus a S0-foot-tall building means everything in the world. Axd that 50-square-foot Page 60 of98 October 5,2017 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 staffrespond to. First one, Nancy, cfli you confirm this is not in an activity center nor is it part of a band to an activity center? MS. GTINDLACH: It's not part of an activity center or a band to an activity center. CI{AIRMAN 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. CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: It would be required. So you wouldn't be turning offthe active lane on Immokalee Road directly into this and backing traffic up. You'd be pulling offinto a turn lane, then turning into this; is that correct? MR. SAWYER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAN: 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. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody - thankyou, 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 thafs why I'm going, whoa. So is this other property sold for Falling Waters? MR. YOVANOVICH: If I said tlat -- 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 properf 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 entance road that will serve both our property and Mr. Walker's property, Page 61 of98 October 5,2017 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 ofour projects. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. So you will -- so Mr. WalkeCs property, then, will be accessed through your entryway? MR. YOVANOVICH: That is the way the counff has insisted that we set up our site plan so that they can minimize the number of traffrc cuts onto Immokalee Road. So Mr. Walker will be getting the benefit ofour 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 properff for propefi 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 24years ago. The world was a little bit diflerent place24 years ago. Zoningwork -- 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 fuither 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 ['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 TD& 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 Iost 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 P[ID. 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 extemally 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. Page 62 of98 October 5,2017 So if it's intemally 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 intemally 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 STRAN: This isn't an opening for a whole new 2O-minute presentation. It's supposed to be a l0-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 Satumia 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 Im 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 STRAN: Now -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Now what? CHAIRMAN STRAN: 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 STRAN: 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 staffhas 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 Page 63 of98 October 5,2017 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 3O-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 carpofts. 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 tha! and I meant it. We did it for Addie's Comer 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 perspectlve. I would like, briefly, Wayne to come up and talk about compatibility, because the only expert testimony you've received about compatibility is our staffreport, 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 Wa1.ne going to -- you're not going to come back up after Wayne is here? MR. YOVANOVICH: It depends on what he says. CHAIRMAN STRAN: No. Rich, you have a l0-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. Page 64 of98 October 5,2017 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 fiom 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. lf 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? Page 65 of98 October 5,2017 CHAIRMAN STRAN: 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 STRAN: 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 STRAN: 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 conceming 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 staffon 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 assigred and delegated the authority and responsibility for negotiating for the community on these matters. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CFI.AIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thankyou. Now, anything else before we close the public hearing? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Now, the public hearing is closed, and we'll open for discussion by the Planning Commission. Anybody have any discussion points? (No response.) CFIAIRMAN 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: Ill 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 specifu things. We are going to be coming back for consent, correcl 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 - Page 66 of98 October 5,2017 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 areawhere I would encourage fuither 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 STRAN: The second? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I agree; second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Further discussion? (No response.) CI{AIRMAN 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 tr-ansitional 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 unis 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 ofthe 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 tha! 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 Page 67 of98 October 5,2017 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 suppoft -- 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 palt 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 gamer the positive vote of the Chairman, and I understand that. Bu! 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 concems, 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. Ive 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 wriuen 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 STRAN: 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 signiS by saying aye COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those -- sarne sign against. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. 4-2, motion carries. That's approved. Thank you, all. We're going to take a l0-minute break. We'll come back -- Page 68 of98 October 5,2017 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 HOMLAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Motion made and seconded. This will come back on consent. All in favor, signifi 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 forthe Board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When? MS. GLINDLACH: It is scheduled for the Board. CHAIRMAN STRAN: 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 Novembeq so keep tuned. (A brief recess wzls had and Commissioner Chrzanowski and Tom Eastman are absent for the remainder of the meeting.) CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Everybody, ifyou'llplease 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 l9th as well, and that lfth 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 l9th. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded byNed. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAN: AII in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. Page 69 of98 October 5,2017 CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAN: Motion carries 5-0. Let the record, too, show that we are down to five people, but that is still a quorum, so werre good. And so -- Fred, if you'll have a seat for a minute. MR. HOOD: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAN: ***lrcrn 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 PL20150002161. 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 affrrmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAN: Disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission; and we'll start with Ned since you're the last one -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Anchorman. CFIAIRMAN STRAN: - remaining on that side of the deck. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Nothing to disclose. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Just staffon 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 lve talked to Fred Hood on the telephone. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Nothing. CHAIRMAN STRAN: 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 STRAN: 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 Grouth Management Plan amendment transmittal hearing. Tonighg 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 staffreport. The first is changing the MPUD's name from Carolina Village to Vanderbilt Commons. The second Page 70 of98 October 5,2017 is adding the 50,000 sqrure feet of gross leasable area for a total of 200,000 square feet within Vanderbilt Commons PUD -- MPUD. The third is a reduction ofthe 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 staffreport is the change of the legal description for the same reason, the reduction ofthe 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 sth,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 staffreport. In addition to the changes highlighted in the PUDA staffreport, I'd like to identifr 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 staffs 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 -- CITAIRMAN STRAIN: Fred, you'll need to slow down a little bit. She's got to type. MR. HOOD: Sorry. CFIAIRMAN STRAN: And you're talking rather fast. MR. HOOD: It's a bad habit. CHAIRMAN STRAN: And, by the way: MR. HOOD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAN: - 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 STRAN: 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 Iandscape buffer on Lots 5 and 6 within the Vanderbilt Beach - Vanderbilt Commons PIID 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 documen! we removed the word "only" after the Page 71 of98 October 5,2017 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 transporlation commitrnents 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 l6th, 2000, letter -- 2016 letter to GroMh 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 STRAN: 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 longertheirproperty 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. Thankyou. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fred, let's startwith Page 1 ofthe PUD. MR. HOOD: All righty. CHAIRMAN STRAN: That's the one where you've got your cross-outs. You've inhoduced pages I have not seen before because youjust put them on the overhead today. MR. HOOD: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAN: I haven't gottime 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 Page 72 of98 October 5,2017 front ofus. 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 staffand we coordinated with the County Attorney's Office, this was the way that we moved forward with the document. CFIAIRMAN 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. CFIAIRMAN 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 -- CIIAIRMAN 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 offthe plate so we don't know that your company produced this. I'm just wondering -- Ruy, is this something you -- your staffrequested? 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 STRAN: 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 any'thing 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 STRAN: 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 stuffthere, and there you replaced some of the stuffthat needed to be in there, and that's fine. That works great. MR. HOOD: Okav. Page 73 of98 October 5,2017 CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: The following page, 1.4 and 1.5, there were no changes. MR. HOOD: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAN: 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 STRAN: And then reduced the dwelling units based on the new computation to 58. MR. HOOD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Short title was changed because of the name of the -- the name has changed. MR. HOOD: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Section 2 project development, narne changes only until you getto 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 STRAN: I didn't see that anybody -- I didn't see it in the staffreport. 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 STRAN: Okay. Itjust wasn't MR. HOOD: It wasn't in the staffrepoft. CHAIRMAN STRAN: 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 STRAN: 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 righl it's something that did increase by 2,000 square feet, the maximum. CHAIRMAN STRAN: 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 concems from the public about that. The rest ofthe 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 STRAN: 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? Page 74 of98 October 5,2017 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. CIIAIRMAN STRAN: 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 STRAN: 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. CIIAIRMAN STRAN: -- 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 ttre original PUD to add that deviation. We've simply left it in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it's a sign that everybody going to kind ofjointly 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 STRAN: Pardon me? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: There is a sign already there. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. That takes care of that then. OnNo.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. CI{AIRMAN STRAN: -- Vanderbilt Road right? MR. HOOD: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAN: 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 diflerent 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 STRAN: Yeah, absolutely; sure. Page 75 of98 October 5,2017 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 tum 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 STRAN: So how would that read? Because your -- so it would read4, 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 STRAN: 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 STRAN: 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 I and2, but we can get there when you're ready. CHAIRMAN STRAN: 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 staffto 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 STRAN: F. Now, this language that you're introducing, has that been reviewed by legal and by stafl I know Mike Sawyer hasn't reviewed il 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 staffs 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. Page 76 of98 October 5,2017 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 STRAN: 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 STRAN: 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 STRAN: 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 rightof-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 STRAN: Has legal staffreviewed 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: Thatwas 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 isPage 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 Page77 of98 October 5,2017 the building they really don't accomplish what they're supposed to. We'll hear that in a minute. MR. HOOD: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAN: 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 offaccess to that preserve area by putting a wall on either side of it. CHAIRMAN STRAN: 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 concems about visual, sound, headlights, so foth 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 fract 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 STRAN: 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 STRAN: So you can't put a wall through it because then you'll be blocking offwhat the code - okay. MR. HOOD: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Well, nowthat 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 offthe 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 offrce 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 everl,thing is constructed by SDP or plat permit, we didn't see a reason to leave these in. CHAIRMAN STRAN: 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-l 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 Page 78 of98 October 5,2011 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. Bug 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 offleaving 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 PLID. 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 goodjob. CFIAIRMAN 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 concemed 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 tha! 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 consen! 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 aboul don't want, it would probably be easier to go through those - CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. HOOD: -- because the rest of them -- CHAIRMAN STRAN: Yeah, that's -- MR. HOOD: Okay. So carwash 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 STRAN: No, this is stillthe PUD. There's -- these are -- the neighborhood had sent Page 79 of98 October 5,2017 this out -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Oh, okay. CIIAIRMAN 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 STRAN: The problem that's going to come in here is you're pretty close to the project that starled all this trouble in Collier Counf 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 STRAN: Okay. MR. HOOD: Facilities for purpose of sale, lease, or rental of any type of motor vehicle -- CHAIRMAN STRAN: 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 offsite. 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 STRAN: 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 STRAN: 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 oflsite processing centers, and we'lljust 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. CFIAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, but he's saying -- I think he saying he's okay not having that on the srte. 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 laundroma! 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. Page 80 of98 October 5,2017 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next one, facility for the purpose of sale, lease -- TI{E COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry. Can you say that again? CHAIRMAN STRAN: 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 alarge 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. CFIAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. No, I'm glad you're checking. But you've agreed not to have the U-Haul operation on ttre 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, ifyou 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 swom and indicated in the affrmative.) 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 paperworh but the renters are supposed to pick the equipment up at the Old 4l 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 intemrpt 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 tnrcks, U-Hauls, whateverjust to drop stuffoff, but they're not leaving them there indefinitely. MR. CIOFFI: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's whatwe're looking for. Thankyou. 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 STRAN: Okay. Convenience store with -- well, you can't do that an)'v/ay. MR. HOOD: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tire stores and automobile repair shops or services selling gasoline or diesel fuel. You can't do that anyway. Page 81 of98 October 5,2017 MR. HOOD: Can't do those anyway. CHAIRMAN STRAN: 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 -- CIhIRMAN STRAN: When the folks come up, we'll get that clarified. MR. HOOD: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAN: 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 STRAN: 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 STRAN: We can't limit anything by name, you know that, so... MR. HOOD: That was kind of our poing 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 -- CIIAIRMAN 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 STRAN: Well, I don't even know if you have it. It's 5312, I believe. Do you have 5312 nyour list of uses already? MR. HOOD: Let me double-check. CI{AIRMAN STRAN: Yeah, you've -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: 5812. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 5812, Im sorry. 5812, only cocktail lounges and on-premise consumption of beer, wine, and liquor in conjunction with a restaurant. Well, that's what ttris 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. CIIAIRMAN 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 Page 82 of98 October 5,2017 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 smalleq 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 STRAN: 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 STRAN: Facilities for pawn shop, auction house, flea market, you're not going to be doing any oftha! are you? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Did we miss one? COMMISSIONEREBERT: No. Second page, please. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,I'm on the second page. COMMISSIONERFRYER: What aboutthe - 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 orjunk 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. Im 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,IthinK, 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 861 1. 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 anyrvhere, 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 - COMMISSIONERHOMIAK: 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. Page 83 of98 October 5,207'1 That's always a problem at the office. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we just exclude it as listed? MR. HOOD: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAN: 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 notthe entire SIC? CHAIRMAN STRAN: 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 foftune tellers in *rere? 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 nottouching it. Gone. CI{AIRMAN 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 - ifs 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 STRAN: 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 STRAN: 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 arent 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 smalleq older storefronts that are less expensive, but -- okay, we'll leave that one open. And then any drive-through - you already have that crossed ou! 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. Page 84 of98 October 5,2017 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 backto the otlrerpage. 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 howto take -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Tuesday Moming 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 concem is with that one, because I don't understand that one myself, so... Okay. Well, it looks like we got through that lis! 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? COMMISSIONERFRYER: No, but staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're going to getto staffnext. 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 leaming 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 STRAN: Okay. Now -- but Ned's not going to let you go that easy. Ned? COMMISSIONERFRYER: Thankyou. OnPage 15 of 425. MR. REISCHL: On the PUD? COMMISSIONER FRYER: No. I think it was part of staffs -- 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 Ijust - you know, you might look at it for your template going forward. Page 85 of98 October 5,2017 Then -- that is all I have for staff. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Thankyou, 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 staffalready 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 541 l, 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 ceterq 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 STRAN: 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 a! Corby? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You said Page 72 of 425.I'm not finding that on Page 12 of -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It's in the -- MR. SCHMIDT: Oh, 12 ofthe 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, Co.by. I've been looking at the right paper. MR. SCHMIDT: Thank you. Im glad you do, however. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, can you tell us what page we're on again? MR. SCHMIDT: If I only saw ig 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 PIID already today, and then the remainder of that entry should be a fourth entry, eating establishments, 5 8 12, or whatever the SIC code is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait. Where are you - okay. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It's gotthe 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 STRAN: 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 STRAN: 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. 541 1 is an SIC code for food stores. Page 86 of98 October 5,201'l 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 541 I , 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 STRAN: Okay. Boy, you guys know how to mess it up this late in the day. Come on now. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Just fixthis page. MS. ASilON-CICKO: Well, actually, the 5812, which maybe is what Mr. Schmitt is getting a! 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 STRAN: 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 ofyou. 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 STRAN: Oh, you guys. This is too late in the day to go doing this, fellows. MR. HOOD: So on Page9,No. 8 at the bottom, we discussed that grouping,5872, eating places. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Right. MR. HOOD: There is no mention of fast food here. MS. ASIilON-CICKO: Which is where you need to put it based on what Mr. Bosi just said. MR. HOOD: Right. MS. ASIilON-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 STRAN: 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? Page 87 of98 October 5,2017 MR. SCHMIDT: The GMP. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SCHMIDT: All right. That phraseolory 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 clarif 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 541 1, 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 STRAN: 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 subjectto any comments Ray would have with interpretation. CIIAIRMAN STRAN: I'd rather not use the -- I'd rather not use the SIC code. Im 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 everlthing that everybody's been worried about. So any,thing 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 STRAN: 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 restauran! 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. Page 88 of98 October 5,2017 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where? MR. BELLOWS: Number eight of the PUD. CFLAIRMAN STRAN: Well, it says drinking place, goup - 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 5l 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 STRAN: 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: Marh one other one. Remember about I l, about the 7,000 - CHAIRMAN STRAN: We already brought that up. That's -- we're going to talk about that. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thankyou, Corby. MR. SCHMIDT: Thankyou. 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 STRAN: Okay. With that, we have the staffreports 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 redundan! 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. Justtell the -- are you grving up yourtime? 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, Iike, 70 letters, and we had probably double that in signatures. Page 89 of98 October 5,2017 So we're aware that the traffic studies are intended to prevent over congestion of the are4 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 properly was to support the concept of creating a pedestrian-friendly atmosphere that encourages area residents to work and shop there. ln 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 Poltofino. So our name is not on that sign on Pristine. MS. ASIIION-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 offbecause 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 l0 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 STRAN: Before you step away, are you kind of like the leader of the group? MS. ABRAMS: No. We're all in this together. CHAIRMAN STRAN: 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 STRAN: Okay. Then that sounds fine. MS. ABRAMS: All right. Thank you very much. Page 90 of98 October 5,2017 CHAIRMAN STRAN: Thank you. MR. REISCHL: Several speakers have ceded their time to Bev Smith: Michael Fuchs, Wendy Fuchs, and Dr. Fay Suhon. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay, thankyou. 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 ttrat 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 tha! 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-of7pick-up, that's fine. Just no coin laundry or processing being done. Amusement centers, that is a concern. And I understand tha! 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 elemen! 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 concemed 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 tlpe 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 clarif,, because -- and we got done talking with the developer's representative. It seems that they've agreed to most Page 91 of98 October 5,2017 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 concem 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 concem there. The laundry, they've accepted pickup and drop-offon 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-ofi 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. CFIAIRMAN STRAIN: That's yes or no? MS. SMITH: No. CHAIRMAN STRAN: No, you don't like those boxes. So you don't like any kind of donation drop-offthere. 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 concems are carnivals and vttual realrty 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 rubberthings that blow away in the storms. MS. SMITH: Right, right. Well, no, the indoor, the trampolines. The indoor trampoline houses. CHAIRMAN STRAN: 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 STRAN: 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 ofthe more -- MS. SMITH: Yeah. CFIAIRMAN 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 Page 92 of98 October 5,2017 hometown Broup, a theater goup, 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 STRAN: Well, maybe ifthey 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 STRAN: 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 STRAN: 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 ifthey -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well, that's what this is. These are storefronts, right? MS. SMITH: Yeah, storefronts, basically. Just a storefront stip mall. CHAIRMAN STRAN: All right. MS. SMITH: I think when we talked about govemment facilities, w€ -- 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 STRAN: 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 wmp 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 abou! 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 thattime. Page 93 of98 October 5,2017 CHAIRMAN STRAN: Yes, the lightirig. 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 STRAN: lfth. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning andZoningDirector. That means next Wednesday we'd have to have the packages in our hands and be able to distribute to our -- CFIAIRMAN STRAN: 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 STRAN: 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. lf these people could, just right now, right here and right now, just bang this out. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Ill tell you what. We need a break for the court reporter and for me, because I drank a big cup of cof[ee, and I've got to have a break. So let's take a l5-minute break, we'll come backat4:30andtrytowrapeverythingup. Ifyouguyscanjustgetyourheadstogetherforthenextl5 minutes. MR. VUKOBRATOVICH: We will. Thank you. (A brief recess was had.) CTIAIRMAN STRAN: 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 STRAN: 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 at4660 Fifth Avenue. CFIAIRMAN STRAN: 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 STRAN: Did you get swom in when we asked people to rise? MR. VUKOBRATOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAN: 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 STRAN: 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 - Page 94 of98 October 5,2017 CHAIRMAN STRAN: 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 STRAN: 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 staffs 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,l 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 thinh Mr. Strain, your suggestion, the limiting by square footage, that's a really good suggestion. That does that. CFIAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. MR. VUKOBRATOVICH: So that error, whatever you want to call ig 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 simplifr everything. MR. VUKOBRATOVICH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAN: 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 every,thing, 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 [rma. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree with you there. MR. VLIKOBRATOVICH: Thank you very much. MS. ASilON-CICKO: And Mr -- CIIAIRMAN STRAN: Oh, Mr. Vukobratovich, Heidi had one question about substance involving - MS. ASI{ION-CICKO: Yeah. Since we're adding prohibitions and it will relate to Parcels I and2 as well, Ill 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. ASFilON-CICKO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAN: And that's the -- I and 2 is the Midgard project, isn't it? Oh, that's the -- MS. ASHION-CICKO: No. That's Vanderbilt Commons One Land Trust dated August lst, 2016. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then we're good. MR. VUKOBRATOVICH: Thank you so much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thankyou. 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 ou! so that's Page 95 of98 October 5,2017 all better for everyone MS. ABRAMS: The clarification on the date is what? When is the - CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The l9th 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 staffthe 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 Ansfutz, 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. CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: Did she ask to have it read into the record? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, she did. CFIAIRMAN 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 eastem 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. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thankyou. Then you want to call the next registered speaker. MR. REISCHL: I don't -- it's that lady right there. CFIAIRMAN STRAN: 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. Identifl yourself forthe 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 sigr 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 Raffra 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. Thankyou. 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. CIIAIRMAN 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. Page 96 of98 October 5,2017 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 communif 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 tha! 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 tha! 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 allthe 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 l9th 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 agend4 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: Thankyou. CFIAIRMAN 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 adjoum? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Motion to adjoum. Page 97 of98 October 5,2017 CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: By Joe. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I second. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Seconded by Diane. All in favor, signi! by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We are out of here. Thank you, all. **d.**** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at4:39 p.m. COLLIER COLINTY PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board ,, ll- lL - n .as presented / oras corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC., BY TERzu LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. Page 98 of98