Loading...
CCPC Minutes 12/21/2017December 21,2017 TRANSCRIPT OF TI{E MEETING OF THE COLLIER COI.]NTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, December 21,2017 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: Karen Homiak Stan Chrzanowski Diane Ebert Edwin Fryer Joe Schmitt ABSENT: Mark Strain Patrick Dearborn ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V. Bellows, ZonngManager Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Manager Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney Tom Eastman, School Distict Representative Page I of 17 December 21,2011 PROCEEDINGS CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Good morning, and welcome to the Collier County Planning Commission meeting of December 21st,2017. Would you all please rise for the Pledge of Allegrance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Diane, roll call, please. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes, good morning. Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Chrzanowski? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Fryer? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Ebert is here. Mr. Strain is absent. Ms. Homiak? CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Schmitt? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Present; here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And Mr. Dearbom is absent. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Thank you. January 4th would be our next meeting. Are we having one? MR. BELLOWS: No, we are not. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: We are not. So the next one is the 16th of January then? Yes? And we're having that one, I would assume. MR. BELLOWS: That would be January l8th. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Oh, 18th. Oh, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Eighteenth. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: And we'll have that one, yes? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Will everybody be here then or -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I will. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I will. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I might be sober by then. CIIAIRMAN HOMIAK: Yeah. Youthink? MR. BELLOWS: I've been also asked to see if there would be a quorum on the February 5th meeting. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'll be here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Everybody? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No, I will not be here. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: So the rest of us that are here will be here then. Okay. Approval of the minutes of November 16th. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Move their approval. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Allthose in favor, signifu by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Aye. Page 2 of 17 December 21,2017 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Opposed, like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: BCC recaps? MR. BELLOWS: Can we ask for - if there will be a quorum on the February -- MR. BOSI: Good morning. Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoningdirector. Jeremy Frantz, our Land Development Code manager, amendment manager, asked if I could see if there will be a quorum -- if we could get a quorum for a night meeting February 7th. It's a Wednesday. Would the Planning Commission -- it's because the Land Development Code amendments, ones that affect land use, have to be heard after 5:00. So what we're trying to find is a time frame that will work with most of the Planning Commissioners' schedules. And what we've proposed is February 7th for a 5:05 start time. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm available. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I will be gone the entire month of February. MR. BOSI: Okay. CFIAIRMAN HOMIAK: So the rest of us that are here will be there. MR. BOSI: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Thanks. Okay. Any BCC report? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. On December 12th the Board of Counf Commissioners heard the Logan/Immokalee PUD rezone amendment, that was approved on the summary agend4 as well as the Sabal Bay PDI that had to do with the second directory sign. The Vanderbilt Commons PUDA was also approved on the summary agenda. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Also, the matter of off-site preservation, being very complicated, the Commission decided to roll it over to January, I think. It is a complicated issue and possibly, because so much has evolved from where we zre to where we think we might end up, I wonder if it would make sense to try to simplifo what is put before them, if that's possible. MR. BELLOWS: Well, the vote has occurred, so I'm not sure what - COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, they voted to carry it over, but we could still put material in front of them. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director, again. Yes, they did; they asked for more time. Their intention, I believe -- and they're coordinating with the County Manager's organization to have more one-on-one conversations with Jeremy, myself, others involved to explain the full breadth of the initiation of the LDC amendment to the alternatives that were being proposed by DSAC, by CCLAC, and the Planning Commission. Like I said, as you know, it's taken on a little bit more of a character than when it originally started, so I think they're just looking for a little more clarity in terms of where it started and where it was going and what the recommendations are from each of those bodies. And during those conversations, I can most certainly let the Board of County Commissioners, on an individual basis, know that the Planning Commission has offered to provide another crack to simplify or clarif, any ofthose issues ifthey need that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That would be good. Thank you. CIIAIRMAN HOMIAK: Thank you. Okay. Chairman's report, I have none. There's no consent agenda. *'r'*So the f,rst advertised public hearing will be CU-PL20160001875, 220Basic Drive. And so we'll first hear from the petitioner, then the staff, and then we'll have the speakers. Could you -- anybody who wishes to speak on this item, please rise and be sworn in by the court repofter. (The speakers were duly swom and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Go ahead. Page 3 of 17 December 21,2077 MR. WRIGHT: Good morning, Commissioners, Madam Chair. I'm JeffWright with the law firm of Henderson and Franklin, and I'm here with a team: Blair Foley, the property owner; Charles Duvall -- excuse me, Bruce Duvall. There's our team right there. And we're seeking a conditional use to allow storage at what used to be the Big Cypress Flea Market. The location is shown there. It's about 12 miles southeast of downtown Naples; about five miles southeast of Lely. And I have a closer view there. And there's a view of the site. The site at issue here is the center site, which is the former flea market site, and you see that there's a gazebo and the flea market site there. Right now the property's in -- there's a picture of the site plan that Mr. Foley put together. It depicts the conditional use layout that we're seeking approval for today. A little history on the property. It was rezoned from ag to the present zoning, C4, back in 1988. As I said, this is the former site of the Big Cypress Marketplace Flea Market. It was acquired by the current owner in 2015. And we're seeking to convert the existing flea market to a storage facility. And C4 zoning does allow self-storage as a conditional use, and that is in LDC Section 2.03.03.D.1 .C.24. Andthe LDC lays out the requirements for approval of a conditional use, and I've listed some of them there. There's also the staff report that incorporates those findings and Mr. Foley's application in which he addressed each of those. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Sir, pardon me for intemrpting, but I've got a very basic question that I won't -- if I can't get it answered, I won't understand where you're going forward from here. On Page 2 of our material, there is an image, a drawing, showing the site north of 41. MR. WRIGHT: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Then on the next page, unless north is down on that page, it shows it on the south. MR. WRIGHT: Yes. If you look here at this aerial map, you'll see there's kind of a bell-bottom shape on the southern end of the parcel, and then if you look at the next slide, which is the conceptual site plan, you'll see that bell-bottom shape on the top. I think that's what you're asking about. The north arrow is pointing down on that, so the orientation is, I think, reversed. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Who prepared that? MR. WRIGHT: The site plan was prepared by Mr. Foley. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. It's confusing when nofth is not up, is the point I'm trying to make. MR. WRIGHT: Understood. So hopefully that will give you some orientation. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. MR. WRIGHT: There's some of the requirements in the LDC and, as I mentioned, there's a staff report, and the application itself addresses each of those. And, obviously, the site, we're not changing any'thing on the site. We're simply asking for a change of use. And as many of you know, this property kind of has been abandoned for many years, and this is an opportunity to actually get some beneficial use out of the parcel. All provisions for ingress and egress have been addressed. Parking is fairly simple with self-storage because it's one of the least intensive uses as far as parking goes. So, for example, there's eight required for this proposed use, and we're providing32. lngress/egress have been addressed in the existing site plan, and staffs recommending approval. And we're asking that you find that the requirements for a conditional use have been met and recommend approval of the petition to the Board of ZoningAppeals. And I'm happy to answer any questions that you have. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Any questions? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I have a question. Jeff, if you go back to your slide, it shows the site aerial. My only question is, will the conditional use apply to all three parcels, the two parking areas and the structure itselfl MR. WRIGHT: No. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: If I recall, some of that was zoned TTRV, and there were some Page 4 of 17 December 21,2017 other areas that impacted a Comp Plan amendment that was done for this site many years ago. But I'm just trying to clariff. Is it just the facility for the C4, or will it be the other two parcels? MR. WRIGHT: Just the facility for the C4. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. But the parking will continue to support the facility? MR. WRIGHT: It will not be necessary but yes, it will. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. That's what I thought it wouldn't be necessary because it's no longer a flea market. MR. WRIGHT: Exactly. CIIAIRMAN HOMI.AK: Is the parking lot being used for storage now? It looks like it. MR. WRIGHT: Well, I'm not sure when that image was taken. I know that since acquiring the property in 2015, the owner's taken significant steps at the urging of the county. I think early on in the process they were told you're going to have to clean that up, so they got out there, and they have been cleaning it up. I'm sure Irma wasn't helpful to that cause, but they are trying to clean that up as they go along. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: So they won't use that for storage? MR. WRIGHT: No. What we're seeking today is indoor storage in that separate parcel. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: I know that. So they won't use that for storage? Obviously there's things stored there, so -- MR. WRIGHT: No. The cunent zoning is ag, so the plan is not to use it as storage. It's eventually, hopefully, going to be put to beneficial use as well. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Are you breaking it up, I guess, is what -- MR. WRIGHT: Well, right now the parcel is -- there's three parcels here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. MR. WRIGHT: If you see the one to your left, that would be northwest of the subject site, that's C5 zoning, and to the southeast it's ag zoning. So there's a mess -- kind of a hodgepodge of zoning along that way. We're isolating the C4 use and just tying to get that conditional use for storage so we can put some of this to beneficial use. The property to the north is the TTRVC parcel, and that's not being impacted at all by this. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Is that travel trailer area part of the purchase of this property? So that belongs to the owner as well? MR. WRIGHT: No, it's not. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No? Okay. CHAIRMAN HOMI,AK: No. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Just curious, because I didn't know what the future use was going to be for some of these abutting properties that were once all part of the basic - basic - when he developed that site. Okay. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: What's the target market here; Fiddler's Creek? MR. WRIGHT: Well, I think there's obviously population growth out that way. And I think -- I'm not sure. I can't speak to that. I'm not an expeft in the storage market. But I think that with the recent hurricane there's been a spike in demand for storage, and I think it's a well-timed request in that regard. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have a few questions. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER FRYER: First of all, starting on Page 5 of 9. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: It's in the staffreport ortheir - COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, this is the first time it comes up, but it appears in the staffreport. But I think my -- well, Ill hold this for the staffreport. I'll hold that one at least. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Stan -- oh, sorry. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Let's see. Then I go to - I've got another one for the staff. And - oh, this question, for the petitioner. At the NIM it's indicated that there were two questions. That was all that came from the public on this, just two questions? MR. WRIGHT: As far as I know. I was not present, but I believe that's accurate, yes. And Mr. Foley was there; he held the NIM, so he can speak to that if you'd like. Page 5 of 17 December 21.2017 COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, were there only two questions? MR. FOLEY: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Thank you. That's all I have. CFIAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: By way of disclosure, I talked to Mr. Wright and Mr. Foley prior to the meeting. I have no questions. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Anyone else? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No. I talked to JeffWright prior - just prior to the meeting as well. CHAIRMAN HOMLAK: I forgotto askthat. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's my disclosure. I had a couple of questions that he answered. CFIAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Okay. I guess the staffreportthen. MR. FINN: Yes. Hello. For the record, Im Tim Finn. I'm principal planner. The project is compliant with the GMP and LDC; therefore, staffrecommends approval. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: And you had questions? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I do. First of all, experience tells me that there is no capacity problem on the East Trail traffic-wise down there, right? But I just - in the analysis of 5.1, the FLUE policy, the statement is made that there's a reduction. And I assume there's not going to be -- that this will not bring about an actual reduction of present conditions but rather a reduction if you measure against the hypothetical under the current zoning if this had remained a flea market. MR. BELLOWS: That is my understanding. For the record, Ray Bellows. That is my understanding. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. All right. Then just for your general information for the future, on Page 6 of 9, in Section 4 there is either a typo or grammatical error that has found its way into your template. It says "the affect of the conditional use." It should be "effect." Just -- you might want to correct your template. That's all I have. CHAIRMAN HOMI.AK: Okay. Anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HOMI.AK: Nothing? No? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I make a motion. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Were there any speakers? I don't think I saw any speakers. Oh. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: We have one speaker. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: You can come up, ma'am. MS. RODRIGUEZ: Good morning. My name is Wanda Rodriguez, and I am a resident on Trinity Place, which is the neighborhood immediately east of the former flea market property which is before you today. I'm here to express my objection to the granting of this conditional use for an indoor self-storage facility unless certain conditions are applied. As you see on the overhead, the property under discussion consists of a large structure and two parking lots on either side. My primary concem today is the parking area to the east which fronts on Trinity Place. You can see -- CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: This petition is just for - MS. RODRIGUEZ: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: -- that one parcel -- MS. RODRIGUEZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: - with separate parking. MS. RODRIGUEZ: But I will submit to you that because the three parcels are underjoint ownership and the owner does treat them as all one unified business, that it's appropriate to discuss what's going on on those properties as well, and the fact that this owner that's requesting a conditional use from you today has not been in compliance with previous parking exemptions and documents and things that have been granted by the county. Page 6 of 17 December 21,2017 For example, the landscape buffer which runs along Trinity Place and the portion of U.S. 4l that fronts that parking lot is completely overgrown, has not been maintained. The sidewalks which run along that particular portion are completely overgrown and inaccessible. While understanding that that's not -- they're talking about a conditional use for a building bu! yet, their treatment of the property as a whole is important. The property is also ovetrun with exotics. There was a parking exemption, Resolution No. 07-332, which would require them to remove those exotics, which should require them to maintain that vegetative buffer, which they're not doing. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: I think this is more of a code enforcement issue with the separate property, because that's not what the petition is we have before us today, so we can't do anything. MS. RODRIGUEZ: I understand that that is a remedy. It's not something that you know, I would typically do would be to call Code Enforcement on my neighbors. So I just wanted to take this opportunity to come before you and point out how this owner is currently using their property. As you have noted, the outdoor storage going on on that parcel is extensive. As I went by this morning, you can see concrete culverts and piles of brick and large trucks and storage facilities. It's completely covered with this type of storage going on on that parking lot. And so all I would ask you today is if you choose to grant this conditional use, that you also make a condition that this properly owner must comply with previous agreements, previous parking exemption, the site plans, any resolutions and ordinances that have previously been granted in concem with the building and the associated parking lots, which are all treated as a unit. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: You mentioned sidewalks. Is the sidewalk on their property, or is it in the county rightof-way? MS. RODRIGUEZ: It's, I believe, on their property. It adjoins county right-of-way. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: I think it's the county right-of-way or state road. Go ahead. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Comment. It really is a code issue. I understand you said that we make it a provision that the statutes be enforced. The statutes should be enforced regardless of the provision. And so I think it's just somewhat of a moot point to add because we have no authority to waive any requirement for the compliance with the existing zoning. It's something that should be taken care of through the county. I would only state that, as a matter of record, that the staffought to get Code Enforcement out there and enforce the code as per required by the existing zoning on this property, and it is not allowed nor is it a site approved for storage. It's a parking area, and if there's equipment or vehicles or construction material or other materials out there, they either get a conditional use for it or Code Enforcement issues a citation, and they deal through the Code Enforcement Board. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I agree completely. There is a remedy available to you, and it sounds like it would give you the relief you're looking for. And then if we were to put some additional language in what we did, I don't think that adds anything for you. Your point's a good, and I think you ought to pursue it to get the place cleaned up, but I'm not sure that anything that we could do gives you additional teeth. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I would askthat -- Mr. French, Jamie, would you follow up and ensure that Code Enforcement, which comes under your purview, I believe, still -- that Code Enforcement makes a visit out there and does what it needs to do in order to enforce the existing zoning. Thank you. MS. RODRIGUEZ: Thankyou very much. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Thankyou. MR. BELLOWS: We have no more registered speakers. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Was there anyone else that wanted to speak? (l,tro response.) CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And I thank you for bringing that issue up. It's a valid point, and I trust Jamie will take care of it. PageT oflT December 21,2017 CIIAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Back to the petition before us. Is there anything else? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'll move approval ofthe conditional use as requested. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Second. All those in favor, signifr by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Opposed, like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Thankyou. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'll add for the record, certainly JeffWright is well aware of the enforcement requirements, being the former Code Enforcement director, so I'm sure he'll discuss the requirements with Mr. Foley. MR. WRIGHT: (Nods head.) COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Thank you. MR. WRIGHT: Thanks. COMMISSIONER EBERT: You hadto getthat in. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. You know, everybody knows everybody in the county here, so... CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: ***Okay. Ournextpetition is PUDZ-PL20150001459, the Antilles residential PUD. Disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission? MR. EASTMAN: No disclosures outside of those in the public record. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I talked to Mr. Yovanovich, and there was a strange absence of emails of any kind. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Yeah. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I think I got one. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: A couple ofthem. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Same disclosure; I spoke with Mr. Yovanovich. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I spoke with a couple residents in the area. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: And I spoke to Mr. Yovanovich. Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I spoke to Mr. Yovanovich and, for full disclosure, I am a supervisor on the Board of Supervisors for CDD1 in Fiddler's Creek, though I do not believe there's any conflict because this has nothing to do, materially, with any financial or other issues involved with Fiddler's Creek. I discussed it with Rich, I've discussed it with the attorney on the CDD board as well, and I do not believe there's any conflict that I would have to recuse myself from voting on this unless the County Attorney believes otherwise. But I don't think there's anything in conflict. And I do live in Fiddler's Creek, and I live on Mulberry Road, which is the street adjacent to this property. MR. KLATZKOW: You have no issue. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. All those wishing to speak on this item, please rise and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. And, again, we'll hear from the petitioner, the staff, and then the public speakers. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Karen, I have to make one other disclosure; I'm sorry. I'm looking Page 8 of 17 December 21,2017 for the page. It was the first public hearing or, correction, the neighborhood information meeting. I was present at that meeting. I was not at the second. And on Page 194 of the page it says, Joe Smith, S-m-i-t-h. The questions that were asked, I was -- that was, in fact, me, Joe Schmitt, S-c-h-m-i-t-t. I asked questions about the density. I knew the answer. I wanted the petitioner to make sure the public was aware of how the density was calculated, and I trust Mr. Yovanovich will go over that in detail so everybody understands, because at the first public hearing there was a lot of concern about the densif and folks not understanding the density by .ight and the grandfathering through the zoning reevaluation, but I trust Rich will cover that. So I just wanted to make sure, for the record, that is, in fact, me that asked that question at that first public hearing. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. I think I kind of gathered that was you, and Phil Roman is Phil Brougham. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Phil Broughiun, yes. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Rich. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. Good morning. For the record, fuch Yovanovich on behalf of the applicant. With me are Dennis Albaugh who represents the property owner; Patrick Vanasse and Chris Wright with RWA, the planner and engineer on the project; Norm Trebilcock is our transportation consultant; Mike Myers is our environmental consultant; and Dayna Fendrick is our landscaping consultant. Judging by the lack of emails and the relative small attendance and the only person who stood up who's not on my team, I'm going to do an expedited summary of what we have. I put on the visualizer an outline of the existing property. It is currently zoned mobile home, which would allow up to 7 .26 units per acre on the roughly 44 acres which would result in a potential density of 3 18 units. There was a previous mobile home park there that had236 units on it. So for transportation concurrency, we're vested at the same number of trips as you would have for 236 mobile homes since those impact fees have been paid and addressed. So, interestingly enough, if you were to take the 212 multifamily homes that we want to do -- and this is not in your information. We already have our Site Development Plan in, so I'm providing you some updates on what you don't have. Under the SDP TIS the 212 multifamily units is only three more peak-hour trips than the previously approved and built 236 mobile homes. We're actually in for less units than the 212,but since we're getting approved for the 2l2,Ithought I'd just put that on the record. Your staffs already determined that we're consistent with the GroMh Management Plan. This was a piece of property that went through the zoning evaluation process when the Growth Management Plan was originally adopted. Unlike a property becoming nonconforming, which would mean that if something were to happen to that piece of property, you'd have to meet the now current regulations. The zoning reevaluation process recognized the mobile home zoning, and that mobile home exists in perpetuity. The fact that the units have been removed doesn't change the zoning or somehow convert it to the current standards under the Growth Management Plan. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Excuse me for intemrpting. MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure. COMMISSIONER FRYER: But I just want to ask the County Attomey if he and she are in agreement that interpretation. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well - COMMISSIONER FRYER: When I first saw this, it seemed to me like it was a nonconforming use and, therefore, when all the mobile homes leave, you would think that the nonconforming use permission would have been lost. I spoke with Mr. Yovanovich yesterday and asked this question. He indicated that it's not exactly a nonconforming use. It's something else that, as he just said, even if you take all the mobile homes off, that use would be allowed to continue in perpetuity. Is that correct? Page 9 of 17 December 21- 2011 MS. ASHTON-CICKO: My understanding is that Mr. Bosi and Mr. Bellows, who are the interpreters of the Growth Management Plan, have opined that this is consistent by policy. So what that means is, yes, they could have mobile home units on the properly. COMMISSIONER FRYER: In perpetuity? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. It's zoned mobile home today. Mobile homes could go back on the property today. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, it's sort of zoned mobile homes today. It, by policy, is, I think -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I don't understand what you mean "sort of." It is. COMMISSIONER FRYER: It's not on the GMP. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, there's a map that's with the GroMh Management Plan series, and you'll see the maps have -- it identifies the different properties that have been deemed consistent by policy. This propefty is one of those properties on the map series. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Because it's preexisting. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct, yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm fine with that. I just wanted -- I'm good. Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm trying to hit the highlights of questions that were asked in my presentation. We've asked for -- basically, I think the reason you don't have a lot of people here is there were concems about the original density and the original height of the structures that were proposed for the project. After the first neighborhood information meeting, we worked closely with the residents of the two, basically, adjoining Fiddler's Creek neighborhoods as well as the CDD to address concems of the neighbors. And what I'll do is I'll put on the master plan. Essentially - and this is where I get directionally challenged. And I think I have the north arrow correct COMMISSIONER FRYER: You're good there. MR. YOVANOVICH: To the east is one of the communities in Fiddler's Creek. I think Mr. Schmitt lives there. And we agreed to limit the height of the buildings where you see the two R's highlighted in yellow with the -- I guess that's not an asterisk; with a little star. We agreed to limit the height to two -- not to exceed two stories, 30 feet zoned, 35 feet actual, and then we have an enhanced buffer that's in your packet. And then, likewise, to the south, similar limitations with a different buffer, which is in your -- which is in your packet, to address sightlines and concems that residents had. So I believe that's probably why you don't see a lot of people here, because we worked closely with those neighborhoods to address the concems that they raised. And we also have an agreement with the CDD, because we will be adjacent to and sharing their buffer to install the different buffers we're talking about. So we have an agreement with the CDD to address and maintain - install and maintain the landscaping we've committed to include. We have one -- we have several deviations, but I was asked questions about one of the deviations which had to do with the reduction in parking for the recreational facility parrly justified by there being golf carts within the community. Just - the l2-plexes have been designed where the parking has room for golf cart parking. Overall the project for just the residential units would be required to have 424 parkng spaces. We're actually providing 573 parking spaces for the residential units. So we're not one of those projects where we're really trying to get by at the minimum. 'We've decided that it was better to have more parking closer to the units where people would really be parking, so we put additional parking in those areas and, in exchange, we're asking for a slight reduction in the parking by the community areas. And we have designed this so people can buy golf carts to use the parking spaces at the community center. But in addition, when you - the site plan itself has some additional overflow parking for the buildings near the community center. So I think we've justified and have addressed the parking deviation. I believe that information is in your backup packet. But I think that was -- those were the major questions that were concerned and what we did differently from the original presentation to the community to the second was, basically, the reduction in Page 10 of17 December 21,2017 height and the increase in the buffers were the sigrrificant changes that were made between version one that was presented in the NIM and version two that was presented at the second NIM. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Those were three points? MR. YOVANOVICH: Those were the major points, yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Say them one more time. MR. YOVANOVICH: Reduction in height around the perimeter that I talked abou! and the increased and enhanced buffers along the east and south perimeters were the primary major changes between version one and version two, and a reduction in density from, I believe it was, 280 for multifamily to2l2 multifamily. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So those three? MR. YOVANOVICH: Those were the three major. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. And I guess we also increased the distance from the existing fence to 40 feet. And I can -- I know, Mr. Fryer, you had asked for an exhibit showing distance from structures to structures. And I have something that - proposed structures to existing structures if you want to see that on the visualizer. But, essentially, the - let me just put it up. COMMISSIONER FRYER: It was 80 to the south, and my question was what about in the other three directions. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, to the - yes. And I'll tell you that. I'll read ig then I'll put it up. Because I think if I put it there, I won't be able to see it. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: To the east, the nearest structure is 158.36 feet, approximately. To the property line to the north it's 2 13.04 feet, and to the west to - the nearest one will be I 5 I .63 fee! then the next buildingis 266.6 feet, 303.85 feet, and 309.65 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Can you put that on the visualizer, Rich? Because the north doesn't sound right. Ifs got to be much further than what you just said. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, it's just to the property line. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: To the nearest structure. MR. YOVANOVICH: Now, we don't even know what's going to be to the north, so I gave you a property line to the north because that's where our preserve is, and who knows what's going to happen. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I mean, that's a good picture, and it clearly shows that - to the east it primarily abuts Mulberry, and then just to the east of Mulberry is golf course. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The first house on Mulberry is almost to the north end of the property, almost, but -- as it's shown there. MR. YOVANOVICH: And then I think the other deviation that's going to cause you to also act as the EAC is, as you can see on this and on the previous exhibit, that area right there is a potential interconnection to a prope(y to the north, and it's addressed as a deviation; that we could actually have the preserve area actually be split in two if that actually happens. But we'll still meet the required 4.04,Ithink it is, acres ofpreserve. I think I covered all the points. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: One question on the preserve I would like to add. And I know that - my understanding is the property owner does not own the property to the north. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Potentially may purchase that properly, which would then eventually require the interconnect. I would only ask that we ensure that if that preserve is split, that if there's property developed to the north, that somehow that portion of the preserve that's split is interconnected with an element of preserve to the north so it's just not a free-standing preserve. Do you understand what I just said? MR. YOVANOVICH: I do, and the thing I have is it's hard for me to commit a restriction on someone else's property at this point. Page 11 of 17 December 21.2011 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I understand. MR. YOVANOVICH: However, I'm not an environmental consultant, but my guess in looking at this is it's probably an area that we're going to be required -- that properly owner's probably going to be required to put in a preserve anyway based upon the current Growth Management Plan procedures and processes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I would only ask that staff -- when that eventuality comes that that's evaluated as part of property in the preserve -- because I'm well aware of the property to the north. It's low and it's wet. And it's going to be a significant challenge to try and develop that property. This was previously developed and certainly has its challenges in itself from base flood elevation and other issues associated with this properly. It is pretty low. That's why it's -- your proposing one-story and two-story over parking. That's still the proposal right now; is that correct? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, it's two stories adjacent to where I showed you, and we can go, I believe, to three stories. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But one story over parking. The lower level is parking, and then one story on the east and the south, and then two stories over parking in the interior section to meet the base fl ood elevation requirements. MR. YOVANOVICH: Along the perimeter ground-level parking with two stories of building, and then the I 2-plexes are understory parking. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Wait a minute. Now I'm confused. MR. YOVANOVICH: They have -- well - COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Patrick's going to have to -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We don't have understory parking along the perimeter. We have garages, but we don't have understory parking with the typical two stories above it. Does that make sense? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So the perimeter will have habitable floor. The base flood elevation will be habitable floor. That's the design right now? Not that it impacts the zoning. It just impacts the heighg because I know this area is quite low, which is going to necessitate bringing fill in to reach the BFE. MR. VANASSE: For the record, Patrick Vanasse with RWA. What we are proposing, what's been submitted as part of our SDP application is coach homes along the eastem and southem boundaries; coach homes typical to coach homes throughout the county where they have their own garages at the floor - at the ground level and a maximum of 30 feet of height for the units. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: All right. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: So it looks similarto Fiddler's Creek? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Very similar, yes. MR. VANASSE: Yes. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Anybody have any questions? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I just want to put something on the record again. I failed - I was the administrator for Community Development, which essentially is now Growth Management Division when they combined the Community Development and Transportation. But I was involved significantly when this property was condemned. It was a blight in East Naples, South Naples, whatever you want to call ig and there was a very sigrificant issue in regards to the code enforcement and condemning properties. So that's how it resulted in being cleared out. All those -- most of those were low -- actually, deplorable rentals, and it's been vacant probably for, what, l2years now, 1 7, 12 years. I think it must be close to that; nine, 10, I I years. So, frankly, anything's an improvement over what exists now. MR. YOVANOVICH: But we're way better than "anything." COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I just have a comment. I don't -- Mr. Vanasse, I want to mention that in reading the neighborhood information meeting -- and you had Mr. Yovanovich there -- this is the best neighborhood meeting, other than a couple misspellings and names, that we've had, and I just hope that the rest of them will be like this. Page 12 of 17 December 21,2017 MR. YOVANOVICH: They're all like this. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I really appreciate it. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: The transcript, you mean? COMMISSIONER EBERT: The transcript was wonderful, and I really -- just really wanted to let you know I appreciate it. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I echo the comments of the two previous commissioners and would also like to commend the developer, the petitioner, for being responsive to the homeowners. And I don't know whether questions will remain. We'll see. But from my perspective, I think some significant progress was made between the first and second NIM -- CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Yeah. COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- and I appreciate that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I was not at the second NIM, but after the first NIM, I'm surprised Patrick got out of there in one piece because it was almost pitchforks and torches, and -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: And all of the emails, or almost all the emails, were sent in prior to the first NIM. So it makes it for interesting reading, but it deals with issues that have largely been resolved. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The developer worked -- and I'm sure you're going to hear from Mr. Brougham, who is a neighbor - neighboring property, and the developer worked closely with the community in resolving the concerns. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Good. Having said that, most sincerely, I do have some questions. First of all, again, in the f,rst NIM -- and I realize a lot of this has been superceded, but some comments were made, and I just wantto check on the status of what arguably might be commitments. It was said on Page 50 of the materials, of the electronic Page 50, quote, "We are going to agree to pay to repair the fence and pay for the removal of the ficus, and we are talking about the replacement plan. We will keep talking until we figure out which plant we will incorporate," et ceter4 et cetera. And, Rich, I think that that's been accomplished, right? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. So there's been agreement reached on that which is good. And you answered my questions about proximity on the other tlree sides, which is good. Then I go to Page 58 at the second NIM. No, that's already been covered. Page 60 of the second NIM. "Question: Will Fiddler's Creek maintain the plantings within their l5 foot outside of the fence? "Answer: This is to be determined." A status repoft on that, please. Same thing? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, we have an agreement in place. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay, good. Again, on Page 60, it was asked by a propefty owner if this -- these structures could be turned into mass rentals, and your answer had to do with the marketplace, which I appreciate, and I think it's probably the most that could be said in response to that question. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I think also when you look at the site plan and the layout and the fact that there will be some coach homes, et ceter4 they don't really lend themself to buying up all of the units and creating a mass rental community. That doesn't mean that individual unit owners may not rent their units, but it's not going to be your typical apartment complex. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Then my last question has to do with an email that appeared on Page 107, and it raises a subject that I'd like to know a little more about. And the email says, "JMD Associates, without permission or regard for the impact to our neighborhood, destroyed the trees. The damage is irreparable. This is not an act of a potential good neighbor, and we fear the quality of life," et cetera, et cetera. Could that be explained a little more to us? MR. ALBAUGH: My name is Dennis Albaugh with JM Development. Thank you. The ficus trees were leaning way over onto our property, so we asked permission to cut them, and then there was a misunderstanding between us and the -- I'm not sure what part of the county that was there. And, anyway, they said to take them low because they were, like, hanging at an angle over onto ours, and we Page 13 of17 December 2l-2011 could have just cut them literally right on the property line, which made no sense. A year later they'd have been back on our property again. So there was a misunderstanding between what they told us I could do and what our contractor cut those. And then there was a settlement that we're in agreement. And they were very nice to work with, and -- not at first, and then I'm sure they didn't think I was either at first. But since that time we've both put a plan in, and I'm very proud of this development, and I'm very excited. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That problem's been resolved? MR. ALBAUGH: It has been resolved. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: What's unique about that piece of property is that there's the fence, and I believe Fiddler's Creek still owns another six fee MR. ALBAUGH: Fifteen feet. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- fifteen feet beyond the fence to the west, and there were plantings all on that side. MR. ALBAUGH: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So that's -- the fence is really not right on the property line, and those plantings were all on the western side of the existing fence. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I get it. Thankyou. That's all I have. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Anybody else have any questions for the -- no? Okay. Staffreport? MR. FINN: Forthe record, my name is Tim Finn; principal planner. The project is compliant with the GMP and LDC; therefore, staffrecommends approval. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Well, that was short and sweet. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That was short. CHAIRMAN HOMLAK: Any questions? Staff questions? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: See if I can come up with some questions. No, I'm good. He's the new guy coming in. We've got to break him in. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: I know. We should be giving him a hard time or something. Okay. Public speakers? Phil? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. We have one speaker; Phil Brougham. MR. BROUGHAM: Good morning. For the record, my name is Phil Brougham. I'm a resident of Fiddler's Creek; specifically live in a village called Pepper Tree immediately to the south of this development, and I'm also the chairman of Fiddler's Creek CDD No. 1. And I'm certainly going to endorse this application, but a little bit of a background : and I sat on this commission for a couple years, and I encountered a lot of developer applications and developer resistance and developer's typical response to any resistance. And I can tell you that after the first neighborhood information meeting, which was very well attended by residents in Fiddler's Creek where objections were voiced to the then presented plan, which would have essentially displayed a wall to the perimeter residents in Fiddler's Creek -- Mr. Aubaugh and Patrick Vanasse and their team working extensively between the first NIM and the second with me personally, the other presidents of some of the villages, to come up with a revised plan to not only reduce the number of units but also took care of the primary objections around the perimeter in reducing that building height. The building height is very sigrificant, but it's also supplemented with a commitment for a very enhanced buffer that will provide, at planting, almost an entirely screened view from the homes in Fiddler's Creek, particularly on the south side into that tier of structures. Obviously, when you plant new plants, you can only plant them to 15 or 30 feet. That's a commitment in the buffer, whatever it is, and it takes time to fully flesh out and grow, and I think that's been very well accepted. I'm not saying that every single homeowner in Fiddler's Creek would stand up and rave about this development. There's always going to be one or two people that have objections to doing anfhing, construction noise, et ceter4 et cetera. But Mr. Aubaugh and his team have gone out of their way, in my opinion, to accommodate it. It's going to be a very good development. Just a couple of items I want to put on the record. We do have agreements. We have cross-access Page 14 of 17 December 21,2017 easement agreements to maintain the respective buffers. There's going to be two access gates on the norlhbound Mulberry fence line. This may or may not get -- or should be on the record but, anyway, due to hurricane damage, most of that perimeter fence is trash. So the Community Development District, in conjunction with Fiddler's Creek Foundation, is setting about to replace that fence entirely with totally new material, which will benefit Mr. Aubaugh and his homeowners. But another commitment I want to be sure is on the record, that the CDD continues to be apprised of and has approval and feedback rights over any Site Development Plans that are submitted to the coun{, et ceter4 et cetera. And we have a commitment also in the agreement that prior to any veftical construction the buffers will be planted. The buffers go in first, then you ciill go vertical, and I believe I'm stating that correctly. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. MR. BROUGHAM: Other than that, the District has formally approved it by letter to Mr. Albaugh's company. We have no objections at all. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have one question for you, Mr. Brougham. Why did Fiddler's Creek put up a fence and then go 15 feet beyond, or a wall, and then go 15 feet beyond? MR. BROUGFIAM: To accommodate planting on the other side. We had ficus trees in there screening on the opposite side, let's say on the Antilles side. That buffer was primarily planted with, unfortunately, ficus trees. They were put in there specifically to provide a background screen, if you will, from what existed there prior and also as a deterrent for people accessing the top of the fence and flopping over and doing nasty things inside Fiddler's Creek. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Just a question I had. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Protection. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Protection. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Probably would have to ask Mr. Strain that question. MR. BROUGHAM: That's all I had. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Thankyou, Phil. Is there anyone else that wanted to speak? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HOMLAK: Do you have anything else, Rich, or -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Ive got a long rebuttal, but I'll go ahead and waive it. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Oh, thankyou. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You're trying to snatch the - MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm not going to try to snatch defeat - COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- defeat from the jaws of victory. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Are there any other questions? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have one other comment Id like to make; I should have made it earlier during the staffpart. On Page 9 of 25 -- and this, again, is part of the template. Maybe it revolves around an official interpretation of the word "comparable," but comparable doesn't mean similar, and comparable simply is a characteristic of two things. However disparate they may be in the entire universe, they can still be compared. And so instead of saying "comparable to," I think what we mean to say, either "favorably comparable to" or "similar in all material respects." And I would just - and, again, this is on Page 9 of 25. I ask that staffgive some consideration to abandoning what at least I consider, based upon my understanding of the plain meaning of the word "comparable," to be meaningless language. That's all I've got. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: That's it? Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Nothing? Okay. Close the - COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Move to approve. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second. Page 15 of 17 December 21,2017 CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: All those in favor, signifu by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Opposed, like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. And we also have to vote as the EAC. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I make a motion to approve. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second. CIIAIRMAN HOMIAK: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Opposed, like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. New business; I have nothing. Old business; nothing. Any public comment? MR. BELLOWS: Vice Chairman, let me - I do have a request from our operations staffto mention - give you a heads-up that you'll be, at some point in the future, receiving u rr*"y from staff. We want to better meet your needs, and the survey will help us get there. So I just wanted to give you a heads-up on that. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: The Planning Commission will receive a survey from the staff? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER FRYER: There's also a survey on the county's website. This is different, though? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, tailored more towards your needs. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Oh, thank you. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Oh, okay, thankyou. Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Make a motion to -- CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Christmas miracle. It's almost 10:00. Not quite. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: One thing. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Yeah. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I threatened to say Merry Christmas and Happy New Year in my native tongue, which is Wesolych Swiat Bozego Narodzenia i Szczesliwego Nowego Roku, but Terri didn't think she could spell that. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Oh, I don'tthink she can. Merry Christmas. MR. EASTMAN: Merry Christmas to Chairman Strain as well. I'm sure he's watching. CI{AIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Were you goingto say something? COMMISSIONER EBERT: No, just to adjoum. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: All those in favor, signifr by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Ave. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. Page 16 of17 December 21,2017 CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Opposed, like sign? (No response.) *****,F* There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at9:59 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Kqrrn \Iorr',ak,U ic{. Chq;r DWGHT E. BROCK, CLERK TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT,INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COI.IRT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. Page 17 of 17