Loading...
CCPC Minutes 01/18/2018January 18,2018 TRANSCRIPT OF T}IE MEETING OF TI{E COLLIER COI.]NTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, January 18,2018 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Ptanning Corunission, 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 Govemment Complex, East Naples, Florid4 with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Stan Chrzanowski Patrick Dearbom Diane Ebert Edwin Fryer Karen Homiak Joe Schmitt ABSENT: Tom Eastman, School District Rep ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning Manager Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner Jefftey Klatzkow, County Aftomey Heidi Ashton{icko, Managing Assistant County Attomey Scott Stone, Assistant County Attomey Page 7 of 77 January 18,2018 PROCEEDINGS CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good moming, everyone. Welcome to the Thursday, January 1Sth meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If everybody will please rise for Pledge of Allegance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. If the secretary will please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes, good moming. Mr. Eastman is absent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Eastman did notifr me that he had a conflict for today. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Mr. Chrzanowski? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Is present. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Fryer? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ms. Ebert's here. Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ms. Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Schmitt? (No verbal response.) COMMISSIONER EBERT: And, Mr. Dearbom. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He's that new guy that sits there. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Here. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, addenda to the agenda. We have five items scheduled for today. Ray, is there any changes from the perspective of stafl MR. BELLOWS: No changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything fromthe Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'lImove right into Planning Commission absences. Ray, do we have any issues for the first meeting in February, February lst? MR. BELLOWS: We have one item scheduled. It's the Eagle Creek PUD amendment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does anybody know today if they're not going to make it on February lst? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Looks like we have a quorum. Thank you' And the second meeting is the February l5th meeting. I know we have some things tentatively scheduled for that, so we will be hitting both of those in the month of February. COMMISSIONEREBERT: Public evening meeting -- COMMISSIONERFRYER: We've gotthe 7th, too' CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, that's the - what is that evening meeting date again? Is it the 7th? Does anybody know if they're going to make it on the 7th or not? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I will miss the 7th' CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? (No response') CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we still have a quorum' Good' Takes us to the approval of minutes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Dock mY PaY' CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Dock your pay' It's retroactive' We have our minutes electroniially r.rrt to us for December 21st, 2017. Is there any changes? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Motion to approve' Page2 of71 January 18, 2018 COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second? Seconded by Stan. Discussion? Qllo response.) CTIAIRMAN STRAIN: I will be abstaining since I wasn't here on December 2l st due to conflicts. So with that, all those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONERHOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0 with one abstention. Ray, the BCC report and recaps? MR. BELLOWS: There were no land-use items presented at the last board hearing. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. That makes it short and simple. Thank you. Chairman's report. I'm going to ake this as an opportunity to describe what I've got to do today for the agenda. We have Items 9A, B, C, D, and E. A and B are two iterns more or less companion items on the same similar projed or side-by-side project with interaction. B was required to come before the Planning Commission, and C would have been something that could have come to my other ofEce as Hearing Examiner. Because they were coming before the Plarming Commission with B, it made no sense to have two separate processes, so they are combined into one. I know that they're usually discussed typically by the Planning Commission as compamon items both at the same time with separate votes on each. I didn't want to upset the process by sitting down for one and coming in for another, because I cannot participate in processes that started with my other office ifthey are PDIs. So I will be standing down for 9,{ and 98, and Karen will be - as vice-chair will take over on those. And when we get to 9C, that's the Sabal Bay project. That also started with my office, and because it was moved here and I realized it - I moved it here because ofthe heightened public concem, which is required in my ordinance, I will not be able to participate in that PDI as well. So I will be stepping down for A, B, and C, and I'll be back up here for D and E. I'll probably be sifting in the back ofthe room. So with that, that's the end of chairman's report. There is no items for consent. And that takes us to 9A,, and at this point I'll leave it for Karen, so thank you. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: ***All right. So Item 9A is Siena Lakes, pDI-pL20160003125, with companion item - are we going to do them both together? And we need to vote on them separately, though. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: okay. And the other item will be pD - I mean, pLTDA-pL20170000524. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No, just 000. you said four zeros, didnt you? It,s incorrect on my file then. Thank you. It shows three here. VICE-CIIAIR HOMIAK: It's four hcre. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: All right. Whatever. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: So whatever. It's - all right. Would all those wishing to speak on this item please stand to be swom in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly swom and indicated in the affirmative.) VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: And disctosues. Stan. COMMISSIONER cHRzANowsKI: I talked to Mr. yovanovich about this, and I guess I gor some correspondence from staff. Page 3 of77 January 18, 2018 COMMISSIONER FRYER: Same disclosure. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I spoke with Mr. Mulhere and staff. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: And I spoke to Mr. Yovanovich. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I spoke to Mr. Yovanovich, and the original rezoningthat involved this properly, I was the community development administrator when this first came through the staff. I just wanted to put that on the record. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: None. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Thank you. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Karen? Karen? VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Yes. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: While we're putting things on the record, I live in Lakeside. My unit almost shows on that map there, so. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Okay, good. And you were at the public meeting? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: No. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: No? Okay. So we'll hear from the petitioner, then the staffreport, and then we'll have the speakers. MR. MULHERE: Good moming. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Good moming. MR. MULHERE: For the record, Bob Mulhere with Hole Montes here representing the applicant. With me this morning is David Archibald, who is vice president of development with Erickson Living, who is the applicant; and also Fred Moschetta, who is the director of sales who got the enviable assignment of moving to Naples from Michigan for this project; also Rich Yovanovich, whom you all know, is our legal counsel; Barry Jones, who's the civil engineer with Hole Montes who's designing the civil engineering aspects of the project. With me this moming also is Paula McMichael, who is a planner who works with me and Norm Trebilcock who is the transportation consultant on this project. I've put an aerial on the visualizer. I'll see if I can reduce that a little bit. There we go. There are two companion items here. This is the Siena Lakes PUD. Obviously, Orange Blossom, Airport Road. This is St. Catherine's Greek Orthodox Church right here, the Longview PUD, and this is the other property that is the subject of the PUDA, which is the Orange Blossom Gardens PUD. I have another exhibit. It's a little shiny, but let's see if I can -- just gives you -- excuse me. This is a conceptual plan. It just gives you a little different perspective showing the neighboring developments and Orange Blossom, Siena Lakes, Orange Blossom Drive, and Orange Blossom Gardens PUD. So as the chairman indicated, there are these two petitions. One is a PDI; Siena Lakes is a PDI. And Orange Blossom Gardens is a PUDA. Siena Lakes is 29.25 acres in size. It is an existing PUD. It was approved in December of 2009. It allows for 764,478 total square feet of usable area under the floor area ratio contained in the LDC. The proposed breakdown is 355 independent units, 35 assisted living, and 30 total skilled nursing and memory-care beds. The original PUD was approved for four-story buildings. I want to put that original site plan on the visualizer. As you can see -- and I'm sure you noticed - this is ayery, very detailed master plan, and typically it wouldn't contain this level of detail - this one does -- showing building locations, a lot of requirements. Just wanted to point out -- and the reason for putting this on there is you can see there were some three-story independent livings units here, three over parking, and these buildings along here were all four-story buildings, four over parking. So really five stories in height' And this is the revised master plan. I'll go over each of the changes. But you can see there's a good-sized lake here with a pavilion, another lake here with a pavilion, open up so that there's perspectives and vistas. We have reduced the height in all of the buildings to no more than three stories over parking, so it's -- there's no more four-story buildings, particularly along the front here. It's one connected building' Service areas are located here, so they're buffered from our neighbors. And then let me just go oreieach of the changes. And I'll leave this on there. The entrance drive has Page 4 of77 January 18, 2018 been shifted a little bit towards the east fiom where it was originally located to have a ccntral entrance. It's also a little bit further away from the intersection as well. I mentioned that the previous master plan depicted a number of separate buildings and had thrce- and four-story buildings. They're all a maximum of three-story now. I mentioned the pavilions that we've added as an amenity and the reconfiguration ofthe lakes. There's been some reconfiguration ofthe parking, though most ofit is underbuilding parking. But there is some surface parking, and that's been reconfigured. There's been no changcs to deviations, landscape buffers, or developer commitments. I do want to point out this connection to Lakeside ofNaples is a requirement ofthe original PUD, and it remains in placc, so that connection is there. And then Orange Blossom, ofcourse, is right here. And I'll go over that now. So Orange Blossom was origrnally I1.7 acres in size, and then about half of that was taken out of that PUD and added to the Siena Lakes PUD. And so the remaining portion is 5.85 acres. It allows for 20 residential units. So as part of the amendment, which we originally went in as a PDI to add the ability on a temporary basis, maximum offive years, for Erickon to use that property as an administmtive sales and marketing offrce in supporting the adjacent senior living facility. It was determined, I think, by the County Attomey's Office, that that was really a change in use; therefore, it went from a PDI to a PUDA. Sometime during the process - the property is ovrned by St. Catherine's Greek fthodox Church. Sometime dunng thc process, they suggested that since Erickson has not closed on this property - they havc a contract to purchase it -- there is always the possibility that they don't - that they might not close, although highly unlikcly at this point, the church asked if we would also add accessory church uses. So when we had added that - we had had one neighborhood information meeting, and then we had a second one because we added that use during the process, and I'll talk about that injust a moment. Let me get that master plan for you. So, again, Siena Lakes, the roadway connecting, connection to Orange Blossom. We - when we amended this master plan as part ofthe process, we created two development areas, Areas 1 and Arca 2. Area 2 is 1.62 acres. That will be the location for the sales facility. We will not be doing any improvements or changes or alterations to the northem portion of the PUD. There's a lake here with some vegetation here. You know, that would happ€n at a future point. If everlthing - everything goes according to plan - there are requirements to have obviously some presales before licensure and so on and so forth for these Rpes of facilities. If everything goes according to plan, Erickson Communities will purchase that Orange Blossom Gardens PUD and incorporate that in the future into the Siena Lakes PUD. So when that happens, we'll come back to you. As an aside, the St. Catherine's Church also owns the Longview P[ID, and so they can, you know, sell this Orange Blossom piece and still have the ability to expand in the future onto the Longview PUD, which is due nodh of Orange Blossom. We had a combined MM for both of these projects on May 23rd. There were quite a few people in attendance. There were a lot of very good questions, very active communities. They were active in the first PUD and were there to listen to us for the second or amending PUD. And as I mentioned to you, sometime after that NIM we added the ancillary uses for the church, so we schcduled a second NIM, and that was held on October l7th,2ol7. We have staffrecommendation for approval. I have numerous experts to answer any questions that I'm not able to answer. I know you'll have somc questions. And I'm sure there are some membirs ofthe public that would like to speak. So thank you. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Bob, the - to claril) - okay. I want to make sure I title it the rightone. The PUD the church owns - MR. MIILHERE: Yes, sir, Orange Blossom Gardens. COMMISSIONER SCHMIfi: - orange Blossom, that has the accessory use for the church now,which is, as you, I believe, stated in here, was going to be some kind ofa classroom o. ,o111" oth"ityp" orfacility; it could be. Page 5 of 77 January 18, 2018 MR. MULHERE: Yes. It would be -- it would be a facility that could be used for the congregation for a lot of different uses; classrooms and gathering. Most chwches have some sort of a community church facility. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And then the - you would have a temporary use for the sales center? MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's if Orange Blossom -- or if the church retains the ownership. If the ownership is - if they sell it to the developer -- MR. MULIIERE: They would construct the sales marketing - they're going to construct the sales marketing administrative facility. Ifthey don't buy it, the church gains those improvements. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Conect. MR. MULHER-E,: If they do - and we're pretty certain they will - COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You're not building the classroom, then, for the church? MR. MULHERE: Then that will then probably be located on the piece that the church owns just north of Orange Blossom. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Then you said you'd have to come back again? MR. MULHERE: Right. We intend to come back in the future after we've done the presales and - you know, constructed the sales facility. That's going to take a few years to get through that process -- we would come back and then incorporate the Orange Blossom into the Siena - COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Oh, lsee. Then you would try and combine - MR. MULHERE: One PUD. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: - one PUD. MR. MLTLHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And, of course, I'd stated on the record that I vividly remember this back in 2009, probably shellshocked from some ofthis, because it was a pretty contentious design, though the Board did approve it. And this, for the rest of the commissioners, it is an improvement over what was originally proposed just because of the mass of the building - MR. MULHERE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: - the original design and the height, which was the primary concem, but, again, it was approved. And this is, I thint an improvement in what was originally proposed. MR. MULI{ERE: And they're a very successful company. They operate facilities - I think this may be the first or second facilif in Florida, but they operate facilities along the East Coast, so... COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's all the questions I have. VICE-CIIAIRHOMIAK: Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have one or two. MR. MULHERE: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: This perhaps could be asked of staff but since Mr. Yovanovich and I had a conversation about it, and he was going to look into it, I thought it might be best ifljust ask him or yoq Bob -- MR. MULIIERE: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: : and that has to do with the fact that a commercial use on the Orange Blossom piece is nonetheless commercial even though it's tempordry. And so how does that : how is that accomplished within the GMP? MR. MULHERE: So actually this ancillary facility is - sales marketing, administrative facility is actually permitted anrrhere where an ALF is permitted and also anywhere where multifamily, rental, or other tlpes of multifamily housing; even singe family would allow for these types of facilities. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Those are on the site? MR. MULIIERE: Well - or an adjacent site. I mean, it's allowed - it's allowed in other than commercial. ALFs are allowed in other than commercial. So, actually, Collier County does not consider this to be a commercial use. It's either ir:stihrtional or quasi-residential, but it's not - an ALF is not considered to be a commercial use, so neither is the ancillary facilities to operate that' Page 6 of 77 January 18,2018 COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. My question came from the memo from Kay Deselem of October 27 of'17 where, among other things, she says, as the urban residential subdistrict does not provide for commercial zoning at this location, the proposed uses may be deemed consistent with the FLUE only if they are determined by the zoning services section not to be comrnercial ones. And I understand your explanation, I guess, on the part -- on behalf of staff that they don't consider it commercial. To me that seems like a stretch. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. The issue ofaccessory sales facilities to an ALF or residential developments, as Mr. Mulhere indicated, these are allowed in any zoning disfict as accessory uses, and because theyte limited to the sales of thc units for the product they're selling on the property or in this case the adjacent property, we don't deem that any krnd of commercial operation. COMMISSIONER FRYER: What if it were rn Lakeside? MR. BELLOWS: That would be different. This - COMMISSIONER FRYER: Why? I mean, in this case the two lots are different. ln the case of Lakeside they're different as well. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. It's - well, the only reason I would say it was different is because it's not immcdiately adjacent to and that the future plans are to combine them into one PUD. But in any event, it's still not a commercial use. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, I guess if you say so. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Ray, just to clariff, I mean, we've had these discussions in the county in the past even with homes along Collier Boulevard as - seemed to be for quite a while that they wcre dcvelopers' models, stand - single-family as a developer model to sell real estate -- homes in the Estates. So that's kind ofa similar type ofissue, isn't it? I believe there was some kind ofamendment to the LDC, and there's a process for doing that, and wouldn't this be similar? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COMMISSIONERSCHMITT: Yeah. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have a question or two on the Siena piece. First ofall, I like the project. I like the fact that the height ofthe separate buildings to the north is going to be three plus one instead of four plus one, and I think that is a good step. I also - I guess I'm ptzzled by the traffic, the roadway connection and the easement that would facilitate a connection ifit were desired by the takeside people and this developer. But county wants it whether it's desired or not; is that correct? MR. MULI{ERE: Yes. Yes, that's correct. And we will construct that. We're required to as part of our PUD. The connection, really, is not something that we would be -- wete willing to make that connection, put a gate in, whatever, but that really, ofcoune, is up to Lakeside. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. lnteresting. MR. MULHERE: And I just did want to correct a couple of comments that fuch mentioned in case I wasn't clear or I misstated. This PUD is approved at a floor area ratio of 0.60 as it exists today and - because I might have referenced the LDC. But obviously the PUD has a floor area ratio of0.60. Also, I think I did mention that it is three over one, as you suggesteq just to be clear on the record. COMMISSIONER FRYER: There is no height increase an)ryhere in rhe entire projecl right? MR. MULHERE: That's correct. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And I think my last question has to do with traffic, and common sense tclls me that the increase in tra{fic as a result ofthe change in uses would be negligible, but I'd just like to know that someone has thought about it and that that is a -- that is a reasonable conclusion. Because when you move Ilom a use that involves more incapacitated people, ifyou will, youte not going to have as many people driving around as you do when they are independent living people, I would asiume. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's comect. Aad for the record, Rich Yovanovich. I did confirm with our traffic consultant that he did analyze the difference in the number of independent living mits that we're adding to; it's minimal - it's a minimal Page 7 of77 January 18, 2018 increase and has no impact on the level ofservice on any ofthe roadway system. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. I just wanted to get that into the record. MR. MULHERE: I just drd want to add : and I appreciate your reminding me of this that, as you know, Orange Blossom .- part ofboth ofthese PUDs, previously on Siena Lakes and now as part ofthis Orange Blossom, we are -- have or will be providing the additional right-of-way for the improvements to Orange Blossonr, including the intersection improvements as well as a tum lane. So, for example, on Orange Blossom, we have made a commitment to provide the county with zl4 feet of additional right-of-way. lt was 28 feet until about two months ago, and then it became zl4 feet, and so we had to redesign that a little bit, but we've committed to do that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I did have one more; I'm sorry. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: That's okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: In the NIM, which I thought was well recorded - and I commend you for that. It was very easy to follow. MR. MTILHERE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: - the - there were commitments made with respect to mrtigating dust, and a comment was made that that would be looked into and that something would be proposed that would be satisfactory to or you would attempt to achieve satisfaction on the part ofthe residents, and I was wondering what, if anlthing, has been done along those lines. MR. MULHERE: Well, the county does require, as part of the Site Development Plan, when you come in for preconshuction for improvements, that you maintain the project dus!free through silt fencing and, if necessary, you know, water truck can come in and do that. We havent made any specific commitment to that. That's going to be part of the Site Development Plan review. Obviously, we're more than willing to commit to doing that if that - COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm not sure what the public is going to have to say on this, but that may be something that we ask for a commitment on. MR. MULHERE: Yep, I understand. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I think that's all I have, Madam Chairman. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Isn't that all - isn't that something they're supposed to do anyvay? MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: But the question's whether there could be something over and above what the minimal requirement is. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Okay. Anlhing else? Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. 1 don't know whether - Jeff, you may want to listen to this. You know I live rn Lakeside. The history behind thal, we were originally supposed to have an altemate entrance/exit out the back toward that project back there, Bridgewater Bay, whatever it's called. MR. MULHERE: Bridgewater Bay. COMMISSIONER CHMANOWSKI: And it was never done. The LDC says you have to have a -- they encourage tie-ins between proJects - MR. MULHERE: Conect. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: - to stop traffic from going out into main roads. And when this project - there were a couple of instances - there was a major accident right at our exit one day, and nobody could get in or out for hours, maybe halfa day; ambulances, nobody could get in or out. Hurricane, I believe it was, Charley, knocked a lot of stuff down, and nobody could get in or out becausc there was only one way in or out. So there were people in there that started pushing for some type of altemate exit just for safety sake. And this was the only place where there's no development next to our project. And am I gefting into any area that I have a conflict ofinterest here? MR. KLATZKOW: No. COMMISSIONER CHMANOWSKI: Okay. So there were people in there that wanted this secondary entrance/exit which is why wc requested it, the people in Lakeside, because it was the last chance we'd have to have a second way in or out ofthere for emergencies Page 8 of 77 January 18, 2018 COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. It makes sense to me. I get it. It's just that I saw some commentary in the NIM that nobody seemed to want it except the county. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: But there are people in there - the people that live right near there, they are afraid that theyte going to see an increase in traffic, increase in traflc noise, and, you know, naturally whcre you live in there depends on whether you want it or not. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Cedainly, there would be a walkway through there, right? MR. MULIIERE: Sure. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Walkway? MR. MULHERE: Yep. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. And there could also be a key-fob-operated type of electronic gate or something. MR. MULHERE: It should be under the control of lakeside community. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. There are 400 units in there with only one exit. That's a lot. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. I takc it the comty doesn't have a problem with there being an electronic barrier that is only usable by the Lakeside people, or does it? COMMISSIONER CHMANOWSKI: No, there's no problem because that's at the backside of Impcrial. They have the same thing. The people that get in or out are people that live in that part oflmperial. MR. MULHERE: I don't think therc's any issue thoe. It would be great for emergency reasons and other reasons to have people have another way in and out ofthe project, and I think that's why the county required it. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I understand. Okay. Thankyou. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question. MR. MULHERE: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER EBERT: You will not be putting bituminous doum here, will you? This is just - MR. MULIIERE: You're way above my pay grade with that question. Where's Barry? COMMISSIONER EBERT: You're just going to leave the easement there? If Lakeside wants it, they can - MR. MULHERE: We have to build it within our project, and it will provide access between Siena and Orange Blossom, but we'r€ not going to make that connection unless -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: No, I understand. But you will be putting the bihrminous down then? MR. MULHERE: It will be improved and paved, yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Thank you. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Anybody else? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Just one quick question. And, again, I wasn't at the meeting prior to; this has been discussed before. But is there anybody here that can clariff - I live about a quarter mile from there as well, and I know traffic already - with First Baptist Academy and Bndgewater Bay, the traffic on that road, single lane, as we're talking about past Siena lakes and at the intersection, is already super duper congested. So I'mjust wondering ifthere's some clanfication if this has been addressed through the county and what the fuh]re plan was -- ifl missed that, I apologize - to make that two or three lanes? MR. MULHERE: It has, but I'm going to let Mike Sawyer answer that. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Yeah, please. MR. SAWYER: For the record, Mike Sawyer, transportation planning. We are looking at that, at getting improvement made. lt is a rccognized need at this point. We don't have any frrnding or actual design yet, but it is a recognized need. We actually are looking at that as a relief for Pine Ridgc as well. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: In the past I've heard of developers - I want to say GL Homes is one that comes to mind with Stone Creek and Riverstone where - did the buildo, the developer, contribute funds or pay for road widening or road extensions like the one from Logan that is now - future going to go to Bonita Beach Road? MR. SAWYER: Quite honestly, yes. That,s often the case, and we do have actually a couple of Page 9 of77 January 18,2018 developer commitments for this development to actually help primarily with right-of-way because generally that's what we -- COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I understand. MR. SAWYER: - that's what we really need to have is we need to get the right-of-way in order to actually get the road improvements done. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I've heard them mention44 feet from 2O-something feet originally. So that 44 would allow -- give me an idea. Are we talking about two lanes with a third lane as a turn lane? Or give me an idea. Because I'm going to tell you - and I know they know -- that road now can't handle - it's backed up every day now during heavy congestion hours because of the single-lane deal, because people can't come out and go right on Airport because there's not enough room in that single lane right where we're going to be putting this development. So I'm just -- I'm sure very smart people are on top of this. MR. SAWYER: Yes. The configwation would be a four-lane road linlq if you will. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: All the way to Livingston? MR. SAWYER: Yes. It would be basically from Airport to Livingston. There would be turn lanes going into the various developments. That's basically what we've been looking at. Whether or not there would be a median in there or not, I can't tell you. We don't have that level of knowledge yet. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: And just to clarifu, again - and this speaks to them as well - what commitments -- let's re-clarifu the commitments you-all have made, the developer, to do that road since you've already said the county has no money to do it, and I think it's an absolute necessity. MR. SAWYER: Just for clarification, it just hasn't been budgeted yet. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Okay. Mike, when do you think you could put this in? MR. SAWYER: I would have to get back to you on that. I don't have a time frame on that, and I apologize. I did not look into that for this petition. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Because 2025 doesn't help at this point. MR. SAWYER: I will be able to get backto you on that. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Patrich one thing. If you look at that road, it's all sloped in one direction instead of crowned in the middle. I think there was always the intent to build another two lanes on the other side like they standard do. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Okay. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Anything else? No other questions? (No response.) VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Okay. Could we have the staffreport. Oh, Ray. Sorry. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I will be presenting these two petitions for staff. Staffconcurs with the presentation made by the applicant today. It's consistent with their request, staffhas fourd it consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and we ire recorrmending approval subject to the conditions noted. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Okay. Any questions ofstafl COMMISSIONER FRYER: I do. I noticed that the Clerk of the Courts has raised an issue of the capability of the Planning Commission or the Hearing Examiner to enact an ordinance, and I think that point is well taken. I notice the resolution with regard to the insubstantial change part of this is still worded "resolution of the Collier County Planning Commission for an insubstantial change to ordinance." Well, I mean, that -- why don't we change that language now so that what we're doing is we're making a recommendation to the BCC for it to amend an ordinance. MR. BELLOWS: It's my understanding that we are in the process of amending the code so that will be, in fact, the case. And until that happens, it's -- we're taking this to the Board as a recofllmendation, or as an approval of the Collier County Planning Commission for the Board to validate. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, it seems - Page 10 of77 January 18, 201 8 MR. BELLOWS: But your suggestion is in the works. We are going to make PDIs a recommendation. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. Well, I - okay. It just seems to me odd that since we don't have that capability we're being asked to pass a resolution that, on its face, appears to change the ordinance. MR. KIATZKOW: You have that capability. COMMISSIONER FRYER: We do? MR. KIATZKOW: Sure. Just because the Clerk says you don't doesn't mean you dont. COMMISSIONER FRYER: No. But I give you that point - MR. KIATZKOW: You have the capability. Now, in the exercise of due caution, we will be amending the LDC. But until that happens, we're under the current rules. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. That answers my question. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: It's in our LDC amendments that we have today. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah, itis. Itis. Ijust- VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: That means it's not in effect. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, I know, but I defer to th€ County Attomey on that. But to me when I read it, it seems as though we are exercising an authonty we dont have, but I've certainly not researchcd it, and I defer to what the County Attomey said. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Anlhing else of stafl (No response.) VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Do we have speakers? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. MR. SAWYER: Excuse me. Chairman, if I might, Trinity just came in and corrected me. [-ast year Orange Blossom was changed, and it is now budgeted and scheduled for 2022. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Thank you. MR. SAWYER: So I apologize. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: And, Mike, scheduled for - re-clariSr again what's the proposed - what's going to happen. MR. SAWYER: That's actual construction. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: And that's fourJane? MR. SAWYER: I will double-check that, but I believe it is, yes. Whether or not it has the median or not, I don't know, COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: She's comrng up right now. MS. SCOTT: For the record, Tridty Scott, transportation planning manager. Yes, Orange Blossom, Airport to Livingston, not all the way to Goodlette -- I don't want to start anybody calling me - is design in Fiscal Year'19, which will determine where those median openings and all of that will be, but we're certainly hoping to have a median along the roadway. Right-of-way and advanced construction, '21, and actual construction in '22. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Great. Thank you. Does that answer your question? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: And just for one more point of clarification, not for them, for you guys. So based on that timeline ofthat mad improvernen! which I think we can all agree is a necessity, does that gel v/ith the timeline you-all are talking about? Or I get the feeling you-all want to get this going much quicker than that. MR. YOVANOVICH: My anticipation is we may be a little bit ahead of that schedule, but we certainly won't be a complete project built out by that period. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: By'22? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. It won't be a complete project buildout by then. But one thing I want to clariry for the record is ow project does not diminish *re level of service on Orange Blossom to where it fails, okay. So we're not - in other NIMs I've said we're not breaking the road. If we were breaking the road, we would not meet concurrency and, therefore, we would not be able to get permits. Since we're not - yes, it's a congested road, but it's still operating at its adopted level of service. Page ll of 77 January I 8, 2018 There are scheduled improvements that will occur. We will be paying our impact fees. We will be advancing road right-of-way so that the construction can occur, but we will be playing by the concurrency rules as we go along tkough this process. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Does that increase in the right-of-way, I believc you said 40 - MR. YOVANOVICH: It's zl4 total feet. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Forty-four total feet. That clearly givcs us plenty of room for those improvements for the county to do the four-lane? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: We're not sure yet about the median, but - MR. YOVANO\ICH: That was -- that's why I thrnk they went from 28, was their original ask, 28 feet, to ,14 feet, so they could accommodate their proposed improvements. They already - rcmember, they already have right-of-way, so they needed an additional 44 feet from us. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Thank you. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Okay. Anybody else? (No response.) VICE-CIIAIR HOMIAK: No? Okay. Could we have the speakers, please. MR. BELLOWS: First speaker, Deborah Stevenson. MS. STEVENSON: Good moming. My name's Deborah Stevenson. I'm a resident of Lakeside of Naples, the community consisting of380 units on the northem side or border ofSiena Lakes. Many ofour residents have concems related to the development ofthese parcels as a whole and the proposed changes that weYe discussing here today this moming. First of many was the way the notification went out both in the Naples Daily News and in the notifications Lakeside residents received in the mail related to the height ofthe building, but most of that's been addressed in the meeting already, and it is our understanding fiom what's been said this moming that the height ofthe buildings will be going fiom five levels down to four, although most of the community buildings, including Lakeside, only have a maximum of threc levels without garagcs undemeath, along with the Carlisle and other buildings sunounding us. So Lakeside still remains very concemed about the height ofbuildings to Sierra (sic) Lakes, especially since post-Inna we've lost a lot ofour buffer that's shown on these wonderful maps bchind us of canopy trees, palrn trees, ct cetera. And there are several three-story buildings that will be looking directly into Sierra (sic) Lakes right now as opposed to the two-story buildings that are demonstrated on the models that you've seen today. Bear with me. I'm sorry. I'm also very nervous. ln order to create an effective sightline, we'd like to have the developer come back and relook at the buffering system ofthe remaining hees to see whether or not they can help create some privacy, cut down on lighting from those elevated buildings that will be on that property that will affect Lakeside, as well a.s noise. Second, wehe very, very concemed about the density level planned in these acres and thc impact to the quality of life it's going to have on our immediate community as well as the surrounding communitics as a whole. Four hundred twenry units, of which those 355 are independent living and 35 are assisted living, would create a significant strain, as weVe been saying, on the surrounding infrastructue. Roads, which we've been discussing, currently Orange Blossom, which is heavily used, which has been discussed, to local residents and commuters, the addition ofthose 420 units puts 420 to about 840 residential trips, not to mention you have Siena employees coming, their vendors, trash, trucks, landscaping, food providers. laundry, and other services. You have visitors coming as well as guests, all whom have to egress and ingress onto Orange Blossom. Currently there is no left-hrm lane on eastbound Orange Blossom for the potential of traffrc -. allowing for the potential of traffrc to back up onto Airport-Pulling Road, and this would be a highly likely probability because it's a very short shetch between Airport-Pulling and where they will be making their left-hand tum. Without Collier County really committing to a time for when they will want to widen Orange Blossom, and even four years down the road, we really -- the traffic has no place to go, literally, in that Page 12 of 77 January 18, 2018 intersection, which is going to be backing all the way and up and down Airport into the residential area on the other side of Orange Blossom, which is two lanes. We also have the impact along there of having Avery Square, a newly developed S2-year-old - S2-unit development lateral to Siena Inkes on Airport with 82 to 164 trips. We have the library, thc govemment center, St. Catherine's Church and their plans to expand with classrooms, and thc Carlisle with an existing 200-plus independent living facilities on the comer, which begs for the evaluation, really, to relook at the density surrounding the intersection of Orange Blossom and Airport-Pulling Road. Our other main concem is stormwater management. The last year has proven that significant water management issues exist on that property. The lakes do not hold the water, it doesn't run over Orange Blossom into the runoff lakes like it's supposed to, and with the elevation planned on Siena Lakes to build up will nahrally run with gravity down into the sunounding communities, creating a flooding situation. So I'd like to thank you for the time, and I hope the Planning Commission will review the impact of the Iarge development such as Siena Lakes would have on our quality of life: Size of the buildings, the density already in a congested area ofNaples, the increased strain placed on the roadways, water management, sewers, and utilitics. Thank you. And I apologize for speaking so fast. COMMISSIONER SCHMIfi: I just have a question. And I appreciate ever)4hing you stated, and certainly there is mcrit to everything you stated, but it's no different than -- MS. STEVENSON: What you said. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: - what already exists today and what thcyre akeady approved and already vested for today, so - MS. STEVENSON: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: - regardless of which project, it appears that what they're proposing now will be less ofan impact or equal to the impact that already has been approved and allowed for now. MS. STEVENSON: I think it's still a strong impact on the community - COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. I understand. MS. STEVENSON: - very big impact, but the main - I guess because in this particular comer, lately everything's been approved between the last year with Avery Square and other projects down the pipelinc, that we're concemed about all the density at that one intersection without any changes in the road. There's already major accidents at Orange Blossom and Airport. Tums signals are not - Orange Blossom to cut through Livingston, which is highly used by commuters, is a very unsafe road at this point, You'vc got senior citizens tuming left into an assisted living facility. It's going to be very precarious. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I understand. MS. STEVENSON: And the other thing is the impact that it has on the greater community as a whole. This is a monstrosity ofa facility that's being built and for the residents to have to look at that are around it. So we just want to impact, soften the project a liftle bit and make it more community frrendly when they're moving forward. That's all. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: I think that's what they've done. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I think that's what they've done. MS. STEVENSON: They may have. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: It's already approved. You realize that? MS. STEVENSON: I do realize that, but I'm just voicing my opinion, and I will say, unlike Mr. - sorry I can't pronounce your last name, who lives in Lakeside - there are a lot - COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Few people can. MS. STEVENSON: - of us that are very concemed about that cut-though. We know the reputation ofErickson with building big projects. There's always traffic problems, there's parking problems in these projects, and we're afiaid that's going to start overflowing into the greater community, and especially in Lakeside, because we will have, by choice or no choice, a combining road that leads into the property. So that's what we're concemed about, and ifpeople start overflowing and parking on Orange Blossom. Page 13 of77 January 18, 201 8 VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Are you speaking for a board or just yourselfl MS. STEVENSON: I'm speaking for many residents that I -- who are working today, and I came to speak on their behalf in Lakeside. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Thank you. MS. STEVENSON: Thank you for your time. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have, if l may, a question, not for the speaker, but something that she brought up that I want to check with staff on. I'm looking atthe 2017 AUIR. And if I'm reading it correctly - and that's what I want to veri! : Orange Blosson; between Goodlette-Frank and Livingston is in green and, according to the legend, green in this case means 5 to 10 percent decrease from 2016. Am I reading it correctly? MR. BELLOWS: Well, I think I'd defer fiat to our hansportation planning staff to verifu what that means. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. I'm not saying that there isn't a problem there. I'm just seeing how this project relates to what we saw in the AUIR, please. MS. SCOTT: Once again, Trinity Scott, for the record, kansportation planning manager. Yes, you are seeing that, but understand fiom a year{o-year basis we are looking at these roadways on a - this is compared to the prior year. The prior year could have been a major increase. And so as travel pattems change, maybe construction in the area -- we take traffic counts four times a year. Five to 10 percent of 1,000 p.m. peak trips is not a large amount oftraffic. ln the overall scheme ofthings, you're talking, you know, a very small amount of trips. You're not going to notice a difference on 20 to 30 trips, but from a percentage basis, it looks big. But in the p.m. pealq 20 or 30 trips might not make a huge difference. COMMISSIONER FRYER: In addition to this picture that has the Orange Blossom in green, the other references in the AUIR to Orange Blossonq none ofthem that I see indicate that it is going to be deficient in the next five years. MS. SCOTT: It's not. It's not. This is - the wrdening ofthis is about building out our network, our urban network. We have developers that are coming in. We see that coming in, so we start working with them to make sure that we've set aside the proper amount ofright-of-way. The speaker made a very valid point about the intersection of Airport and Orange Blossom, and so these are things that wete looking at in advance and going ahead and - in this particular instance, if we make improvements to that intersection, it's such a small amount that would widen out, because we would make that intersection what an ultimate four-lane would be. And ifyou go over to Livingston, that is exactly what happened at Livingston. And so ifyou look at the difference ofwhat would remain to be four-lancd, that's why we just opted to go ahead and four-lane the remainder. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Next speaker? MR. BELLOWS: Richard Zelinka. MR. ZELINKA: My name is Richard Zelir*la. Ilive at2711 Citrus Lake Drive. My unit is directly across fiom the northem boundary ofthe Siena project. I have some general comments regarding the redesign and a very specific question and concem regarding health and safety. Regarding the - what is called an insubstantial change, if you compare the two plans, under the new ptan the buildings are boxier, they're interconnected, and the roof lines no longer have the softening at the comers that was -- that was created as a result of concems that were raised during the last round with the initial design, concems that were raised by myself and others at Lakeside. So we don't feel that this is cither an insubstantial design or an improvement. I would also note that I believe the gentleman said the heights have been reduced. If you look at the plans, as I'm reading them, the heights have not been reduced. The number oflevels have been reduced, meaning that the ceiling heights within the buildings have been reduced. But the tallest buildings were 60 feet tall, theyte high-rises, and they're still 60 feet lall, and I believe the buildings in the back are 47 -- on the north border are 47 feet tall, and they were originally that height. So there's no lowering of the building Page 14 of 77 January 18,2018 heights. This is a very, very dense development and, for the area, it really stands out like a sore thumb. So,just general, in my opinion and the opinion ofmany at Lakeside, these are not insubstantial changes, and this is not an improvement over the original plan. In fact, it -- from the perspective of the abutters, it is worse than the original plan. My health-and-safety concem concems sewage. We have a pumping station along Citrus Lake Drive immediately to the north of the boundary of this property. We had no electricity for nine days after Hurricane Irma. That pumping station was without electriciff for nine days. My understanding from the manager oft akeside is that Siena is going to tie into the sewer lines that run under Citrus Lake Drive. I don't know if this is kue or not, but if it is, I want to be - make sure that this is not going to have a deleterious effect on the sewage systems, because we had major problems. They had to come and pump because sewage was overflowing from that sewage pump station. Why that pump station was not -- went nine days without electricity is another issue. But, apparently, at lakeside, each community within the overall Lakeside development is on a different electric grid, and that pumping station is on the grid that got the electricity last or next to last. And then I had one other question because there's some confi:sion as a result of what was said at the various mectings. There appears to be about a S-foot no man's land between the fence, the chain - the existing chain link fence that's the southem boundary ofLakeside and the wall thals going to be the northem boundary of the Siena project. I'd like to know whether or not there are any plans to landscape beyond the wall that the Siena development is going to build because it's along their property line or whether that S-foot no man's land is going to be the responsibility of lakeside to maintain. Because right now everlthing past the chain link fence is being maintained by the current property owner ofthe Siena parcel. Thank you for your time. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Thank you. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Could we get some just quick responses to the last - well, just for me now. I mean, the biggest one to me offthe top was, could you please clarifo again the height of the buildings being now lower than it was before. MR. YOVANOVICH: What is happening is - and Mr. Fryer pointed this out. Heights are not being changed. The number ofstories are being changed. So instead of there being four stories over parking, the cap is tfuee stories over parking. Many hearings you hear people say, so I'm assuming what's happening is the ceiling heights are actually increasing to be more marketable. As you know, the types of heights ofccilings has changed for what peoplc want in their types of umts. So the number of floors is being - the number of livable residential floors is being reduced. The overall hcight ofthe building is not. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: It stays exactly the same as before? MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRYER: The actual height is exactly the same as before? MR. YOVANOVICH: The tippytop height that was there before, all the height numbers are the same. If we had increased the height, we would have been -- not been an unsubstantial charge. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I did hear that we've now - theyte now not as - I heard rhey were lowered. I understand the clarification now. But I think that's why there's a concem, because that's what I heard as well. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I kind of - I could see how you heard it that way. That's why I said, make sure you clariil it's thrce stories over parking. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So what is the actual? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, let me pull the table. The zoned height for a four -- or three-story over parking or a four-story building, same thing, remains at 53 feet zoned and 60 feet actual. okay. That's that question. I don't know if there's any more public speakers. MR. BELLOWS: We have one more public speaker. Page 15 of77 January 18,2018 MR. YOVANOVICH: Then I can wait or I can do it now. Whatever you prefer. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Stormwater? MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Well, Iet me go tbrough what has been said so far, then - let me work my way backwards. Regarding sewer, we are not connecting to Lakeside's sewcr, and our sewer will actually be connected to a Benerator should we ever lose power because, you know, the regulations that occur for continuing care retiremenl communities in the wake of Irma, okay. So we will have no impact on thcir sewer system or their lift station. Watcr management -- as you all know, and we try to educate people during the NIMs - we go tfuough the South Flonda Water Management District for them to review and permit the impact in a very simple way. We're not allowed to negatively impact their community, and we go tfuough a permitting process to make sure we don't have our water negatively impact their community. There are engineers in the room that can grve you all the engineering calculations as to why and how we achieve that, but the permitting process addresses the watcr management issues. What I failed to mention and frankly, I had forgotten, is there is an agreement that is in place by various dcvelopcrs to fund the intersection improvements at Orange Blossom and Airport Road, and wc will be contributing towards those improvements pursuant to that agreement. So there's an abovc-and-beyond impact fee payment, ifyou will, from this project to address traffrc concems. It'sjust not this project. It's other projects in the area. Avery Square, some of you were around. That's the old Buckley PUD, and the old Buckley PUD actually was amended to reduce the number of residential and commercial that could happen on the property and resulted in a reduction of overall faffi c when Pulte purchased Avery Square and started it. But that project was approved many, many years ago and was recently amended to reduce the ovcrall intensiry of that project. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Richard, youte not telling mc that traffic has gone down, though, since Avery Square on Airport Road? MR. YOVANOVICH: No, that's not - what I'm saying is it was impLied that Avery Square was reccntly approved and is confibuting to the hamc impact. What I'm saying is that was also approved at a greater density and actually came in and reduced the density based upon current market conditions. And all we're doing is adjusting what's already approved from an intensity standpoint of our project to address the market for a lot ofpeople in this room and me soon to be in that category ofindividual that hopefutly will live long enough to live in an independent living facility. But it's a need. There's no question it's a need, and we're just addressing some of the market conditions and the need for, basically, 15 more independent living umts. And I thint as we all know, independent living units generate very little tra{fic compared to regular residential because we're requred to provide, you know, community-related transportation. We provide a lot -- food service on campus. We provide wellness facilities on campus. We do a lot of things for people to stay. I'm not going to tell you people aren't going to bring their cars, because it's tough for people to givc up their car, but I will tell you over time the use of that vehicle gets reduced tremendously, and we end up having, you know, a lot ofvehicles that are just sitting there. So the traffic generated from this t)?e ofproject is a reduction fiom what a residential community could be at the approved densities. So I do believe - and I understand the community's concem, but we went through this discussion and debate the first time regarding the intensity ofthe project and, you know, we are -- we do bclieve that this new master plan with the bigger lake and the view corridor is a better plan. And, frnally, answering the landscaping questions, there will be landscaping on the Lakeside side of the wall. That's required by code and consistent with the buffers we're proposing. So that answers the first two speakers. I'll wait titl the third speaker and see ifthere's any additional things I'd like to address. COMMISSIONER CHMANOWSKI: Could I put in a plug for something right now? VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Sure. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: To answer one of your concems, within 48 hours aftcr you lose power, all of your pipes, manholes, and lift stations fill with water, and water starts bubbling out the Page 16 of 77 January 18,2018 lowest manhole, which is usually the one nearest the catch basin, and goes into your lake. That's within 48 houn, depending on percentage of occupancy. For less than S'100 a unit - there's 380 units, almost 400 in Lakeside. Forlessthan$l00aunit--we have two lift stations. We could have a Generac emergency generator installed at both lift stations, but there didn't seem to be any interest in pursuing that. That's the only way to stop the sewage from bubbling out if we flush after a power failure, after 48 hours. So, you know, you can talk over that with your homeowners association, and maybe you'll have better luck than I did. Thanks. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Okay. The next speaker? MR. BELLOWS: The last speaker is Lee Lieser. MR. LIESER: Good moming. My name is Lee Lieser. I am a -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm sorry. Would you say your name again. MR. LIESER: Lieser. I'm a resident of Lakeside. My concem is the connection gate going into Lakeside. Now, my understanding is that you've got a preliminary approval from Hazelet to put that gate in; is that correct? MR. YOVANOVICH: All I know is we've had discussions with the lakeside community, and my understanding is the Lakeside community wants to put a gate in, and we will allow for that to occur because we committcd to that originally as part of the PUD. MR. LIESER: As an exit or just both ways? MR. YOVANOVICH: As far as I understand the community - we have to provide €nough for it to be both ways, and if you-all elect it to be one way, I don't know. But weYe providing sufficiant right-of-way for it to be in and out, and you-all will have the ability to gate it for in and out. MR. LIESER: Which is the way you guys put it on when you had that meeting at the Hilton, which is -- because it's a concem, Orange Blossom, which we've already discussed how many times - you know, differurt ways here. When you're adding 400-some doors, you know, and if they're going to use Lakeside as an exit because Orange Blossom, 2022, maybe not done till 2024. MR. YOVANOVICH: Unless you're giving us clickers or whatever you need for us to go tlrough there, we won't have the ability to go through yow gate. I mean, it's not intended to serve us in any way, and I believe that your association is protected against our community using your community as an exit point. So this is purely for your community to have its ability to have that second exit out in case something .- you could use it regardless ofwhether the first side is blocked, but there were concems. I mean, most ofus in the room were around when that accident happened, and it was truly unfortunate, and this is a betterment for the community. I can understand why the comty required it. MR. LIESER: Okay. This is what I need clarification on, because it's been rumored different things, and Hazelet isn't exactly telling it like it is sometimes. And we're trying to get involved with Lakeside much more with the management, and we have a major concern with that. That's my only question here. So thank you for your time. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Thank you. Is that it for the speakers? (No response.) VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Questions? COMMISSIONER EBERT: fuch, I have a question. In here at one of the NIM meetings, you say the - it is a new developer; is that correct? MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER EBERT: From the original PUD, this is a new developer who has come in to buy this. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yep. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And youte saying the average square footage on these units are 1,400 square feet? MR. YOVANOVICH: Did I say that at the first NIM? COMMISSIONEREBERT: Well, it's - Page 17 of 77 January 18,2018 MR. YOVANOVICH: I know when you say "you" - I went to the first NIM. I missed the second NIM, so I don't remember. COMMISSIONER EBERT: It's in one of the NIMs. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's approximately correct, about 1,400; average, yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. So approximately 1,400 sqrure feet per unit. Okay. Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: Averages. Let's make sure the record's clear. Average square feet. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Anybody else? Anything else? Nothing? (No response.) MR. YOVANOVICH: We don't have anything additional. I mean, I think we addressed all the comments from the community that we wanted to address. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'll move approval of both resolutions, the resolution of recommendation and the resolution of insubstantial amendment. COMMISSIONER EBERT: We have to do them separately. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Okay. Well, I think we should probably do them separate just for - COMMISSIONER FRYER: All right. I'11 start with the insubstantial. That will be my motion. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I second. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Any discussion? (No response.) VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: All those in favor, sigut by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. VICE-CHAIRHOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Opposed, like sign. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Opposed. MR. KIATZKOW: Do you have a reason? VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Is there a reason for that or -- COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I still have concems regarding traffic, et cetera, but, I mean, I think it passes without me voting yes, correct? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It would. It does, but -- VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: But there's a zoning problem that you think is -- COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I'm happy to talk to you guys off-line about that. I mean, to me I made my - MR. KLATZKOW: No, no. We're not talking off-line about something you voted for. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I've made - I'll just restate my comments and concems before based on - my biggest concem is traffic congestion. I understand - I appreciate Mike and them stepping up and giving us an update on the timeline of the proposed lane changes and widenings, which is so needed right now for that Orange Blossom between Livingston and Airport-Pulling that directly affects this community, potentially, and everybody else on that road in that area, so that's the core, to answer your question. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: The roads aren't failing, and they won't fail with this project. Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'll make another motion on the PUDA for approval. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I second. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Any discussion? (No response.) Page 18 of77 January 18, 2018 VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: All those in favor, sigrifr by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONEREBERT: Aye. VICE-CHAIRHOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: (No verbal response.) VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Opposed, like sign (No response.) VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Oh, okay. So you didn't oppose that one? MR. YOVANOVICH: Don't encourage him. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Okay. I'm just checking. MR. YOVANOVICH: All right. Thank you. VICE-CHAIR HOML{K: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I thinlq just to clarifi for Pahick on the record, the traffic is already vested based on the original mning, and there's no increase in traffic. The haffic - they're already vested for that density regardless. Sojust as a matter of understanding, the traffic - the project is already allowed the certain traffic. You don't see it there, but when the project's going to be built, they've already been allowed for that traffic impact. So the rezoning is just carrying over the same traffrc impact. So just so you understand. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: It's already approved. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It's already approved, yeah. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I understand. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Okay. I think we'll take a l5-minute break. (A briefrecess was had.) VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Okay. Everybody, hello. Would everybody sit down, please . Please be quiet. Okay. ***We're on Item 9C, and this is PDI-PL20170003546, Sabal Bay. Will everybody that wishes to speak on this item, please rise to be swom in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly swom and indicated in the affirmative.) VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Okay. Disclosures. Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I talked to Mr. Amold. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Same disclosure. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes, I spoke with Mr. Amold also. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: And I, too, spoke to Mr. Amold. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I spoke with Mr. Amold. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Nothing to report. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: He doesn't like you then. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Okay. We'll hear, again, fiom the petitioner, then the staffreport, and then we'll have the speakers. MR. ARNOLD: Thank yorl Madam Chair. Wayne Amold with Grady Minor & Associates. I'm here representing Continental Properties for this insubstantial change to the Sabal Bay PUD. And with me today from Continental Properties is Elizabeth Adler and Chris Moore. Do I need to speak louder or move the microphone closer? l'm not sure. I apologize for that. We also have David Hurst and Steve Sammonds who are with Peninsula Engineering and are working on the Site Development Plan. And we also have Norm Trebilcock fiom Trebilcock Consulting Solutions who's here ard part ofthe team and did some ofthe traffic analysis for the site plan. There was none required for this PDI, but he did work on the Site Development Plan. So wc're asking for what's considered an insubstantial change to the existing PI-ID to allow 15 percent ofthe units that Continental's proposing to construct, or 52 ofthose units, to be less than 700 quare Page 19 of 77 January 18, 2018 feet. That would allow them to build 551 square feet. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Could you talk a little slower. I think it might be her upper limit. MR. ARNOLD: I'll be more conscious of Terri's gping. I apologize for that. So we're proposing that 52 ofthese units within this single tract within the Sabal Bay PLrD could be 55 I square feet, so they would bc less than the current 700 square feet. And talked to the neighbors a couple of times about this, and we've also had some of the neighbors tour facilities that Continental has built in the Fort Myers area. And we have Continental here, and Elizabeth, I wanted her to maybe share with you a little bit about Continental Properties and talk a little bit more about the studio unit and why that's an important product line for them and how it's really, I think, been a good product for them. And I think you'll hopefully be persuadcd that this is a good change to make. So with that, I'11 let Elizabeth take over. MS. ADLER: Thank you, Wayne. Again, for thc record, my name is Elizabeth Adler. I'm here on behalf of Continental Properties. So I just had a bnef presentation prepared for you just to tell you a little bit about Continental Properties, who we are, what we do, and then kind of narrow my focus a little on the proposal that we are setting forth in Collier County and then specifically why we are here in front ofyou today for the unsubstantial change for the studio decrease in size. So Contrnental Properties is a national multifamily hospitality and retail developer. We have been privately held since the business began 38 ycars ago. And the prqect that we are proposing with you today is our branded "Springs apartment community." So I have with me our portfolio map just to give you more ofa visual aid to show you that we arc certainly no strangers to Florida. This Springs brand, we have developed over 17,000 ofthese units in l7 different states across the country, specifically in Florida. As you can see, we have quite a presencc on the gulfside. The Spnngs branded community which we are proposing in Collier County is what we take a lot of pride in building. We develop, own, and operate these units. So while we take a lot of care in the flont end working with staffto entitle the project and bnng the project to the county, we also then construct it and then hold it and operate it on site. So we have an on-site maintenance and staff that's available for our residents. So our Springs communities are a gated community; it's a two-story, tou'nhome style approach to apartment living. So it is - they are multifamily, all market rate, but we like to say that it's a townhome style approach because they're all direct access into their units from the ground level. And so what wc are proposing in Collier County for the Springs at Sabal Bay is 340 multifamily umts and specifically, more focrsed in on why we are - what we'd like to discuss with you today is the request to decrease the size ofour shrdio units. So this change would only impact 15 percent of our proposed total unit count. And so we feel that this request - wc validate this request by a few different items, one of which is our studios -- we have seen extreme success in our portfolio. As I mentioned, we have built these all over the country. But spccific to Florida, we know that our studio units, in fact, ouperform any ofour other unit types all tkoughout our portfoliojust specific to Florida. Our residents typically are - the two demographics more specific to our studios is those that live in the units, they're emptoyed by either medical professional units - medical professional health care or some sort of management and professional business in that regard. So we have a lot of tenants. These are extremely popular units, just as (sic) the size as they are today. We provide this size unit all over the country, as I stated before. So those are - that'sjust a little bit ofbackground. I have some other facts that I don't really want tojust spit at you, and I'm happy to answer any questions regarding specifics to the studio units. I know Wayne wanted to discuss a little further our engagement with the neighbor, so I'm going to hand it back over to hinl and then we'll open up for questions. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Could you define "outperform"? Page 20 ol77 January 18, 201 8 MS. ADLER: Sure. So in our portfolio the studios outperlorm both rent per square foot as well as they're the highest occupied units compared to the one-, two-, and three-bedroom units. MR. ARNOLD: Did that answer your questions, Mr. Chrzanowski? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah, kind of; close. MR. ARNOLD: Okay. Well, we're here. If you want to get further clarification, we'll try to do that for you. So thanks, Elizabeth. I just wanted to talk back. tn addition to our required neighborhood information meeting that was fairly well attended, recently the neighbors reached out to Contine-ntal and requested more ofa town hall style meeting with residents oflsles of Collier Preserve, and that was conducted on Tuesday aftemoon of this week, I, unfortunately, couldn't be in attendancc. I was at another neighborhood information meeting. So Elizabeth and other folk from Continental were able to participate in that meeting with the residents. And I think part of the discussion that came up was we have talked about some ofthe things that were mentioned herc today, like the two-story product, the gated entry, things ofthat nature and, you know, the thought that those were commitments that were made and should be included in this PUD. So I guess what we're prepared to do is - if we can tie any ofthose types of cornrnitrnents directly to the Sitc Development Plan that they filed for this product, because they are a contract purchaser ofthis site from Collier Development Corporation. They are not the owner of the property. It wouldnt be fair to bind the owner with something that's specific to Continental's product. So a few ofthe things that have been mentioned that I think were seen as commitments that we were making would be a gated entry, having concrete roofs on the struchfes, limiting the product to two-story, providing a clubhouse with a pool, providing a dog park. Those were things that they had heard that were things that - we sat at the original neighborhood meeting. Those were frrther discussed with the neighbors. Staff and I discussed those that - whether or not those were firm commitments or simply describing the fact that Continental had a Site Development Plan under review when we held our neighborhood information meeting, but we're willing to cornrnit to those if we can tie those directly to the Site Development Plan that they have so that the project owner - if for some reason Continental doesn't close on this, that he's not bound with limrtations that otherwise wouldn't be in place for this property. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Dog park for whom? Just for this development or for the entire - MR. ARNOLD: No, I'm sorry. All the commitments are specific only to this 34-acre parcel within the Sabal Bay PUD. And the site plan -- we didn't really talk about the details of the sitc plan, but they have, obviously, a gated entry. They're going to have a leasing office in their clubhouse. It is going to have a pool. They provided in this plan two dog parks, for instance. They also have a car-care facility, which is a place you can go and vacuum, but it also has a place you can wash your dog, wtrich is kind ofunique and a neat feature. But I think that - to me it goes to the breadth ofpeople who may choose to live here. This has becomc a very well located part of town. It's, you know, l5 minutes fiom the beach. It allows, you know, potcntially a yomger professional or a single person who doesn't need the space to have a wellJocated, well-amenitized style of living. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: How are you going to keep the neighbors'dogs out of the dog park? MR. ARNOLD: Well, as proposed - one, it's a gated project, so it's specific to the tenants that would live here, and I don't believe that they open the gates to the general public other than you get to the leasing oflice, and then the project's gated beyond that. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: So it's like total access control everJrwhere? You can't just walk through anyvhere? MR. ARNOLD: No. It's proposed to have - right now there's fencing that's proposed along both the roadways and along - well, all the roadways. We have three frontages. But I believe there's chain link style fencing that's along the top ofthis page where you see the green strip, and then there's a decorative aluminum fcncing that's proposed along Thomasson Drive. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Pretty good secunry. Page 2l of 17 January 18,2018 MR. ARNOLD: I think that that's part of what they're selling. It's security. And some of the other things that's unique to Continental that I was surprised at -- because thcy have the dog parks and they expect you to pick up and clean up after your dog. If you don't they DNA test your dog so they know whose dog it came from. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Good. MR. ARNOLD: They also do crimrnal background checks on all their tenants. And I don't know if Elizabeth mentioned that, but I thought that was also a very important aspect ofwhat they do. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But, Wayne, just to clariff, to make sure we don't stray fiom what's being requested, all this is is just a requcst to increase the square footage from -- reduce fiom 700 to 551? MR. ARNOLD: That would - COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It has nothing to do with the zorung or the development itself as far as approval of the development? It's simply just a request as stated? MR. ARNOLD: You're correct, Mr. Schmitt. If this proposed amcndment is not approved, Continental wtll likely still build the project. They would have to modif, their buildings to include more onc- and two-bedroom units without the studio. But fiom the outside of this building looking in, you wouldn't know the size of any of those units, which to me it's - it's a functional space. I toured a 551-square-foot unit for their prqect on Six Mile recently, and to me it was a very functional space. I've personally lived in apartrnents that I believe were smaller than that space. But, you know, it's a full studio unit. Walk up, you walk in fiom your door outside. You go into a living area. It's got a full kitchen. It has a partial wall that's your bedroom, typical. It has a bathroom, and then you also have a walk-in closet that has a washer and dryer in it. So, I mean, they're very fully fi:nctional space al 551 square feet. I know it sounds small to a lot of people, but for somebody who doesnt need the extra space, I mean, ifl could save a couple hundred buck and didnt really need the space, that's just that much more money I can spend in the community. So I think that's not a negativc in any way to have a certain number ofthese units to be smaller sized. We have a floor plan - I think it was in your backup material, but I can put it up on the visualizer if you'd likc to see what a shrdio floor plan looks like. That's an example ofthc floor plans, and there are two floor plans. One's a gtound-floor unit and one's a second-story unit. So you can see the one with a stairwell coming up; reflects what it looks likc. But to me that's huly functional space when you're probably a single individual living there. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But the market this is geared towards, then, is not really a low-income type of market. It's a young professional or I think what we like to call in Collier County kind of the gap housing, so to speak; the student - the teacher, the firemen or whatever; that young professional who nccds a place to live and still be able to not have to commute from Lee County or elsewhere to come down here. But it is not something that's targeted as a low income or -- MR. ARNOLD: Oh, absolutely not. This is nota low income. It's fully market rate. The rental rates are surprisingly high to me as a person who hasn't been in the rental market for a long time. But to me it seems like still it's a higher rental rate, but there's a large demand for rentals in our commulity, and I think allowing a studio unit, like I said it gives a younger professional or even an older single person or even -- if somebody wanted to have an annual lease and only come down here seasonally, you're l5 minutes from the beach in this location. It makes a lot of sense. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But part of the process for the approval, criminal chech financial check to ensure people meet requirements to make the monthly payments? MS. ADLER: Corrcct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And it is a rental -- short-term rental, too? You stated : MR. ARNOLD: Let me clarifu one thing that I forgot. There was some -- it's not misinformation, but the PUD the way it's structured, multifamily appears under a column that also includes timeshares. This in no way affects the timeshare reference. This is only for the multifamily apartments. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. And the - MR. ARNOLD: And you asked about the rentals. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- rentals. Page 22 of 77 January 18, 20'18 MR. ARNOLD: And I'll tet Elizabeth mention that, but they do offer a variety of rental. MS. ADLER: We do offer three-, six-, nine-, and l2-month leases. The three-month leases we see more commonly with business - local businesses in the area who maybe are training in new employees that need a place for them to stay, but more commonly we have * typically we see -- because we are -- we maintain this and we're on site all the time, we typically see the rents or, excuse me, the leases -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The reason I ask is because we do have an ordinance to prohibit the rent -- the people rcnt trying to avoid bed tax and do it tt -ugh -- MS. ADLER: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: - Airbnb and some of the others. MS. ADLER: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You have a management office on site that would control that, meaning I couldn't buy three ofthese units and start renting thern weekly? MS. ADLER: No. Correct; you could not. No. COMMISSIONER SCHMIfi: Okay. MR. KLATZKOW: I sat through a meeting that you just held this week, and my recollection of the meting was you'rejust going to do annual leases. You were not going to be doing tkee-month leases or six-month leascs. Wlat is it that youte doing? MS. ADLER: We offer both annual leases, and then we would offer three-, six-, and nine-month as well. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, lll let the residents who were at that meeting speak on this, but that's not my recollection of what you told the community. MS. ADLER: Well, to clariff that, then - so the way the - and I'm not sure exactly how that was conveyed, but the rents, then - the shorter term rents are more expensive. So by offering a shorter lease term, then we increase the rent, which would then ultimately be comparable to the -- an annual lease as well. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: What's the LDC allow, four times a year, if I'm not mistaken, for rental - if a rental - MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. There was some -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: - otherwise you trigger the bed tax. I just want to make sure. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. My undentanding, it's - COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'd have to look it up. MR. BELLOWS: -- almost a six-month -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: lt's six months. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Is it six months? COMMISSIONER EBERT: As far as I know it's six months. Anything less you pay the bed tax on. MS. ADLER: Okay. Well, this is certainly something we will abide by, and we will make sure that our lease terms are to code and to standard. We would not plan on deviating from code. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have a number of questions. Did you want to finish your presentation fint or - okay. MS. ADLER: I'm going to hand it offto Chris Moore for a moment. He's from Contincnial Properties as well. MR. MOORE: Hi. For the record, Chris Moore, Continental Properties. I just wanted to add on a little bit about the last neighborhood meeting we had on Tuesday aftemoon. Some of the things we discussed on top ofadding concrete roof tile venus asphalt shinglcs were on the site plan. We currently have an emergency access point that lines up with Saba (phonetic) Drivc, and the residents asked if we could look to relocate to Cardinal Way. And we're willing to do that as long as it's cleared with the county fire marshal. They also made it clear that within the PUD that we're a part of that there's a requirement for an opaque wall along public streets, and which we're willing to abide by a wall to county standards to match what they have across the sheet to have the same effect of Thomasson Drive on both sides ofthe street. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Would you say that again. MR. MOORE: So along Thomasson Drive, we right now are proposing a five-foot decorative fence. Page 23 of 77 January 18, 2018 It looks like a - COMMISSIONER FRYER: Metal - metal fence? MR. MOORE: - wrought iron looking fence. And the residents, per the PUD, were required to put an opaque fence there and not a decorative fence. And so that was one ofthe things that came up on Tuesday that many ofthe residents were adamant, and so we don't want to shrt that responsibility at all if it was included in the PUD, which they pointed it out it was. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So you're going to use an opaque fence? MR. MOORE: Correct, just on Thomasson Drive. But it will be fenced all the way around thc site with our normal fencing. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. MR. MOORE: And I also wanted to - I think that hits the majority of the points with the homeowners, but they also wanted to kind of break out the percentage of the units at 550 square feet, because it's 15 percent total, but 8 percent of those arc at 660 square feet, and then the remaining are 551, so it's not l5 at 551. And they wanted us to try to break that in our - I think either this application or the land development plan so if someone else comes in, they couldn't change some of the larger units into smaller units. And I just wanted to clarifi]: Walme made a comment that we'd proceed widrout this. That's not totally true. This is our - I don't want to use the word "prototype." This is what we've built across the country very successfully, and that's why we're here, you know, asking for this - what we feel is an insubstantial deviation. Ifit isn't grven to us, wele going to have to re-evaluate ifwe want to come into an area without our -- what we feel is our strongest product moving forward. Thank you. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: So you will put a concrete wall on Thomasson to match the other side? MR. MOORE: I don't know if it will be concrete, but it has to have a simrlar look to across the street, because what they did is they used some precast panels that slipped through some pillars. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Okay. MR. MOORE: And then it's kind of stuccoed. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: So it's going to blend in. It's not going to be the gate that you can see through to see the parking? MR. MOORE: We're still going to have our gated enFance, but on Thomasson - VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: I mean, to me that fence looks like a gate. MR. MOORE: Yeah, it's a see-through - VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: See through, and you can see all the cars with the - MR. MOORE: tught, and our - VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: - trucks, ladders. MR. MOORE: -- intention was to landscape - we have a 20-foot landscape buffer there, so we originally were proposing the decorative fencing and heary landscaphg to block those vehicles so that -. VICE-CFIAIR HOMIAK: So you have no -- you rent to anyone with commercial vehicles and all of that -- MR. MOORE: We do - VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: - truck with signs and ladders and - (Multiple speakers speaking.) MR. MOORE: - continuously. If residents use their commercial vehicle as their personal, we're going to - I don't want to use the word "force." We're going to encourage them to get a detached garage to store that vehicle in, because we offer detached garages as well as, in selective units, attached garages where you can access and go right fiom the garage into your umt. So if we know that someone's going to be doing that, we're going to require them to rent one ofthose garages so it's not an eyesore for the rest of the comrnunity. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Okay. Thank you. MR. MOORE: Thants. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have a nrunber of questions. Page 24 of 71 January 18, 2018 VICE-CIIAIR HOMIAK: Okay. Go ahead. Sorry. COMMISSIONER FRYER: No, no problem. I had a very good conversation with Mr. Amold a couple of days ago, and I leamed a lot liom it, but I still have some remaining questions and issues that I'd like to be addressed. FiISt of all, I see that the - it's really almost like a variance to the zoning here. You're asking for smaller-sized units, but it wouldn't apply to the entire PUD; however, does it create a precedent that would then hang over our shoulders in the future if we grant it for you and don't grant it for others? And what is to prevent the entire MPUD from becoming a 550-square-foot enclave ofrental dwellings? I'm looking for uniqueness so that we couldjustiry it when, down the road, others ask for it, and I'm not surc I'm hearing sufficient uniqueness. At least - you know, for instance, there was a lady by the name of Ms. Meurer (phonetic) who spoke at the NIM, and I think she very succinctly summarized the concems that I have and that, perhaps, others have, and together they don't add up to what I would call unique. And it seems to me that if we were to appmve this, we're setting a precedent for ourselves that would be very hard to argue against other developen coming in and saying, well, we're also entitled to 550 square feet. And all of a sudden you have then reduced the zoning. So I find that a point ofreal concern. And also, I understand that you're leading with good intentions, and I appreciate that, intentions to police things to asswe, with credit checks and background check and the like, who's moving in, but I worry about covert subleases. And I'm not sure that you have, at least to my satisfaction, outlined suflicient protcctions and guarantces against there being covert subleases. You know, particularly ifyouVe got, say, a three-month lease or a six-month lease and the lessec then subleases to someone else and gives that person the key fob to get in, you're really not going to be able to police that, I don't think; are you? That's a rhetorical question. But nonetheless you can answer it. Also the traffic situation is of concem to me. And I see some reference in the materials that a TIS was done. I wonder - I didn't see the - I didn't see the results ofthat in here, though. Could you either point me to where that is or tell me what the conclusions wcre ofhow much additional traffic would be brought about by - that you project. MR. ARNOLD: Mr. Fryer, if we could have Norm Trebilcock come and answer that question. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Of course. MR. ARNOLD: The reality is, wete not asking for any additional units in the Sabal Bay PUD. COMMISSIONER FRYER: No, I understand. MR. ARNOLD: These units were already authorized and approved. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I understand. But you are asking for something, and we're in thc business ofseeing if we can achieve win-win solutions. MR. ARNOLD: Understood. We'lI have Norm try to answer your question. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. MR. TREBILCOCK: Good moming. Thank you. For the record, my name is Norman Trebilcock. I'm a certified planner and professional cngineer, and my firm prepared the TraIfic Impact Statement for the project for the Site Development Plan appmval. Before you -- you wouldn't have an Traffic Irnpact Statement for what's being requested here because the haffic's actually vested here with this DRI, so it's already a vested DRI. So the units that are being requested are already incorporated in the system. COMMISSIONER FRYER: It's vested based upon the cunent conditions and restrictions that exist at the time, and now you're asking for a change in those conditions. To me it seems that, at least logically, it should open it up lor a full discussion. MR. TREBILCOCK: Except fiom a traffrc standpoint, it wouldn't have an impact there because it's already vested for multifamily{ype units already, so this would. In particular - COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, let me ask my question specifically. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir; uh-huh. COMMISSIONER FRYER: How much additional traffic will be brought about bythis development in comparison not to the conditions of several years ago but in comparison to present conditions? Page 25 of 77 January 18, 2018 MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. Just to -- what I can do is relate to you, you know, there is no net impact fiom a zoning, a site development, or anlhing because it is already a vested devclopment, but in terms ofjust - so you get an understanding -- no, no, I understand. No, but what I can do is help you with understanding what the traffic impact - COMMISSIONER FRYER: You could help me a lot by just answering my question - MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: - which is, how much will the traflic increase over present conditions? MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. So the development will generate in the p.m. peak hour 205 p.m. peak trips two way: 133 entenng and 72 €xiting trips. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's an increase over present conditions? MR. TREBILCOCK: Over physical present conditions, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's what I wanted to know. Thank you. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yep, you're welcome. There is no level-of-service problem for that roadway, and there wouldn't be projected to be with the addition ofthis project as well. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Thark you. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's the only traffic question I had, but I do have some others. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thark you. I see that back in 2012 the Board of County Commissioners decided to remove the affordable housing requirement for that property. And I certainly was not around then or at least paying close attention, but I expect that was because, in its wisdorn, the BCC decided that there has already been su{ficient low-income housing. There's Habitat for Humanity down there, et cetera - and an eamest wish on the part of the BCC to do everything it can to improve the situation, to restore it, to enable the property values to continue to rise for the people who have vested in that area. And having said that, I find it difficult to imagine who the occupants ofa 55O-square-foot unit would be that would fall into the category ofpeople who might arguably improve the financial conditions ofan area where the school -- where Avalon school has 93 percent economically disadvantaged students. So you can respond, but let me get through my list here, ifI can. You've answered the fence question I had, and I've mentioned the subleasing and Airbnb, and I think that's very difficult to police, and I think that the smaller units will invite that kind ofoccupancy. And I guess that's the sum and substance ofmy concems. MR. ARNOLD: If I might try to respond. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yep. MR. ARNOLD: With regard to the affordable housing commitment that was removed in 2012, the County Commission several years ago now had a policy where they were asking for voluntary donations of dollars per unit or dollars per square foot. The county dccided that that was a policy they no longer wanted to seelq and they were allowing all developers who had that commitment in their PUD to have it removed. So it had nothing specifically to do, I think - and, again, this is not an affordable housing project. This is a true market-ratc rental community. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I understand. But certain things are beyond your practical control. And I appreciate that it is - that it's market based, but I'm just concemed that it could tum into something clse because it's nearly impossible to police at the level that you would need to police it at. MR. ARNOLD: With all due respect, I think that could be said for any of the units if that's the case. I mean, that could apply to any rental - COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, the smaller it gets, I think the more likely you're going to have transient t)?e occupancies based on what I would call covert subleases. If I were in that are4 I would be concemed about that, and I - and, certainly, I mean, you do background checks, you do financial chccks. All ofthat is good, but those are checks on the main lessee. And who ultimately occupies, Ijust think, is a real uncertaintv. Page 26 of 77 January 18, 201 8 And it takes me back to my main point, and then I'll stop talking here. But my main point is is that are we setting up a precedent that is going to ultimately devolve to the entire PUD being 551 square feet? And what is so unique about this property and this project that can't be brought up by other developers down the road? MR. ARNOLD: Well, Mr. Fryer, any devcloper can propose anything. The LDC right now allows a shrdio unit to be 450 square feet. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I understand, outside the PUD. MR. ARNOLD: So thrs isn't a precedent - well, this PUD was set up with a 700-square-foot minimum many, many years ago. And I would tell you that the market has changed. People are downsizing. There's a reason that Continental underctands that there's a broad speckum ofpeople who choose to rent, and it's not necessarily about income. It's about your lifestyle and the size you need. MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. ln answer to your question, all right, unless you can find special circumstances here, I don't know how you're going to deny other people asking for a similar relief. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's my concem. MR. ARNOLD: But, Mr. Klatzkow, I would say that I think there are some uniquenesses to this project with respect to it's not the entire - MR. KLATZKOW: You're asking for a studio apartment in a rental unit. MR. ARNOLD: That's conect. MR. KLATZKOW: What's unique about that? MR. ARNOLD: Well, I'm not saying there's anything unique about that, but I'm saying that with regard to the size, I think we've demonstrated that it's, one, functional and, two, it's pad ofa larger portfolio of what Continental does that demonstrates that it's a satisfactory-size unit. I don't find there to be, as a professional planner, anlthrng incompatible about what we're asking. MR. KLATZKOW: No. The question is whether or not the county's going to, as a matter of course, allow this in future developments or developments coming back asking for a similar reduction. MR. ARNOLD: I think you may hnd, Mr. Klatzkow, that other applicants will be asking for not only this size but smaller, and I think it's going to be a key to your redevelopment area. So I think this issue's going to be coming before you. And, again, as I said, to me the precedent is 450 square feet for a studio mit is already an acceptable standard in Collier County. This isn't something unique and new. And where the 700 square feet camc from, you might as well snatch it out of the air. There's nothing magic about that number. MR. KIATZKOW: No, there's nothing magic about the number. When this PUD frst came to the Board and cverybody's looking at compatibility and all tle other issues, that's part of it, okay. So after the fact; after the fact ofthe PUD being approved, the new owner, or perspective new owner, wants a change, and that's fine. Everybody can ask for a change. The planning commissioner asked whether or not this could be precedential. I'm saying, unless you find special circumstances to this application, and I havent heard any, yes, it will be precedential. That's not a good thing; that's not a bad thing; itjust is. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Are you done? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I am. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a couple questrons. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Oh, go ahead. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I will wait to listen to the members of the audience, but I, too, have some concems about this. For one thing, you do put in here that you have short-term leases, thrce month or whatcvcr. That bothers me because that means that you're going to sit there and collect bed tax. And it also - you have 24 ofthe units at 551 and 28 at 660. When there was the 700-foot before -- and we are just coming off fiom a project that we just okayed before yours - I know it's different - but that's continuing care, and their average is 1,400 and you want to come in at 55 I ? And your maximum is 1,400 for a tkee-bedroom. To me - and youte in the hospitaliry business. That's like an extended-stay hotel, the short-term lease. Those are a couple things that do bother me on that. And I will wait and listen to what the people have to say, but I think that's - 551 is a little too small. Page 21 of 77 January 18, 2018 Thank you. VICE-CI{AIR HOMIAK: Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Do you have any demographics of your renters for the other sites that you have? You said you have one in Fort Myers? MS. ADLER: Yes, we do. Sure. So specific to our Flonda properties, demographics as far as income goes, the studio - the per capita studio income is about $47,000 a year. Wc have -- as I mentioned before, the two top employers are the -- those that are employed by the most are either medical or health care or some sort ofprofessional business management, so thosc are the two highest employers that we see in the demographics. And then -- so then spccific also to our Florida properties, our target demographic is the young professionals. It is the 20- to 34-year-olds that are in the studios more ofter1 and then we also have retired individuals rn our studios as well. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Do you have any market analysis that displays the demand for this type of product in the Naples area? MS. ADLER: We have done quite a thorough market analysis of the demand for a rental unit -- rental units in general in Collier County. Spccific to sh.Idios, it's a little difficult to pull the demand numbers just for individuals looking for a studio of a certain square footage. But we know that the population is growing in Collier County, and we have certainly done a lot ofresearch as far as the demand here for a rental unit lor young professionals. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Have you done a demographic study of East Naples? MS. ADLER: We have done a demographic study of East Naples, yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And your conclusion is is that this will - that these units will be attractivc to young professionals? MS. ADLER: Correct. The demographic study falls rn line with what we typically model in our business strategy intemally, and we feel that this is really a very ideal location and spot for potential future residents in the arca. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I don't mean to be putting a damper on - I'm sorry. Did I intemrpt? VICE-CHAIRHOMIAK: No. Co ahead. COMMISSIONER FRYER: - on entrepreneurialism and development and people who are willing to risk their capital in this fashion, but in a -- my concem comes from this point of view: We're being asked to go along with you on this business rislg and I have been struggling to identifu factors that would justiff the county investing in your vision, even though your vision may be entirely correct, and also points that would address the concems that were certainly expressed by the residents in the materials that we've seen already. And as a co-investor with you, Ijust don't - I dont feel as comfortable as I'd like to feel by reducing the square footage in a fashion for - I a$ce with tle County Attomey. I don't think there's sufficient uniqueness being shown here that would enable us to fend off arguments that we have set a precedent. So those are my concems. VICE-CIIAIRHOMIAK: Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, and I'11 follow-up on the - Wayne, you mentioned other potential projects, and I'm not asking you to name them, but I know we're in the vicinity ofthe Bayshore/Gateway are4 and I believe, if there are some,I don't know, proposals,I guess, or at least someone looking at the intent to build small studio-type developments in the Bayshore/Gateway "R" district area, is thrs - will these be of similar size, or do you know anything about that? MR. ARNOLD: I dont know details of those, Mr. Schmitt, but I have been told by staff members that work for the county that that is and has been discuss"O *,n *" 6R.A; that bringing in units smaller than these would be a component ofpart of redevelopment efforts. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I mean, one of the concems I have, of course, is we denied a project recently - and I won't get mto the details - but a lot of it had to do with redesign ofan existing approved affordable housing project. And in that development it was based on the size ofthe unit, but there were different circumstances. And I just - make sure that we all understand that we were hit with this thrcshold before. Page 28 of 77 January 18,2018 MR. ARNOLD: If I might address that, Mr. Schmitt. I think there is a distinction between this project and the one that you-all discussed previously, and that was, you know, originally approved as a partially affordable housing for-sale product, and there was an expectation that it was going to be owner occupied. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. MR. ARNOLD: And in this particular case, this property is not within the CRA boundary but, secondarily, there was no expectation that this would be multifamily or condominium. So I think there are distinguishing factors there and of course, this is not affordable housing. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, I look at it fiom the standpoint as a senior citizen who lived in a 40o-square-foot Lrnit in Afghanistan for a year, it's - of coune, my wife wasnt with me. I was - so it - 400 square feet was a luxury. [n fact, Iwastheboss, and Ihadtwiceas much room as everybody else, so... Anyvays, it's - I'll wait to hear from the public. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I was going to bring up that project that Joe mentioned. And I guess we cant mention the name? COMMISSIONER FRYER: You can. MR. KIATZKOW: Sure, you can. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Serus Point, half mile to the east - half mile to the west. That's the project we're talkrng about, right? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER CHMANOWSKI: And I remember being one of the people opposed, but I've been talking to people - I didn't disclose I talked to Commissioner Fiala during the break. Do I have to disclose that? MR. KLATZKOW: You just did. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I just did, okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You just did. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And is that a problem? MR. KLATZKOW: No. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The sheriffs coming to take you away right now. You're in houblc. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Yep. Youte done. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: So, anyway, I dont want to get in any trouble here. You know, because I thought I would feel a little hypocritical being opposed to Serus Point and approving this project. And, you lcrow, basically I'm kind of ambivalent in how I feel about this. But for l0 years up north - when I liyed up there I worked construction all over the northeast, and I would rent the smallest possible place for six months to two years, and youjust lived there and you work, and you don't do a whole lot of recreating in your own unit, you know. You find other things to do. And I can see that kind oflogic. Like, Joe, I guarantee you he didn't spend a lot of time in his place in Afghanistan. He was out. And there's a lot of people like that. You know, they go to the fitness center. They just sleep at home. And I think there might be a need for it. And like you brought up, this isn't ownership. This is rental. And it just seems fikethis is a:the more I think about it - I was opposed at first, and then - because I didn't want to seem hypocritical, and then kind ofambivalent. But the morc I think about it, themorel think this is a good idea. So,just- COMMISSIONER EBERT: We'll just wait. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Is that it? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Wait to hear from the public. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Can we have the staffnow; staff report, please. MR. FINN: For the record, I'm Tim Finn, principal planner. The project is compliant with the GMP and LDC; therefore, staffrecommends approval. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Okay. I just have a question. Maybe, Ray -- I don't know that weVe evcr -- and we struggle with it all the time we've ever gone below 700 square feet. MR. BELLOWS: Well, currently the [.and Development Code has the RMF12 and RMFI6 zoning Pasc 29 of 77 January 18,2018 districts, and the minimum floor area for those types of dwelling units are, for a two-bedroom it's 750 square feet, for one-bedroom it's 600 sqrnre feet, and for an efnciency it's 450. So somebody can build that today in Collier County under those zoning districts. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Is this in that zoning district? COMMISSIONER FRYER: How about apples to apples? In any other PUDs? MR. BELLOWS: I don't recall any offhand. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Because we try not to do them; that's why. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah, that's right. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Could we have the speakers? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. The first speaker is Gary Lubben. MR. LUBBEN: For the record, Gary Lubben. I'm a Florida resident living in ICP. I provided previous material prior to this meeting -- and the gist of that message was the preferred -- and I'm speaking for myself. I don't represent the community at large. I speak for myself. And the position I took is this change request should be denied. I thinh for the very reasons that Mr. Fryer is indicating, it would establish a precedent. Secondly, prior actions by this board have rejected similar such requests to downgrade the other areas. The third concem related to the inevitable increased density within the East Naples community that would result from any subsequent developer who would attempt to ty to build multifamily dwellings in this area. So while it doesn't change the density of this particular parcel, it changes, ultimately, the density of East Naples, which is already dense. And the last point I would make in terms of supporting that preferred course is the current owners or developers in the same MPUD, i.e., the Isles community, should be able to rely on the 2012 MPUD limits on minimum dwelling size, which was 700 square feet. And, lastly, this developer was well aware of the 70O-square-foot minimum at the time they entered into a purchase agreement. So there was no surprise, there was nothing new, as to what they were proposing to do. So I have a couple of additional comments. There was referenced a -- and, oh, by the way, I attended with Mr. Arnold and Ms. Fiala to visit the Six Mile Cypress facility, and I actually think we looked at a second-floor studio which, to my understanding, is the 660 square feet. I think numbers are a little bit different, but we did not tour the 525-square-foot property that I believe Commissioner Fiala wanted to see. We saw a second-floor facility, which is larger, modestly, than the 525. So Commissioner Taylor was nice enough to arrange a stakeholder input session. It's not a NIM. It was rather a community town hall meeting which tookplace last Tuesday, this past Tuesday. It included over -- Commissioners Taylor and Fiala, although Commissioner Fiala did not have an official role. She was just there to listen. Mr. Bellows attended, the county attomey attended, representatives from Continental attended, and nearly 200 participants of the ICP community attended, an alarming or surprising participation, which shows the level of interest that this community has on this particular project. And I'm going to summarize kind of the messages that came out from an hour-and-a-half long discussion. First, as proposed, the Springs property does not ensure a high and consistent level of quality with other residential properties within the MPUD, specifically highlighted as a condition within the MPUD, and the community I'm referencing is obviously Isles community. A matching perimeter wall and exterior vegetation, a streetscape, along Thomasson Drive consistent with the Isles wall is needed. Third point, clarification ofthe change request is needed to avoid an unintended precedent ofup to l5 percent of the dwellings being 551 square feet. The applicant is requesting 24 at 551and 28 at 660. Adjacent properties - you know, so we -- minimunr, changing the request should read,1 percent or 25 dwellings, whichever's less, because that's what theyte asking for. They're not asking for 15 percent. And the concern is if you grant that unintended consequence, the next developer will say, l5 percent of my units will now be 551, which we think would be rn error. Page 30 of 77 January 18,2018 Fourth point, the emergency exit across the Sabal Drive should be moved from Thomas (sic) Drive to Cardinal Way. Just for the benefit of the council, that exit off of Sabal Drive is the only safe way to go north on 4l or to go to downtown Naples. If you wish to go north on 4l offof the main exit, you're taking your life in your hands. It's extremely dangerous and a very populated roadway, especially in season. Next point. The building's placement on the parcel should be shifted toward Thomasson Lane to the north to afford greater separation from Isles homes that face Thomasson Drive and adjacent property owners have privacy concems with second-floor Springs apartments that could easily look over that wall that is on the northem boundary of the Isles property and look into those neighbors. That was a concem raised. Next point. Density standards of tenant apartments, two individuals per bedroom, need to be strictly enforced to avoid high density numbers ofresidents within the Springs project. Next point. Thomasson Drive median landscaping should be addressed as part ofany Spnngs proJcct. Next point. Integration and coordination with the CRA initiatives by the county is vitally needed. And, lastly, increased traffic along Thomasson Drive is an emerging crisis, and h-affic planning integrating all the planned development along the Thomasson Drive by the county is urgently needed. I would remind you, the Isles community is one-third full. It's built for 1,650 doors. There's less than 500 today. Take into account that, plus the Springs development, plus three additional parcels that are being devcloped or proposed to be developed on the comer of Bayshore and Thomasson Drive and the school board having placed a reserve for a junior high school. The traflic requirements that we could see in the not too distant future will be immense, and it's difficult to go westerly on Thomasson Drive today with none ofthose projects completed. So I want to give credit to the Contrnental, because I think they came, I think we had a respectful exchange, and they try - I think they are trying to be good partnen. And so what they have offered, Mr. Taylor rcferenced some ofit -- or, excuse me. Mr. Moore refcrenced some of them. Continental is prepared to construct an eight-foot wall along Thomasson Drive consistent with the Isles wall and will review the specific designs, including landscape, with the Isles residents. That was what was pr€sented to us. Secondly, Continental is willing to move the emergency exit to Cardinal Way subject to fire marshal concrrrence. Third, Continental is willing to alter the change request language firther limiting the 551-square-foot dwelling minimum to 24 or 7 percent, whichever is less. Fourth, Continental is prepared to apply their impact fees toward Thomasson Drive median landscape improvements, which was an issue raised by the residents of ICP. And, lastly, Continental is prepared to pursue project layout changes to shift the buildings away fiom Thomasson Drive and toward Thomasson Lane. So what's a potential path forward? Now, again, I repeat what I said at the outset. I think the clear preference that I would have is to reject this change request for the very reasons that you - many ofyou raised as to the establishment ofa precedent, the preexisting nahrc ofa 700-foot - square foot minimum, et cetera. But with that in mind, Continental's proposed concessions should be included as conditions if the planning board advances a positive recommendation. Secondly, Continental should be required to coordinate with the planning staffto redesign - I said "required" - to redesign their project layout toward Thomasson [.ane to increase the buffer along Thomasson Drive. Third, Continental should be required to meet the committed concessions resulting from the November 2017 NIM, which is essentially putting in concrete roofs similar to, in style, wh--at is already there with the ICP. . Fourth, Contincntal's impact fees should be redirected by the county to support median landscaping lmprovcments. Next. continental should ss lequircd to include lease tsrms expressly defining occupancy limitationson tenants, and no leases less than six months. Page 31 of77 January 18,2018 And, finally, and it's probably most important. It's not an issue necessarily for the developer, but I would direct it to the county. And the county should seek integration with the CRA initiatives and ensure careful traffic planning for the Thomasson Drive corridor in totality. Thank you very much. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Okay. (Applause.) VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Oh, please. No. You can't clap, please. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Sir, could you - question here. MR. LUBBEN: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I don't quite understand the realignment of the design. MR. LUBBEN: IfI can try to orient you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, on the visualizer down there. MR. LUBBEN: This is Thomasson Lane. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. MR. LUBBEN: This is Thomasson Drive. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. You want the focus of the design offof Thomasson Lane? MR. LUBBEN: No. Toward Thomasson Lane, away from Thomasson Drive. This is the Isles community. This is Thomasson Drive. This is Thomasson Lane. The discussion that we had with representatives from Continental, if there's a desire to move forward -- again, which we're saying I don't recommend that -- is move all this parcel north. That is a 15- or 20-foot buffer. You've got 600-and-some-odd cars in this complex, the predominance of which are going to be facing Thomasson Drive. And these are people's homes. Second-floor people or apartrnent dwellers are going to be looking right at this place. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Understand. So -- MR. LUBBEN: Does that explain your -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You basically want all those buildings coming off of Thomasson Lane and reduction in the number of units along Thomasson Drive? MR. LUBBEN: Just shifted, moved northward. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That would result in reducing the size of the lake then? MR. LUBBEN: Not necessarily. This is a 75-foot buffer, I believe. You'd have to ask the developer. This is a -- and it has an easement for a pump station improvement over time. But in the discussions that we had with their representatives, they felt that that was something they could do. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. I have a second question, followup, though, with staffon your request regarding impact fees. That has nothing to do with this board or the Planning Commission or zoning. That is really a county -- a staffand Collier County commissioner issue of how they spend their money. MR. LUBBEN: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I don't know if we could even stipulate anything like that in a PUD. That is something, certainly from a budgeting perspective, the county commissioners can direct staff. But I'm not sure what you were asking of this board in regards to the impact fee issue' MR. LUBBEN: Sure. And that's just tikely my ignorance of where the responsibility for impact fee decisions are rendered. I'm only sharing with you that the feedback that I received from the developer was that they would be willing to use those fees in that manner and that heretofore the commissioner -- the BCC had told them that they could not. That's all I'm trying to convey. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, they really can't. I mean, the staff- Tiffany (sic), staff collects the impact fees, and the board then directs on where those impact fees are going to be utilized based on your planning. Go ahea{ Please.- frrfS. SCOTT: If I may, Trinity Scott, transportation planning' COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I said Tiffany' Trinity, sorry' MS. SCOTT: It's okay' I answer to both' Page 32 of 77 January 18, 201 8 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Trinity. MS. SCOTT: And Jeffs going to correct me if I'm wrong, but impact fees can only be utilized for capacity improvements. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. MS. SCOTT: They cannot be utilized - now, that being said, if there is a certain amount of landscaping within capacity improvements, so we're increasing the volume ofthe roadway, certainly those are included within our project costs. With regard to median landscaping and such, I believe the County Commission, with other projects, we're using ad valorem gcneral fund to fund our landscaping improvements. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Unless there was a develope/s cooperation agreement of some sort. MS. SCOTT: Agrcement, but that would not be rmpact fees. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: fught. Thank you for - I know that, but I just want to make sure the rest of the folks on the Board understand that. MR. LUBBEN: Did you have additional questions for me? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: NO. MR. LUBBEN: Okay. Thank you. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Next speaker? MR. BELLOWS: Patricia Young. MS. YOUNG: Thank you. Patricia Young. I'm also from the Isles of Collier Preserve, and I'd like to say that I agree with Mr. Lubben. And many of the things that I was going to say he has already said. But there are a few things that I've been hearing that sort ofpoint to the fact that this whole area that we're talking about here, the area where this PDU (sic) is going to be built all the way around to the CRA area. We are really compact and united because of our location. But I heard one ofthe gertlemen refer to this project that's being reviewed right now as being in the redevelopment area, but ifs not. Officially, the redevelopment area stops on Thomasson just at the Avalon school. So this is part of our dilemma. Here we are with these two communities. We've got the Isles of Collier Preserve and now this community that's being considered, which I have to say is very neighborhood friendly in that it's two stories high, and the changes that Continental has talked about being willing to make, the cement root the wall, the landscaping, moving the egress, are the things that we definitely need. That said, this whole - but the three-month rental is really a concem grven the area that this is in. Also someone mentioned that these three-month leases would be very nice because this community's near the beach. Well, we dont want to be a transient krnd of area. We already have quite an issue with housing where weVe got a lot ofpeoplc living there, and it's been mentioned already the school population is negatively impacted. And these two places, the Isles, again, and the Springs, we're trying to fill the gaps what we're trying - this is a neighborhood in transition, and I think that that's kind ofthe fi:amework we need to use as you review. I do have concems, too, ifthe county would change the 700-square-foot requirement and lower it because ofthe implications throughout the cotmty, notjust where we a-re. But given where we are, even more so. And I'd like to say also that this is not - this is a redevelopment area in pads, not what we're talking about right here. It is the emerging new more middle+lass area that's coming up, but it's also a tourist area. So Thomasson Drive is very unique. I mean, weVe got the East Naples Community Park with the pickleball toumament which attracts a lot of traffic and brings in a lot ofrevenue to the county, we've got the Botanical Gardens and, even the Bayview Park, because it's one ofthe very few boat launch parks in the county. So considering all that : I don't know what's going to happen here. We like what Continental is doing right now in terms oflistening to what the Isles thinls would be an improvement, but we are concemed about the traffic going to all these things, and we're - the issue with this particular community, the Springs, being rental, and someone brought up Serus Point, which was owlership, that's a whole other bag of worms, okay. And here we are, this is like a microcosm of I dont know what in this particular area. So it needs to be vicwed in that way. Page 33 of 77 January 18, 2018 East Naples, yes, has over 45 pcrcent of the rentals in the county, which just doesn't sound right, if nothing else. And maybe it doesn't firnction well either. But rentals may not be the issue. Here we're talking about three-month rentals. That's a whole other ballgame. So, anyway, I thank you for listening to me and to the other people from the Isles and other areas who arc concemed about this, and I hope that you will view this in a big way and maybe even -- I don't know who we just leamed is responsible for the roads, but we need to get that little section of Thomasson done. The CRA is going to come in and put theu beautiful streetscaping in almost down to the bay, and herc we've got about a half mrle left with two maybc very nice communities on either side of Thomasson. Weneedto get that done, and it will bring the tourists in, too. Thank you very much. VICE-CI{AIR HOMIAK: Thank you. (Applause.) VICE-CHAIRHOMIAK: Please. You can't clap, please. MR. BELLOWS: Marc Rosenberg. MR. ROSENBERG: Good moming. Marc Rosenberg, 6864 Bequia. That's in the Isles of Collier Preserve. You know, I came with a ton ofthings to say, and I've sent -- I sent the commissioners several mailings already, and it's all been said very well. So what I want to do with the few minutes I have is sort of talk about my experience, and I think the experience of other people. You know, when we moved to Naples, we could have moved anywhere, and we picked - a lot ofus picked East Naples or South Naples -- I'm not even sure which it is - when we moved to the Isles. And when you move to the Isles and you get the sales presentation, one ofthe things that is mentioned is the closeness of that community to the whole Bayshore redevelopment and the amenities that are being built there. I know that people who buy are - they talk about the Botanical Gardens, the Performing Arts Center that's coming, the pickleball toumament, all of the amenities that are coming down there, and you get a fccling when you buy down there that you're buyng into something very special. You're buying into, in some respect, to the future ofNaples, an area where Naples can grow and blossom and have all kinds of new opporturuties for people not only to worh but to experience the natural environmcnt, et cetera, also the Rookery and everything else that's located down there. And it was appealing to us, and we knew that we were buying into an area that was in change, that was being redeveloped. And with the Bayshore - with Bayshore Road and Thomasson, you have two entryways to a gold minc of amenities and opporhmities, and that appealed to us, and I think that appeals to everybody who moves into that area. And so when the Springs development came - project came along, we didnt see anlhing special about it. We didn't see it compatible with what was going on down there. What we saw was a project that was going to add -- and I believe many more numbers of cars than was expressed. Combining that with all of the other amenities that are either planned or being built and housing that a.re being built, we see a road that is going to get choked. We didn't want that. We wanted something that maintains the character of the area. Now, when we went back to the Springs people, Continental, and we told them of our concems, they have responded fairly positively in terms of landscaping and streetscaping and moving the egress, and we appreciate all of that. It shows that they are trying to be part of the community. But my point here - let's assume that they do everything they say; my point here is the same one that Ms. Young just expressed, is that this is a special road in Naples. It is not just a residential sheet. It is an entryway to an entire community of housing and amenities. And I would encourage you, despite the fact that you may not be able to say what should be done with the median and what should be done with the road itself, I would encourage you to advocate on behalfofwhat this area is supposed to be and finish the job that the CRA has started to landscape and make this the entryway into this community as special as the community says it wafts to be. lf you do that, then the Springs community will be more ofa part ofa broader plan, more comprehensive plan thanjust another apartment struchrre that's sitting out there that may or may not fit in with what you decide in the future. Page 34 of77 January 18, 2018 So the bottom line is, it's important that you look at the totality of Thomasson from its landscaping and streetscaping to its traffic capabilities to what is being proposed to put there and make sure that Springs and the next project and the project after that fits into a vision rhat you guys really want that community to be. And ifthat means working with the CRA or the 41 study or the Isles or anything else, so be it, but please don't take this as one-offprojects. Look at it completely, because when we moved there, when everyone clsc moved there, that's what we saw. We saw a future area that was going to be very special, and we had hoped and we still hope that the people in charge of planning it will view it in the same way. Thank you. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Thank you. Next? MR. BELLOWS: Sharon Grider. MS. GRIDER: So my name is Sharon Grider. I'm a resident of the Isles. The other day, on Tuesday, at a rather last minute, the developer changed everything around and accommodated a neighborhood meeting for us. And, like I say, did it very last minute. And in that meeting there were 200 people, and there were probably 200 people with 200 different opinions. But I think there was a good majority of them that were concemed about the consistency that this dcvelopment brought to the Isles of Collier Preserve and the standards required in the PUD. The developer heard that very loudly and has responded to everythhg we'vc asked for. So I find myself in really very kind ofa weird position almost supporting the developer on this one, because I look at it from my personal perspective. The issue here is really do we reduce the size of the square-foot requirement. You know, lhave a27 -year-old son, and he can't live in a small enough place. And it's not so much the cost ofthe rent. It's just that's what he wants. He doesnt want a lot ofbaggage, a lot ofstuff. For him, this would bc perfect. I've listened to the controls they put in place in terms ofthe kinds oftenants, and I think it probably is truly market rate. East Naples area needs to be pulled up, and the Isles of Collier hesewe, I thinlg has done a greatjob onihat. I think as long as this isn't affordable housing, Iow-income, however you want to call it, this is a value-add, and that's how I look at it. Is this a value-add to our East Naples community? And I think it is. And fiom my persp€ctive, again, who am I to say 551 square feet, 650 square feet, 700 square feet? It's not for me to decide. And if they think there's a market for that, go for it. So that's really all I want to say. I think it's a value-add for the area and, for that, I would probably support the variance request provided we get all the other things weVe talked about. Thanks. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: Susan - Suzanne Orschell. MS. ORSCHELL: Good moming. Good moming. My name is Suzanne Orschell. I'm a resident of East Naples, and I've been one since 1973. And I'mjust here as an interested - person who's interested about the future of East Naples. I think my first concem, again, is with the size of the studio. When I think about 551 square feet, I think that's about a 24-by-23-foot area. so that's basically - I'm five-foot, so that's kind of like five of me by five of me. That's small. I think that's small. So, again, I requestfully (sic) request that the Planning Commission not approve this as it will - I guess it potentially sets a precedence for future PUDs. So I don't think - I don't think we want to go down that road. Also, in regard to the lease, I was looking at some old minutes fiom the Planning Commission about Briarwood, which is the new development, the PUD, Radio and Livingston, and those folks said, we want to keep a year lease because in order to keep the apartments at a good quality, we want to come -- we don,t want to have to come in every three months, change carpet, paint. you know, we want to keep up the condition. I think it would be too expensive for them to tum over every three months. So those are my comrnents, and I thank you. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: Is there any more? Page 35 of 77 January 18,2018 COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ray? VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Are you reading something over there? MR. BELLOWS: Tom Despard, and the last speaker would be Gene. MR. DESPARD: Good moming. Not loud enough. Good moming. I'm a developer. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Your name again, sir. MR. DESPARD: Tom Despard. Excuse me. I live at the Isles. A seasonal resident right now, but more and more time spent herc. I'm a developer from up north, and I'm glad I'm not there now. I was glad thc developer had a meeting with the Isles, and I appreciate that. I think it's really cntical that the - that the houses and the parking be set back firther fiom Thomasson Drive. I think it's really, really important because they're just - they're just too close. It's all parkrng and houses. And I think Continental has agreed to at least look at that and get it back another l0 or 12 feet. Anlhrng we could get there I think would help everybody. As far as the square footage goes, I think we'd rather see seven than five, but being on the other side most ofthc timc as developer, if you have hadeoffs and you can get a better project through tradeoffs, I would do the fadeoffs. I mean, if you want to stick by the absolute letter ofthe law, then the developer may do the same thing. Even though they look like theyle cooperating with everythrng, if you can specifically - and we had alisthere. My neighbors have done a great job. With the tradeoffpossibilities, you're going to get a better project with the tradeofls than you are by the letter of the law. I can just tell you that as a developer. That's just the way ifs going to happen, trecause they've done their homework. They have other projects all over Florida, and they know what the market is. Now, as far as setting a precedent. Youte not setting a precedent. I want to make that very clear. Because every project is specific. And this project, ifyou get the tradeoffs you want, youcangotothe 551 square feet, okay. If down the road somebody says, well, I want 450 or I want 550 square feet, they're going to have to hade off, too, and you have the right, under zoning or whatever it is, to say no. But if somebody comes in with a project that says I want 550 square feet the same as this project, you have a right to negotiate open space, parks, contributions, and all that sort ofthing which, again, would make it a better project than not. So I appreciate the Planning Commission, and I appreciate the developer, and I especially appreciate my neighbors. Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: Gene Sudol, and then the last speaker would be Martin Strdsmore. MR. SUDOL: That was Gene. correct? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. MR. SUDOL: Sorry. I couldn't hear. My young age. Thank you for the opporh-nity to speak. I'm a resident of the Isles ofCollier. I'd like to bring that - my perception fiom that perspective ofbeing a resident, and also I work in the real estate industry in Naples general area for the last 14 years as a bank evaluator appraising properties and as well as selling and dealing with the buyers. So in a way I live in a community that you planned, and I also work in the industry in the communities that you plan. So my perspective - COMMISSIONER FRYER: Would you mind identiffing yourself, sir? MR. SUDOL: Ycs, I'm sorry. Gene Sudol, S-u-do-l. And the perspective I havc is kind o[, not globat, but it's pretty wide, knowing communities fiom Marco all the way up to I guess what we consider now Fort Myers or Estero. And the issue that I have with the developer's plan is not the idea or the concept; it's that the reduction of that space from 700 to 550 is sigrificant. Maybe to the general population for your own personal comfort it is not. ifyou can't afford it, obviously you look for a place to afford and live in; however, in the industry, it is not a good step to take.- And when i questioned the gentleman during the presentation, tell me why. Is there a mistake? Is Page 36 of 77 January 18,2018 there - there has to be some mitigating circumstance that they have to deal with to reduce the total square footage for the complex of about 3,000 square feet, because they're impacting only a certain number of them. And ifyou take that square footage that they're reducing away fiom thc 700, apparently they came up short. And that's all I had to say. I looked at their other two sites that they are currently - they're both Spnngs; one in Estero, thc other in Fort Myers. They're both near colleges. And, apparently, that seems to be their business model. It works very wcll. Now, you don't build a luxury apartment complex in a college. And I looked back at what their amenities are. When you compare the amenities that they're offering, the interior amenities: l.aminated floors. It is not a luxury community, and it is not a townhouse. It's a misrepresentation of that word. Townhouse -- and you'll see it in their advertising promotions -- is a two-story one owner over two floors. This is a flat, one owner or one renter, one tenant, over the other. Now, you can imagine having a tenant above you wrth lamrnated floors. Wooden floors are quite noisy. Laminated floors are obviously - it's a less expensive amenity. So I dont know if this is truly a luxury apartment. I think it's just a basic unit, which is fine if that's what their business model is and that's what they'd like to market. It is not compatible with our community. We love our community. We love Naples. In fact, the strongest point that I had, and working in the industry, is I said this is the most beautiful community that I havc seen. And I've seen them all. Not one. Not two. Right now we have 65 new ones, believe it or not, in our double county area. And I have a sense for what works and what is available. And I think that's important, because the Isles of Collier stands out. It's an award-winning community. I don't know if thrs community can stand up and rise to that - to that level. The other concem I have about the 550 square feet is when I asked the presenter about the occupancy code, he didn't know anlhing about it. When you had a presentation earlier from the individual responsiblc for the rental, they mentioned - or she mentioned three months. How could you not know the code in the community that you're investing millions of dollars in? It's very simple, our code. There's a letter presented by your Comty Attomey. There is no transient use allowed in our MPUD. How could you plan ahead and all ofa sudden come up with this explanation that you have to reduce that ordinance? It was put there to be consistent with the MPUD, and it's going to be a beautiful community. It's going to be an asset to South Naples, and I think in a way that that is my basic issue. The other is - and it's maybe not relevant to them, but the occupancy issue is a fire code. So if you amend that PUD, you are really changing that occupancy limit. And think about it. How many people will really live in that one-bedroom, 550? Ifyou look at the floor plan ofthe actual model - I looked at the one from Springs in Estero; it seems to me that they are moving the size of the living room. But, you know, there's no eating area in that studio. You have to eat at the counter. And if you reduce the size of the living room, you reduce the eating area to the stools under the kitchen bar. So it is a - to me, a significant reduction in space. The problcm I have is, who's going to monitor that one person? I mean, if they go ahead with it and say, okay, if you approve it, who's going to monitor that? You want to take some examples? Go to 701 on Bayshore. That is less than 700 square feet, and there's a lot ofcouples and a lot ofchildren. In fact, my daughter rents there, and thc unit next to her - I believe they're 550 square feet - there were seven people living in their; seven. Three children had to stay outside until after 10 because the adults were using their environment, and then they would bring in the sleepwear, and then seven people. The county reacted very well, the Code Department. Chris came in, did the investigation. He said it's almost impossible, as you know, to establish occupancy. You have to be there many hours to substantiate the charge. It's much easier to go to the manager, give them notice. They then file a complaint. It,s a lease violation. It's not a code violation. And then that manager has more power than the code enforcer, because they give thcm the eviction notice, 30 days.S it is a sigrificant rent; 12_ to 15,000 a year for a singleemployee be near $75,000 a year to afford that.S ay, hey, let's combine our assets, split the rent, and Page 37 ot 77 January 18,2018 you'll be in a violation mode. So think about that when you approve the reduction in size. So besides the compatibility issue, I think that is a very skong reason why I don't support the change trom 700. Stick with it. If they're not ready to develop that at that level, perhaps they have to find another place, but not Naples. And I think that's how you have control. That's why you're in planning. You plan our future, and going back is not planning. It's called correcting or making it -- an adjustrnent. Now, again, thanks for your time. I appreciate it much. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Gene, I have a question for you. You said you visited the one in Estero. Both -- and you're right, that is by the university. I can see tlose smaller units, and I can see shorter-term rentals up in Lee County only because of the college kids. So, you're right, they put a couple together, and ifthey meet the quarter, they do. So I understand that. This is not - we are not by a college here. This is completely different. The lease probably bothers me the most. And so you're saying these are just occupancy and then the smallness of these, that there's really no room to eat is what you said? MR. SUDOL: There is no eating area. Like we would - in our industry wc'd call it a -- not a kitchen, but breakfast area, or at least a space for a table. But look closely at that plan. The one that I saw up on the screen was from the 636, which is the larger ofthe undercoated units. Again, it makes sense for that model to work maybe in an industrial area, maybe in an area where they really have to reduce the size to make thc modcl work. Not in Naples. There's no reason to go under the code to do well in our county. We're a highly respected county. People understand our residential value. Why would you step backwards? That's my concem. I'm talking now fiom the perspective of an agent that works in valuations. There is an intangible called constancy in real estate, which is very simple. No one would buy a million dollar house next to a mobile home. They could both be -- I mean, the mobile home could be a bus at a million dollars. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Thank you. MR. SUDOL: The bottom line is they don't betong together. All right. Thank you again. MR. BELLOWS: And the last speaker, Martin Strasmore. MR. STRASMORE: Hi. Thank you. There's a last-minute series ofthoughts that came up from me listening to all of this. And I want to commend you, particularly Mr. Fryer, because you asked a lot ofquestions that are in our minds. I do live in the Isles as well, and I moved here two-and-a-half years ago from Connecticut. And I was always concemed -- we saw the same issue in Connecticut in terms of affordable housing. And when I look at the numbers here - I'm going to give you a lot ofdifferent pojnts. This is * it's not intended to be affordable housing, but it's not really affordable, because we were told on Tuesday what their criteria are, which is 30 percent income - their income had to cover -- you know, there's a 30 percent rule regarding how much you had to eam and the rent. And when you looked at the prices that they were talking about anythrng above a studio, it certainly put it out ofthe reach of, say, the policemen and tcachers in this area because I also went online and looked at what their salaries - average salaries were. So I don't know who they think the market is. Ard, in general, I have a concem about what Continental's real intentions are and whether we can trust thent honestly. Because I was reading between the lines fiom what I was listening. I don't know whcn this was originally approved. Was it 2012? Was that when it was originally approved? Okay. And it was clear at that time that the 700 square foot was the limitation. And now suddurly they come up with the 550, but they also made it very clear that that was their intention all along, because that's what they do in their portfolio. So I didn't quite understand why they wcnt with the 700 when their intention all along was to go for the 550. When they talk about they've done -- what'd they say - quite a fair market analysis, I don't trust it. I think they're going for something else. And also when they say, well, it would be more successful, I was listening to that and hearing it was dollars pcr square foot. They could get more money for this. Theyte in business, I understand, but that isn't what I ionstiiutc a, ,u""es.ful fo. u iommunity to increase the dollars per square foot by shnnking the Page 3E of77 January 18, 20i 8 amount of square feet. My daughter lives in an apartment in Washington and to her to go to - I disagree with what was said here about, well, peoplejust want smaller space, but this is - wele not talking about from smaller space to tiny space. Smaller space, yes; tiny space, no. Okay. So I have also very much a bigger concem which is that this area is an environmental opportunity. And the way that Isles is being developed has taken advantage of that. It's a beautiful space. The presen e has been preserved. We just had a walkabout there the other day. And I look at this and I look at this lake, which means that they're going to iake away a lot of trees. I mean, how do you create this lake? You're going to actually cut down a lot of forest. Why? And especially since wete saying that these are people who are hardly going to hang out in their places. Well, all we're doing is degrading the environment to put in a largc piece of water which has all sorts of other issues connected to it. I don't get it. I'd like to know how we can go baclq notjust to stop what they're asking for now, but how we can go back to get this relooked at, replanned to look at it from a better environmental point ofview altogether so that we protect this beautiful area that we live rn. Those are my main points. I agree with everything that's been said about traffic. Clearly, it's going to be an issuc, clearly, no matter what is said now. 2012, 2018, we're talking about six years, and all sorts of things are happening and will continue to happen that will hcrease the traffic flow here. So those are my main points. Please, do not pass this, and tell me, how could we do more to achrally get them to reconsider the whole project and redesign it. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Thank you. Way.ne, I'm sure you have something else you want to say. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. For the record, Wayne Amold, and I'lt have Elizabeth join in and speak. And I just wanted to - no disrespect to Mr. Lubben, but the unit you did tour was a 55 1-square-foot second-story unit. So I just wanted to correct that. He did see one of the mits that we're talking about. And I think we're certainly willing to make the concession, as Mr. Lubben has referenced, and many ofhis other neighbors had recommended, and we're willing to add those commitrnents to the PUD as long as they're tied to the Site Development Plan that's applicable for this developer. But I think I'11 let - VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Do you have a list of them that - everything they've committed to? MR. ARNOLD: I think I can develop that list in short order. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Walme? MR. ARNOLD: Yes. COMMISSIONER CHMANOWSKI: Is one of the commitments that you're going to move the units back from Thomasson Drive? MR. ARNOLD: I'm going to let Mr. Moore answer that. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And Im curious, because on Google Earth, fiom the nearest one in Isles to the other side ofthe Thomasson Drive is already 180 feet. You've got a 60-foot parking lot, 18, 24, and 18, and then you've got some buffer. It's already, like, 240 feet. If you move it l0 feet baclg it's not going - really, it's not going to really accomplish anlhing. I just - MR. ARNOI-D: I think - COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Just so long as you know that. I dont - you know, you can move it back if you want. MR. ARNOLD: I didnt attend that last neighborhood meeting, but it was my understanding that their hope was to gain a larger landscape buffer in moving those buildings. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: You'd be better offputting the landscape buffer on their side, on their side ofthe road, really. LTNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: It's already there. COMMISSIONER CHMANOWSKI: Well, then enhance it, because it's harder to look over a tree Pagc 39 of 77 January 18, 2018 that's 200 feet away from you and 40 feet lall than a hee that's nght next to you and 40 feet tall if you're above it. So it's just something to consider. I don't do this for a living, but - COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You used to. MR. ARNOLD: I'm going to let Mr. Moore answer Stan's question, if we can. MR. MOORE: No. As it relates to the - pushing the buildings back, there are a couple of things that we had to consider when doing it. I'm going to pick up thrs mike. There is - is this on? It's on. Right in this area there's a 75-foot buffer easement that we can't build on. One ofthe things we looked at is, you know, if we can park in that are4 then we can shift everything up, but from the first neighborhood meeting we did push everything back fiom Thomasson l0 feet. The size of the ponds, pretty stable; we can't reduce the pond size for South Florida Water Management District. But we've -- we're relookhg at it again, and any potential to move it back, we obviously will. The wall requirement, obviously, to me, takes away a lot ofconcem on the additional buffer, because now we're going to be landscaprng on the inside and outside ofan eight-foot wall. Therc are some ofthe units that have balconies on the second floor, not all of them, and that was a concem, but they are screened balconies that certain times ofthe day you can't even see through the screens. So I hope that addresses the setback. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question for you. Is this your first project in Collier County? MR. MOORE: Yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. I noticed in reading the - MR. MOORE: Can I add to that? It hasn't been for lack of looking. There aren't very many mned pieces of multifamily land in Collier County that would meet our criteria, and even outside ofour criteria, there's not a lot of 20-plus acre parcels that allow for a less dense product like we are. We're typically I 3 to 15 units per acre, where the three-, four-, five-story can get a 25, 30. So that really limits our availability. This sitc I could compete against the higher density guys because you're limited to 340 units total per the original PUD. So I just - it wasnt from lack of looking. It did take us a while, and this site hasn't been on the market long, because Collier County did want to get the Isles up and going, and I understand that was a long entitlement process, so that's how we came to this site. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. I'm jrxt going to bring up one thing that I did see in here about garages. There was a Ms. Hitch there or something, and she said the attached garages are rented out and - separately. So - and I'm going, separately? And they're saying, detached and attached are rented out separately. MR. MOORE: Dctached are rented out separdtely. The attached go with the unit. They literally come out of the car and can go right into the unit. There are some attached that are called floaters - there are two in each of the B20 buildings - but they dont have access into a unit. So the ones that are attached to the unit are part of their rent. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. The other thing is the lease. I'm hearing no one wants thc three-month lease. Would be you willing to do these with year lease? MR. MOORE: I don't think a year. That really limits a lot of seasonal people that come down. We weren't trying to go against any code. If there's a code that limits us to six-months leases, we're going to abide by that. The number of three-months leases in our current Florida projects are very minimal. We cnd up chargng two-and-a-half, three times a month rent for those units, so youte not getting that unit for the same cost. So you're paying a large premium for that, which discourages a lot of people, because they could rent for six months for the same time (sic) as three months. COMMISSIONER EBERT: But we do have - an),thing less than six months is a bed tax, so that's why I'm asking you about the lease. And I did hear someone mention that you had said at the information meeting thc othcr day that these would be year leases. So I'm just trying to - MR. MOORE: Yeah. If I said it, it was in error. There's -- it was a two-hour meeting, and a lot was said. There was concem about the smaller units, and I think the gentleman mentioned about the occupancy, and that was the number ofpeoplc that could physically live in it per county code. So we're not Page 40 of77 January 18, 2018 looking to get any variance from that either. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. One other thing, as long as we're on the subject, and - would you be willing to do the 52 units at 660, which is just 40 square feet difference? Would you be willing to do that for this project rather than 700? You do - the 660 would be your smallest unit? MR. MOORE: I don't know how physically we'd do that to one and not the other, because where this unit's located, we just can't widen or make longer, you know, that particular unit. Is there something that we could do that is slightly above 550 that gets us closer to 660? We can, obviously, look at it. But this is - we came in knowing that this was the case and, you know, as the PUD was written many years ago, times changes, and that's why we felt there was a demand for this. I don't know - I think someone mentioned earlier the 700-square-foot number - where that came from, but we have been - as Elizabeth said earlier, those smaller units are our highest occupancy units. So if our project's occupied at 95 percent, those rmits are normally at97,98. So that's why we feel there's still a very high demand for a smaller unit. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I have a question. Maybe Wayne would know, Mr. Amold. One of the speakers spoke ofpreserve, andjust to clarif,, it's my recollection -- ofcourse, this is part ofthe Sabal Bay community, and it's my recollection that Sabal Bay, almost 50 percent ofthe acreage of Sabal Bay is already in preserve, far exceeds any requirement, and much ofthat was because ofthe Army Corps ofEngineers permitting and impact in wetlands. So I guess ifsomebody wanted to make this into a presewe, I could only assume that then the community would have to buy it and tum it into a preserve. You have no preservation requirements other than maintaining the right-of-way; is that correct? MR. ARNOLD: That's con€ct. The site is designated for residential, and there were no preservation requirements applicable to this site. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay, MR. ARNOLD: And just to fiuther what Mr. Moore said about orientation of the building, the top side ofthat exhibit, not exactly north, but the top side of that exhibit that reflects the green strip, there's a PUD boundary setback of 75 feet. That's the extemal boundary of the Sabal Bay PUD, and that's why he was talking about there's not a lot of room to do shifting. I don't know the answer to the question about whether or not parking can be located there. I haven't - COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It there a right-of-way there as well, a utility right-of-way, or is it just the buffer? MR. ARNOLD: I believe there are some easements that are also located in that area. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Easements. Okay. I'm prepared to make a motion, ifanybody else has a - COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'd like to have a little discussion, but we can have discussion after a motion, if you wish. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. I make a motion - I'm tom with this because -- l,m also the representative on the Affordable Housing Committee for the Planning Commission. Though this is not affordable housing, I've been on that committee for well over a year, and there was subcommittees, and clearly demonstrated that this type ofproduct is desperately needed in Collier County, not as an affordable housing, but simply as a product available. And I'm tom because I really somewhat believe that there certainly is a market, and I believe every project is specific. So I'm going to make a motion to approve subject to the following conditions: That the concrete roof tiles are installed in lieu ofany other product, asphalt, tile, racing (sic) metal roofor whatever; as stipulated by the residents, it matches the architectural decor ofthe surrounding community; subject to approrul by th.fire marshal, relocate the emergency entrance to offof -- Ijust lost tfie name of t]hat street. MR. ARNOLD: Cardinal. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Cardinal. I should know that - Cardinal. And I don't think therewould be any problem in doing that. It's j ust a matter of redesigning the road network and having tiar Page 4l of 77 January 18, 2018 approved; subject to being able to redesign to accommodate some ofthe setback requirements offof Thomasson Drive, that the developer look at that. Ofcourse, unless they're going to bring that back to us, but I don't think - I defer that to staffand the cor.mty to review; that they - there was a lease stipulation that limits the number of occupants based on the - no more than two per bedroom. That's clearly specified in any lease agreement or lease that is provided to the residents; that we clariry the PUD language to limit the number of 551- plus 660-square-foot units to no more than 7 percent ofthe total allowed, and that's clearly stated; and no less than six-month lease - occupancy limit ofno less than six months for any'lease, and that is the list of my - UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: WalI. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: The wall. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Oh, well, theyVe already agreed to the concrete wall. So, yeah, subject that they wll build a - I'll call it a concrete wall, but it's going to be a concrete-appearing wall, because some ofthose arc precast, some ofthose are light-weight concrete, and you can even purchase vinyl now that looks very much like - L]NIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No. MR. MOORE: It's going to be an opaque wall per county standards. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Same wall as the Isles; comparable wall. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Comparable wall. And I believe the developer's already agreed to that. So the list ofmy stipulations. Any - subject to your - MR. STONE: Commissioner, if I may get clarification on one of your conditions. You mentioned number ofunits that could be 551 or 660 square foot. Can you just clari! that again. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, I was saying -- wasnt tlere a requirement that the number of units - whether - the total number of units would not exceed 7 percent ofthe allowed development. Isn't that what one of the requests was, or did I hear that wrong? MR. ARNOLD: The way that it's currently written, Mr. Schmitt, it says 15 percent of the units on this tract couldbe the 551 square feet, which equates to 52 units. So fi.rther breaking that down,24 ofthose units are really 551 square feet; 28 of the units are 660 square feet. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So the total would remain 15 - MR. ARNOLD: Total remains 52 that are less than 700, but breaking that further, the 551 square feet are limited to 24 units. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MR. ARNOLD: The 660-square-feet units will be limited to 28. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Then we stay with that language that stipulates the - thank you. Clarifo it. Okay. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: The other things that were committed to are that it would b€ gated, just for the - COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Oh, I undentand fully that it was a gated community with controlled access. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Two stories. MR. ARNOLD: We're willing to add ftat. VICE-CFIAIR HOMIAK: They wanted it to be specific, I think, the community. MR. ARNOLD: If we're modiffing the PUD language to add these conditions, we're certainly happy to add the gated entry. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, let's add that as well. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Two-story, clubhouse with a pool, and a dog park. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Two dog Parks. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Oh, sorry. MR. BELLOWS: I just want clarification on the wall. How tall? VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Eight-foot. MR. BELLOWS: Eight-foot. MR. ARNOLD: If I iould ask a question. I'm not certain that the Isles wall is eight feet. Page 42 of77 January 18, 2018 TINIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: It iS. MR. ARNOLD: Because the code in their PLTD does not allow an eight-foot wall. It only allows an eight-foot wall where you have commercial abutting residential. COMMISSIONER SCHMITI: Correct; that's correct. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKIR: It's already built. MR. ARNOLD: So I honestly don't know the answer to that. VICE-CIIAIR HOMIAK: Who said the eight-foot wall before? Just - was it - MR. ARNOLD: It was Mr. Lubben that mentioned the eight-foot-high wall. VICE-CHAIRHOMIAK: It was? Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Depends if it's on a berm. MR. ARNOLD: That may be part ofthe clarification. Ifthere's a small berm and then you put a six-foot wall panel on it. The way county measures fiom top of wall to the unaltered ground elevation. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Toe of the berm, yeah. I didnt thinl it allowed an eight-foot wall. COMMISSIONER EBERT: You can put it on a berm. MR. ARNOLD: And maybe - Mr. Schmitt, maybe the language is it's to be comparable. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Comparable to the surrounding property. MR. MOORE: We committed to the Isles to sit down with them with thcir matenals boards to show them what we'd be proposing before the council meeting, ifwe get to that point. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Okay. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'll second the motion. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Second. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Discussion. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Discussion. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I appreciate the work that's been done by the developer and the develope/s experts in reaching out to the neighbors and attempting to reach a compromise on the important points. Ordinarily that would be enough for me, because I believe in tradeoffs and I believe in walking out of this room in a win-win with everybody here who feels as though they've succeeded in devising something that is good for everyone. But that's not the issue here, I don't think. The issue for me is that - it's one ofprecedent, and I do not think that the case for uniqueness has been sufficiently made to foreclose objections that have merit - meritorious objections on the part of subsequent developers, that they would be entitled to the same reduction in square feet. And for that reason, I'm going to vote no. Fortunately, for all concerned, the matter's going to go to the Board of County Commissioners, who will have the only say that matters. But for my purposes, I do not think that it is appropriate for us to open the door to reducing the occupiable square feet to 551 for the entire MPUD, and I don't see that sufficient points ofuniqueness have been demonstrated that we could successfully argue against falling along that precedent. Thank you. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I also have concens. My biggest concem is the 551 square feet. I could see the 660. If you put the 52 units at 660, that's close enough to 700, but I also am very concemed about the lease on these. I do not like short-term leases at all. Over here, I think Joe said something like a six-month lease would be the least you would take on this. When you have residents living right across the street yearly and you start doing all these short{erm leases, that's not good for the neighborhood. Ifyou could work - ifyou could do something for adding up to 660 square feet rathcr than the 551 and do leases no less than six months, that would be okay with me; otherwise, i will not be voting for it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: patrick, anyhing? VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Do you have anything? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: No. No, nothing exha to add. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Nothing to add, okay. well, I'm tom here. I don't know. I think it's a totar pUD and it should stav at 700. Pagc 43 of 77 January 18,2018 COMMISSIONER EBERT: I agree. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: But I also see that it might be a better project if they have the other agreed - the things they agreed upon which they won't get otherwise. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I think the percentage of the units that are going to be in question - I heard the number 24totalunits that could roughly 500 and -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Fifty-one. MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: -- right -- is a very small percentage given the fact that the next grouping's almost 706. MR. ARNOLD: 660. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: And the rest are larger than that. So I agree, but I think that percentage is a very small percentage of the overall project. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Do you ever see a need for rentals of that size? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I'm very thankful and blessed to say that in my business that I don't do anything with rentals. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: You don't have any idea? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: (Shakes head.) VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: No. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Okay. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: All those in favor, sigufy by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. VICE-CHAIRHOMIAK: Opposed, like sign. COMMISSIONER FRYER: No. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: 3-3. MR. ARNOLD: Thankyou. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Very good. Well done. LINIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: What does that mean? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That means it goes to the Board of County Commissioners. They make the final decision. It's forwarded without recommendations. The petitioner, I assume, will make adjusfinents and prepare a presentation to the Board identiffing our concerns and then it will go to the Board of County Commissioners for final decision. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. So if you have concerns, that's where it would be brought up. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Sorry, Commissioner Fiala. You've got to deal with it. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Okay. I think we need to -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Take a break. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: - take a break for lunch till 1:15. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Ray, did you shut the -- Ray? We're going to take a break for lunch. MR. BELLOWS: Do you want an hour break for lunch? VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Yes, 1:15. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: 1:15' Thankyou. (A luncheon recess was had, and Commissioner Chrzanowski was absent for the remainder of the meeting.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody. Good afternoon, and welcome back from our break. I know that Terri has had u r.u[y easy moming because I wasn't here, and now that I've had a large cup of coffee, we will keep her moving -- her fingers moving swiftly for the rest of the-day' ***Sowiththatinmind,ournextitemupisltemgD. It'sPL-20170001083. It'sthe15501 OldU'S' 41 CPUD located on the west side of old u.S. 4i approximately one mile north of the u'S. 41 and old u's' Page 44 of1l January 18, 2018 41 intersection. All those wishing to testiffing on behalfofthis item, please rise to be swom in by the court reporter. (The speakerc were duly swom and indicated in the affrmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Disclosures fiom the Planning Commission. We'll start with Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: None. COMMISSIONER EBERT: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have talked to Alexis by phone, I think I talked to her a little bit in the back ofthe room today, I've gone over some issues with staff, and those arc the only - that's the only disclosures I have. Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: None. CTIAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I don't know I had any. No, none. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Pat? COMMISSIONER DEARIIORN: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, Alexis, I'11 tum it over to you. MS. CRESPO: Thank you. Good aftemoon. Alexis Crespo with Waldrop Engineering representing the applicants. Joining me here today is Craig Hazelett, who is the owner and operator of Driftwood Nurseries. Heisoneofthe property owners involved with the application. We also have Frank and his son Frank Norberto, who are the other property owners filing this PUD rcquest. In terms of the team, we have Lindsay Robin, who ts a planner at Waldrop Engineering as well; Dane Underhill, who did the envrmnmental reporting with Dex Bender & Associates; and Norm Trebilcock, who performed the traffic study; all available to answer any questions you may have. And I just have a briefpresentation to outline the request which is to rezone a 4.85-acre property that's currently zoned agricultural to allow for it to be a commercial Planned Unit Development with a maximum of40,000 square feet of commercial uses. As Mark noted, the subject property is located on the west side of Old U.S. 41 in the northem portion of Collier County. lt's located adjacent to the Railhead Industrial Parlq which is on the east side ofOld41, as you can see on the aerial. To our north we have multifamily development, to our south we have vacant industrial lands that are part ofthe Sterling Oaks PLD, and then to the west you can see expansive green space areas which are committed preserve also in the Sterling Oaks Planned Unit Development. This master concept plan that we submitted with the application delineates the two property owners working together to do a unified commercial Planned Unit Development. The Norbertos own the smaller parcel on the southern portion of the site, and it's delineated by the dashed line through the concept plan. To the north ofthat is where Mr. Hazelett owns the property. We'rc showing two commercial buildings. The larger is 32,500 square foot maximum, and the smallcr on the southem parcel is 7,500 square foot in size. We're proposing to do a shared single point ofaccess fiom Old U.S. 4l to enable appropriate circulation to the property and have first shared access between the properties. We are proposing perimeter buffers in accordance with the Land Development Code. No deviations are being sought. We have ls-foot Type D along the Old U.S. 4l rightof-way. The buffer to our north where we are adjacent to multifamily residential uses is a 15-foofwide TWe B buffer. To our south, where we abut industrial zoned lands, we are required to do a l0-foot Type A buffer as showl. And what you'll see we've tried to do is get all the commertial uses to the fiont ofthe property along the arterial roadway frontage and then preserve the back in open space, use it for stormwater management, and then we have a large FP&L easement that's 100-foot wide running through the property. So that allows a good transition fiom the roadway having the intensity on the roadway and then tmnsitioning as we move west lo those preserve lands within Sterling Oaks. I think it's important to address compatibility whenever you're convcrting a property to a commercial Page 45 of77 January I 8, 20i 8 use, especially when you have residentiat neighbors. We arc in agreement with staff, as outlined in the staff report, that the proposed CPUD will be compatible with the surrounding land use pattem around Old U.S. 41. We're adjacent to high-density aparhnent housing to the north of the site. Arbor Lake Club PUD is the name ofthat onginal PUD. It's I I units per acre in density. So it's not your lower density singe-famrly use that might need more buffering from commercial-type developments. We also havc planned industrial uses to our south in the Sterling Oaks PUD as well as intensive industrial uses immediately to the east of Old U.S. 41. As I've noted, we proposed our buildings along the 4l fiontage to orient the commercial development to the roadway. We've preserved well in excess of the minimum preserve requirements in order to reserve that entire westem portion ofthe property to be undeveloped in perpetuity, and then again, landscape buffers along the perimeters. I've kind ofwalked you through our srmounding uses, so I won't belabor the point of our neighbors. One thing I do want to point out - and I know ths gentleman was kind enough to attend our neighborhood information meeting and had some concems about impact to Sterling Oak to our west. So what this plan does is shows where the buildings would be located on our site and the distance between our perimeter boundary and units within Sterling Oaks. And you can see the separation provided with significant vegetation in that space, I should note, ranges fiom a quarter mile to upwards ofhalfa mile of separation fiom that community. The other residential neighbor I just want to give some attention to is the Arbor Lakes PUD. Again, l1 units per acre. They have existing landscape buffer on thcir southem property line, and then we would be required to do a l5-foorwide Type B buffer where you have commercial adjacent to residential. That includes a six-foot{all wall, fence, or hedge, as well as hees, and they would have to have an 80 percent opacity within one year of planting. So a pretty significant buffer there. And I'lljust also note that there's approximately 80 feet of separation before that first multifamtly building in our northem property line. So we'll have spatial separation as well as visual screening provided by the buffer. We appreciate staffs time on the application getting us through the process. They have recommended approval, found the public petition to be consistent with the Growth Management Plan goals, objectives, and policies. They've noted in their staff report this is a logical transition of an intensity along the Old U.S. 4l comdor. With that, we are happy to answcr any questions you may have, and we appreciate your time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And we'll start with our Plaruring Commission. Any Planning Commissioners have any questions of the applicant at thts time? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Fint of all, I would say that I think that this is the right kind of use for this location. I think it fits in nicely. It's, I guess, kind of an infill, would you call it? MS. CRESPO: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. My only concem -- and I realize that there are arguments here with respect to traffic. But from the AUIR of 2016, we went to a capacily of 29;2017 to minus 87. AndI understand something having to do with the TCMA boundary and two or more moderating or mediating actions that are taken in order to somehow constrain the increase in tra{fic, but I'd like to hear a little bit morc about the traffrc and particularly what the projections are for how much additional traffic will be brought about as a result of this in comparison to present conditions. MS. CRESPO: Thank you. I'm going to ask Nom to - thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, just for clarification, Ned, when you said in comparison to current conditions, current conditions is that site generates zero traffrc. But that's not the condition that we start with. COMMISSIONER FRYER: No, I don't mean that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I mean the road. I mean Old 41 - CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 46 of77 January 18, 2018 COMMISSIONER FRYER: - and the traffic that passes this now undeveloped site, how that would change in relation to present conditions. MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. Thank you. Yes, for the record, my name is Norman Trebilcock, professional engineer and certified planner. My firm prepared the Traffic Impact Statement for the project. To cover the proposed uses, I think part of it, to understand the amount of traffic that this could potentially add to the road system is what youte thinking? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes, MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. Good. So what we're looking at is, you know, in the scenario is you're looking at a general office building, a specialty retail, those uses added together. The p.m. peak hour volume entering would be 61 vehicles per hour, and the exiting would be I 15 vehicles per hour. So that's a total of 176 p.m. peak trips. And when we look at concurrency and issues on the roadway, we'll look at that p.m. peak hour, because that's sort of the worst-case scenario for the road system. So then when you look at the diflerent Iinks, we'll then distribute that traffic over the site. So it's going to go in the different directions. And so then we look at the percent of impact on the - on that section. So our worst impact would be, it would be a 5.7 percent, and then we have another, like, 3 percent. So those would - those would mcet the county's significance test. So this would be considercd a sigrificant impact. And because there is a level-of-service issue as you've identified. then it's considered adverse out there. So there is an issue as you've identified, but this is in what -- as what you had conectly identified, too, it's a TCMA areq so there are strategres that are allowed by our plaruring documents to look at things to mitigate for that. And your transpodation staffmay want to kind of expound on that a bit, too. But in terms of then probably, as you mentioned, looking at the 2016, I'lljust kind of cover the projected volumes, because, like you said, U.S. 4l is rcally the - Old 4l is that section. So the background traffrc, in 2016 the peak hour/peak direction was 960 vehicles per hour. And so there's a trip bank, and we grew the traffic, so it grows up to 971 . And then - so when you add our project traffic on there, then there would be an anticipated failure. Fast forward to 2017 AUIR, that's already occurred as well. So that's a significant issue that we would have to address. And identifring the TCMA strategies, that occurs at time ofconcurrency, when we come in to do a Site Development Plar! that would be the time where we would identifo the specific strategies and work with staff and use the curent traffic at that time to address that. So did I address what you're looking for? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I think so, yeah. MR. TREBILCOCK: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else, Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: No, not right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Alexis, let's start in then, because I have quite a few, and I've got some traffic issues, but Im going to wait for staffto come up to address those. There are some PUD findings issues I have, but I think I'll wait to talk with those with staff. And staff is aware ofmy upcoming questions; I talked to thern yesterday so they'd be better prepared today. And let me get into the PUD. It's actually Exhibit A, the first page of the PUD. You're basically asking, under A1, for all perrmtted use ofC3 and, because C3 does not have a catalog and mail order house - that's a C4 use - you're asking for that to be added because it's - allowed as a CU over 5,000 square fect in the C3 disaict; is that - MS. CRESPO: I don't know if it's allowed as a conditional use in a C3 district. CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But, I mean, it's - to be over 5,000 square feet, it would have to be. MS. CRESPO: It's limited by the 5,000. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. And that's why you've got it in here at 7,500, right? Page 47 of77 January 18, 2018 MS. CRESPO: Conect. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. In the - yesterday when I spoke to you, I mentioned some language I found in your narrative that provided the request for this project, and I'll read it to the Planning Commission. It's on Page 54. As shown on the enclosed PUD master plan, the catalog and mail-order house use will be located on the southem portion of the CPUD - that's the smaller building right here as you see on the plan on the south -- adjacent to the industrial zoned section ofthe Sterling Oaks PUD. This is the most intensive use based on review of commercial use regulations in the LDC, and it's appropriately located away fiom the multifamily residential uses to the north ofthe PUD. Now, the idea then is that the most intense use is to the south, and the commercial building will have less intense uses than that location will, because it's up closest to the residential. But ifyou go to the C3 section of our -- and I'll pull that out right now : C3 section ofour code, you'll find that there are uses in C3 such as auto and home supply stores, automotive sewices, child daycare, eating places which can have drinhng parts to them, educational plants, food stores -- food stores combined with gasoline become a Racetrac - hardware stores, and things like that. And I asked Alexis to take a look at these uses, because there are a substantial amount of them that are achrally more intense than a mail-order catalog operation that relies on mail orders and has a few deliveries coming back and forth. Now, based on that, I suggest that we don't need all those C3 uses in that location in that commercial building. And you were going to take a look at those and talk with the applicant and come back with some kind of suggestion. Have you had a chance to do that? MS. CRESPO: Yes, thank you. We looked at the fuel pumps. We know that was a significant item that the county's been lookrng at over the past several years, so we could eliminate that as a permitted use within the northem -- really the southem parcel, because the southem parcel wouldn't meet the criteria to achieve that use. And we understand automotive sewice stations along those same lines would potentially have the noise and different issues associated with intensive uses. so - could also eliminate that use. ln terms ofthe retail, we are seeking the flexibility to do some of these -- you know, the home store, for example, food stores. They are limited by square foot in the C3 district, so they're capped at 5,000 square fcct. Some of them are capped at 1,800 square feet. So we felt that was a good way of limiting the intensity if it were to be located on that northemmost parcel adjacent to Arbor I-akes, and then coupled with the building separation that we're going to have, the buffers, we were looking for your recommendation to maintain those retail uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then let's start with the fiIst one. So you're saying you want the opportunity to put an auto store there, auto supply. MS. CRESPO: Auto supply without on-site mechanic-type support uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And you think that's less intense than the mail-order house to the south? MS. CRESPO: When we defined it as the most intense use, it was simply from looking at thc Land Development Code and stating which C4 would be a more intensive use than a C3 use. So - but to your point, absolutely there can be C3 uses that generate more trips, noise, light than the mail-order house, so we are in agreement on that. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: So you basically felt that intensity was designated by the ty,pe of zoning classification it had? MS. CRESPO: That is the way we applied that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I mean, it wasn't clear in your narrative, and I think it could have been misleading because it obviously - intensity from what we normally look at is compatibility. From compatibility, many ofthe uses in the C3 that would be closest to the residential are actually uses that should be closer to the industrial. I understand that's not the way the ownership of the property is requesting it. We'll see what we can do to get there. Page 48 of77 January 18, 2018 Automotive services, except that this shall not be construed to permit the activity ofa wrecker service. So that's your automotive repair. So you're feeling automotive repair and items like that are allowed on that site or should be a good location? MS. CRESPO: Mr. Hazelett was comfortable removing that use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Child daycare- The only reason l'm bringing it up is they have usually outside playgrounds, and they are very noisy. So you're going to mix that with other retail uses potentially going on that site? I mean, you've got 32,000 square feet, obviously, that's a multistory building. Is child daycare something you want to put there? You have to identiff yourself for the record. MR. HAZELETT: Craig Hazelett. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you stand up -- were you swom in when we started? MR. HAZELETT: I was not, no. (The speaker was duly swom and indicated in the affmative.) MR. HAZELETT: We have no current plans with the land right now. We're just trying to go along to get, you know, thc potential down the road because of going in with the Nobertos on their needs for their plans. So that's why we were joining along with it at the time. And so as of now we have no plan other than - CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you have - there's, like,96 uses in C3. MR. HAZELETT: tughl. CHAIRMAN STRAN: And what I'm concemed about is the residential. Now, the Sterling Oaks has some residential, but it's over, what, a quarter mile, a thousand feet away, but immediately next door there's a bunch of apartments. Generally people who live in apartments won't even get a notice in the ma . Even though you've mailed them, you would have mailed them to the property owner and not to the apartment people. They're going to wake up one day and find this building going up and saying, how'd this happen. Now, Ijust want to make sure that some ofthese more intense uses that are very disruptive aren't in a location where the neighborhood is going to be surprised. Ald the biggest one is gas stations and conveniencc storcs, and I'm understanding now that you're agreed that's not going to happen. MR. HAZELETT: Correct, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Childcare is another one because of the outdoor playgounds. If you were to put a childcarc situation there with a playground on the north side ofthat building, ith going to be nght in the backyards ofthose people, those apartments next door. So that's a concem. Eating places. I can assure you we've leamed a lesson from the eating places up on -- what's that Immokalee and Collier. What's the name of that project? Pebblebrooke. They came in as an eating place, and they got a sliding glass wall that opens up, and all the noise from the eating place, the neighborhood's suffering from it. I can't see that as something that would be good for this neighborhood. And I'll walk through these. And ifyou have any - educational plants. Those are bus bams. We've got one down on Davis - or Rattlesnake Hammoch I believe it is. I'm not sure you want a bus bam there for school buses. l'm not sure you need that there. Food stores. I think we already talked about food stores. You're not going to be putting a food store in. MS. CRESPO: I dont believe we committed to - MR. HAZELETT: Yeah. I mean, we haven't really gone -- haven't really looked at the whole list, you know. We just didn't want to limit it, you know, if it was, you know, just sold, you know, the future uses ofthe land, so - MS. CRESPO: Is the concem food store in conjunction with automobile fuel pumps? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mearl I'm sure I'm going to get Norm to tell me if when he did the TIS based on specialty retail and general office, ifthis was converted to a Fresh Market or one ofthe smaller food stores, would that create a different generation of trafEc, a more increased intensity of traffic. I,m sure Page 49 of77 January 18, 2018 that the deliveries and the dehvery truck and the backup alarm and a compactor and the trash dumpster, all that would probably create more with a food store than it would with what you offered as a general -- I mean, as an office building. MS. CRESPO: I would just note that the food store limitation is 5,000 square feet, so that doesn't even accommodate an Aldi or even -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, youke right. You're right. Okay. MS. CRESPO: It would be really a mom and pop. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it would be a convenience store. MS. CRESPO: It could be a convenience store scale, and because wetc willing to eliminate the fuel pumps, it takes away the ability to do the Racetrac scenario. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's a good point. MS. CRESPO: And we do have, thank you, a trip cap in oru PUD comnutments, so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, we're going to have a great discussion about it here - transportation in just a little bit. Okay. Well, most of the uses that I've mentioned are the ones that I thought would be most conceming for additional generation ofnoise, Lght, and hafEc in that location. And we're back to basically automotive services, auto supply stores, childcare scrvices, eating places, cducational plants, and gasoline or fuel facilities. Are those problematic to you to drop? MS. CRESPO: Eating places? lf the eating places were oriented in the southem portion of that commercial building where - I understand what youle saying if they had the open doors projecting sound directly to the apartments, but - CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: What if we - what if you do eating places, but in the PIJD you add the standard language we use for no extemal amplified sound? MS. CRESPO: Very good idea. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That would get us past that issue, and that means it's an encloscd dining area. MR. HAZELETT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let me move on to what might remain in the PUD. There wasn't much of anything in the language itself. It was pretty sFaightforward. So that's all I've got on the actual PUD language. It was -- other than that, it was pretty simple. So with that, I do have questions of our - I want to start with our staff on transportation, and then Norm can - Mike or Trinity or whoever. MR. SAWYER: For the record, again, Mike Sawyer, Transportation Planning. I apologize. I got hcrc late and I didn't get swom in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, we can take care of that. (The speaker was duly swom and indicated in the affrmative.) MR. SAWYER: Certainly I'm here, and Trinity is also, so ifs probably going to be a combination of both ofus. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. Mike, we rarely get an application that has a negative going into it, and an F .. LOS ofF on this particular road segment; negative 87. So no matter what you do it's going to be a greater negative than less, because you're not going to take traffic off the road. You're going to do something that's going to create more. The solution to this is something that I find amusing in Collier County, and that's this TCMA provision. Basically, now, because this is in a TCMA - and I believe it's the same one that our knmokalee Road is, which is a mess, and that our Pine fudge Road is, which is a mess, and you're telling me that because this is in that TCA (sic) with all these other messed-up roads, we can frrther mess up this one ifthey do some simple things like - can you tell us things they could do? MR. SAWYER: I can actually give you that list. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SAWYER: There are - again, there's a number of different methods. They need to pick at Page 50 of 77 January 18, 2018 lcast two. We do that when they come with the SDP for the project iself. There is preferred parking for carpools and vanpools. I park and charge; that would be to decrease the number ofvehicles, and it more -- encourage more carpooling and vanpooling. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, before you go too far, let's back up. The first one was? MR. SAWYER: The fint one is preferred parking for carpooling and vanpooling. CHAIRMAN STRAN: So if they put a parking space out therc and it says, ifyou come with your neighbor to use this food store, that meets their TCMA requirement? MR. SAWYER: That would be meeting one of them, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: WOW. MR. SAWYER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And what was the second one? I mean, do you realize this is going to do nothing to help the North Naples congestion? MS. SCOTT: For the record, Trinity Scott, Transportation Planning manager. There are requirements that they have to monitor these TDM strategies, transportation demand management strategies, and that we do have - if they're not effective, they must change them. So it is a monitoring process that is stipulated in the Transportation Elernent ofthe Growth Management Plan that they must monitor those. Ifthey don't work, they have to go back, change them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But this monitoring goes on after they're operating and functiomng. MS. SCOTT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if they don't work and they don't change them to something that does or - what leverage do you have - I mean, you're not going to shut an operating business down. You'll never succeed doing that. So how do you think you're going to make that work? MS. SCOTT: We're not, but if - maybe we can go back and talk about the TCMAs a little bit. I did put together a few things, because we always have a lot ofquestions about TCMAs and also knowing what's going on in the area with Old 41, I rhink might be helpful - CHAIRMAN STRAIN: North Naples is generally a traffic mess right now, and I think that we're going to have a lot of questions anlime something comes in in that area of the county. So that's fine. Let's go forward. MS. SCOTT: So Transportation Concurrency Management Areas were developed back in the early 2000s to encourage compact urban developments in areas where there - a network of roadway, there's multi modcs to service the traflic. We -- every year, annually, I have to rsport on the performance of each of the TCMAs. They're based on a percentage of lane miles meeting the level-of-service standards. So every year in the Annual Update and Inventory Report one ofthe final exhibits, attachments withrn the AIJIR, sbows what percentages ofthe lane miles are operating at acceptable level ofservice. The TCMA shall marntain 85 percent of its lane miles at or above the level-of-service standards. So in that TCMA 85 percent of those lane miles must meet LOS standards. If they are not, then when a proposed development comes in, they must modiry that development to be able to ensure that the TCMA lane miles are meeting 85 percent. This is an eye charl but unfortunately I had to convsrt to a PDF, and it didn't convert pretty here. The AUIR, the 2017 AUIR, this specific TCMA is operating - 98.9 percent of the lane miles are currently operating at the acceptable level of service. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 98.9? MS. SCOTT: 98 point - CHAIRMAN STRAN: So you're L I percent away from failure in the entire North Naples area? MS. SCOTT: No, no, no. No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS.SCOTT:98.9arecurrentlyoperatingatanacceptablelevelofservice. So 1.09 percent ofthe lane miles are operating in a deficient, which happens to be this roadway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So from your perspective then, where is that? Just out of curiosity, is that part ofone piece ofPine Ridge Road, say? Page 5l of 77 January 18,2018 MS. SCOTT: No. It's actually this Old 41. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So this is the only segment in all of North Naples that your departrnent feels is operating at a deficient road level? MS. SCOTT: Based on our Annual Update and Lrventory Report methodology that we utilize, which is p.m. peak in the peak-hour direction, and we factor out seasonal traffic. We do not build our roads to accommodate season. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. SCOTT: So -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Don't drive on the road between October and March. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, and March. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: April. MS. SCOTT: It was a decision that was made by the Board many, many, many years ago that we could not afford to build our roads for season. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I was here when that decision was made, and I know it was made at a time we didn't have what we have today. We didn't have virtual gridlock on half the roads that now are in the section that you're now talking about, although you don't believe they are. But if you have to drive, like I and a lot of people do, from our home to this government center, instead of sitting at a light for three light changes for one light, you sit at three light changes for 10 lights because every light's backed up now. I know you may not technically consider that a gridloch but it is something that I never thought we'd see before we had fixed it better than we have today, but so much for that. MS. SCOTT: So let's move on to Old 41, because it does impact Old 41. So this is the - like I sai{ this -- when it converted from a PDF, because the visualizer appears in accepting PowerPoint, these are cr:rrently roadways that are -- the ones in red are the ones that are anticipated in the next 10 years to be deficient within the TCMA. The lines in blue zre areas where we have either - something programmed within our work progmm. You have Orange Blossom, Airport Road, Vanderbilt Beach Road, Veterans Memorial. These are all roadways that are anticipated to be constructed in the next five years. You see Old 4l up there as a dotted line. Before I - COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Back to that screen one more time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you see that little plus next to your iurow up on the top? Go over to that little plus and hit it a couple times. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There you go. Now we'll be able to read it. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: There you go. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. SCOTT: So with the TCMA, yes, it's a failing roadway segment. ln order for them to come in and be exempt from link-by-link concurrency, which everyone else would do, they must pay -- above and beyond impact fees, They must make a congestion mitigation payrnent, which is based on the -- whatever the improvement that we identify in that area, which will be widening U.S. 41. We'll get to that in a minute. They will pay for their additional capacity that they're going to take from that roadway. It's a mathematical ttring that's within our GroMh Management Plan that they pay above and beyond impact fees. Those congestion mitigation payments can be utilized within the TCMA to add additional capacity or to do operational type improvements. We did something like this when Mercato came in. They paid for traffic signal improvements to better time our traffic signals. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So this development can pay something to mitigate their impacts that would help offset their impacts; is that what youte saying? MS. SCOTT: Yes. They pay above and beyond impact fees. It's a congestion mitigation payment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What kind of value iue we talking about on such a small project, and how does that equate to the amount of intensity theyte adding on the road if they use the most highest generated Page 52 of77 January 18, 2018 uses they can out ofthose 96 uses that are on the - MS. SCOTT: They're going to pay for what rhey actually put on the road. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. SCOTT: And for them it's probably going to be less than $100,000 above and beyond their impact fces, plus they're requircd to do the two -- a minimum of two TDM strategies, transportation demand management skategies that Mike went tkough that we have the monitoring. So if they're not working, they need to change them up and figure out something else that's working. But, more importantly, what are we doing with the Old 41? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, more important, what are we doing with the money that they would pay for mitigation? Is it going specifically to Old 4l? And since that's FDOT, how can it? MS. SCOTT: Ach.rally, Old 41 is not FDOT. That is a county roadway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I thought FDOT was the one going to be improving it. MS. SCOTT: They are. We'll get to that. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Before we move on -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, go right ahead, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: - may I ask a question? I don't understand, first ofall, why the - I lost my place here. Okay. Oh, it's currently zoned agricultural, so at present, with that zoning, it is still deficient under the AUIR thatjust came out? MS. SCOTT: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. And then it's proposed because the ordinance says that there are ways of circumventing those limitations; that if two or more mediating or mitigating factors are applied, then that would make it compliant as long as the ongoing testing confirms that it has reduced the nurnbo oftrips; is that - MS. SCOTT: Less the congestion mitigation payment, yes, they can proceed forward, in our current rules. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So we heard that there will be 176 more peak p.m. tnps. Would you consider it a success ifthey reduce that to 150 or 140? How would you evaluate their actual performance? MS. SCOTT: What - for me any trip off the road. So ifthey can encourage carpooling, that's a great thing. Ifthey can encourage - ifwe get a tr-ansit route along there, if they would do transit subsidies for their employees, things ofthat nahle. Those would be - COMMISSIONER FRYER: Do we have any empirical studies that those work? MS. SCOTT: We actually have very few folks who -- we havent gotten to this situation yet for the most part because our roadways have never - most ofthe time they're not coming in on failing roadway segments. Like I said, Mercato was one where they provided $200,000 for a traffic signalization and, yes, that's working very well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, have you ever shopped at Wholefoods? MS. SCOTT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Can you flrnd a parking space? MS. SCOTT: No, not in that one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So what do you do? You circle around the block a bunch of timcs. Can you get around that block? You can't even get to the light. You can't get across those roads in there it's so congested. First of all, we should never have alleviated them of the parking requirements. And second of all, whatever mitigation they use there certahly isn't working very well because that's a nightmare to drive tkough that tanglement of traffic that's at that location. MS. SCOTT: It's at their location, but what they did was they provided for it along Vanderbilt Beach Road where we integra.ted all of our traffic signals. CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: So you can create the congestion at the location youte at as long as you help somebody else somewhere else in the county? Page 53 of77 January 18,2018 MS. SCOTT: The TCMA was defirutely - when it was developed, we recognized that there were going to be certain roadways that were going to fail and that other roadways would work above their level of service. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Trinity. I mean -- MS. SCOTT: Would you like me to continue to Old 41? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As long as everyMy else is okay with it, I'm frne with it. I think some of the newer members havent heard of the TCMAs probably beforc. I know I've heard them before. I still am in awe every time I hear about thenq so just go on. MS. SCOTT: And they're only in two areas of the county. There's one that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's a TCEA in the other area; isn't it? MS. SCOTT: Right. Thals U.S.41 area. But there's - it's essentially the North Naples area and then around the Golden Gate City area. So they're very specialized in where theyte at, and that's the only places where they can get beyond link-byJink concunency. So with regard to Old U.S. 41, Old U.S. 41 is a county roadway up to the county line, and it's a Lee County roadway north ofthat, but we certainly have a municipality that falls in that area as well, which is the City of Boruta Springs. So with that being said, knowing that need to coordinate with our folk to the north, this project is in the Collier MPO's Long Range Transportation Plan and the Cost Feasible Plan. It is also in the Lee MPO's Long Range Transportation Plan and their Cost Feasible P1an. And I'll get into specifics of where it's at. So the project limits for this particular project as it stands right now is U.S. 41 - Old 41, U.S. 41, all the way to Bonita Beach Road, because we realize that it needs to be done as a concurrent project. So our partners are our Collier MPO, our Lee MPO, Collier County, Lee County, as well as the City of Boruta Springs. They all have a vested interest in this roadway. We have opted in partnership with Lee Cormty to utilize federal funding to improve this roadway. It's one ofthe rare opportunities where we actually utilize federal funds offof the state or federal roadway network. So the project timing, as it stands right now, is in Fiscal Year - this is FDOT's Fiscal Year'18/'19. Thcy will do the project development and environmental study for both Collier and Lee Counties. It is programmed within their five-year work program. COMMISSIONER FRYER: The study within the coming fiscal -- or the current fiscal year? MS. SCOTT: Yes. It actually starts for them July I st of 20 I 8 and goes through June of next year. So that project development environmental study typically takes 18 to 24 months. It's a federal process that we must go through. They re a very prescribed process. It requires coondination with the agencies, a vast amount ofpublic involvement, and ultimately gets down to a public hearing in the end. FDOT will make a recommendation, Federal Highway will sign offon the document. lt proceeds forward. What it does is it allows that improvement to be eligible for federal funding. COMMISSIONER FRYER: But wete really talking five years, maybe five years plus before, say, the road is widened? MS. SCOTT: We're going to keep going. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, it's even more than that. COMMISSIONER EBERT: It's more than that. MS. SCOTT: In Fiscal Year 2021 in our Long Range Transportation Plan - we plan for a Long Range Transportation Plan in five-year block; 2021 thouSt 2025,2026 through 2030, and then it's 2031 through 2040. The last block is a l0-year block. This particular project for design is shown in both the Collier and Lee Mehopolitan Planning Organizations' Long Range Transportation Plan, theh Cost Feasible Plan in Fiscal Years '21 through '25. So sometime within that block. The phase has not been programmed by the Florida Department ofTransportation in their five-year work program. So right now we have the sh-rdy funded, and we'll start. The design has not been; however, in order to have Federal Highway sign offon the project development and environmental study, the design must Page 54 of 77 January 18,2018 be programmed. So we anticipate that FDOT in their upcoming work program cycle will most likely add that design in. It's probably going to wind up being in the 2023/2024 time fiame. CHAIRMAN STRAN: That's just design? MS. SCOTT: That's just design. CTIAIRMAN STRAIN: We're not to consfuction yet. MS. SCOTT: In both the Collier and Lee MPO, Long Range Transportation Plan, their Cost Feasible Plan, they have conshuction identified in 2026 through 2030. Understand these are planning documents. They're updated every five years. Potential opportunity for it come in sooner. But as ofright now, that is when the roadway would be widened. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we're looking at possibly a decade or more and in the meantime projects that are not, let's say, going though a zoning process, projects like the RNT project to the north that's not built out yet, the project to the south that's part of Sterling Oaks, the projects across 4l that are all in an industrial park, since I know there's space in there that's not built out yet, all those can come online regardless ofwhat this timetable is because they are already vested because they're basically already zoned and approved. MS. SCOTT: Well, they're actually not yested - CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. SCOTT: -- necessarily, as far as fiom our concurrency standpoint, but they will come in and follow the exact same process that this project would through the TCMA process. So they would be exempt fiom - they can request exemption from link-by-link concurrency. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So a shaight-zoned project in the industrial park that exists across the road could come in, apply with an SDP in a building permit, they would still come under - they'd have to acknowledge some of the TCIVIA guidelines. For example, their employees mrght carpool, one or two of them, or whatever the rcquirements are, and then they're okay. MS. SCOTT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the road is still failed? MS. SCOTT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The road ia front of them is still failed, but on a TCMA basis, it's not failed. MS. SCOTT: Exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So what they're doing for Old 4l isnt helping somewhere down on Pine Ridge, most likely. It's just something they can do to get mitigated. Okay. That's an eye opener. Thank you. MS. SCOTT: These are the rules of the TCMA and why stafs recommendation is the way it is. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Understand. Well, you're bound by that. Now - well, I have a question not of you. I'll get somebody else. Thank you. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I do have a question, Trinity. What happened between -- where is thc road between Livingston and Old 4l ? Where is that on the plan? MS. SCOTT: It says actually - that is the blue line in this particular area. That is Veterans Memorial. This would be Livingston nortt/south, Old 41. That is within our five-year planmng time frame to build a trvo-lane section to connect Livingston north/south to Old 41. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. And orignally that was going to goto41, period, not Old41. It was going to go through there straight ahead. MS. SCOTT: We are still working through that. At this time right now we're working -- we have a developer in the area wete kyitrg to work with to try to advance this section. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And so that is 2022, you're saying? MS. SCOTT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAN: That's construction. MS. SCOTT: Construction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And just to interject for a moment. The developer you're working with, though, is not gorng to be crossing those railroad tracks. He's going to be coming from the east going Page 55 of 77 January 18,2018 west; is that not correct? MS. SCOTT: Well, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So how are you going to get past the trouble that always arises when we have to cross those railroad ffacks? MS. SCOTT: We actually have right-of-way programmed within our five-year capital program to go work with the railroad. The one and only crossing we have in Collier County, we're going to go negotiate with the railroad. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bring your pocketbook. MS. SCOTT: But we do have that identified in our five-year progam. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, a question that may help the issue at hand. If that link is opened up over to the Livingston Road north/south, if people want to get up to Bonita Beach Road or I-75 instead of taking Old 41, they could actually cut down this link and go up that way or vice versa to go south on Livingston Road to pick up things on Immokalee Road. MS. SCOTT: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If that happens, how do you see the changes in the concurrency issue with a negative 87 being impacted? MS. SCOTT: You know, it's all about northbound movement. CFIAIRMAN STRAIN: So you think this facility that's going to -- that's proposed today -- MS. SCOTT: Potentially. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: - is mostly northbound movement. MS. SCOTT: Well, the p.m. peak direction for Old 4l is northbound movement, so that is - when wete looking at our concrrrency segment, we're looking at how are people getting up into Bonita Beach Road. So that is the predominant movement. By having more altematives in this area, by having Airport Road widened, by having the whole entire area, you're giving people more options. I'm trying to get - honestly trying to get more people over to Livingston north/south. It's one of our roadways that's just not used as much, particularly in this particular area. So if I can get folks to go from this development and go south and shoot across and go Livingston north/south, then now they're going in the opposite direction of the p.m. peak and getting over to a roadway that has additional capacity on it. CFIAIRMAN STRAIN: To relieve the 87 - the negative 87 on Old 41, have you done anything to indicate how much traffrc will be pulled offof that linkto possibly go down this new easUwest link? MS. SCOTT: No, we haven't. I have not done a specialized traffic model for that area. We're still in design and all of that. When we're doing ou traffic modeling, we're looking at all of the improvements together. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: PAt? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: For one second. Mr. Chairman, could we get a copy of this or -- CFIAIRMAN STRAIN: I think transpor -- it's a need only. You could be in a lot of trouble asking for that from transportation. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Please? MS. SCOTT: Of the TCMA area? Absolutely. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you could send it to all of us, Trinity, that would be greal MS. SCOTT: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's most -- I've exhausted my questions at this point with you, Trinity. Thank you. Anybody else? MS. SCOTT: Well, I'm glad that I've exhausted you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, my questions. I've got more. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: GOOd IUCK With thAt. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank You, though. From a - I know the answer. I just want to make sure I understand it. This is zoned -- and it's for the Page 56 of77 January 18, 2018 County Attomey's Office. This is zoned agriculhral. It's obviously an infill parcel. They have infill consistency. We're not obligated to approve this. It's something they're requesting, but we can -- we don't have to approve it if we don't want to even though it's in the urban area. MR. KLATZKOW: You've a criteria to look at. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. KLATZKOW: So if you want to deny it, it's got to be based on the criteria. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm not saying deny. I'm just - what I'm thinking, Jeff, is I understand the need for the south building, and it's very de minimis, ifany, considering impact. It's very minor impact. So that south building doesnt bother me too much. But the north one with 32,000 square feet allowing a m)'riad ofretail, commercial, and office uses could generate a higher amount of tramc. And I'm wondering, we have done this in the past - and I believe Carolina Plaza was one we did it for. When 951 and Vanderbilt Beach Road were under construction a decade or more ago, we timed them to the expansion of those roadways. MR. KIATZKOW: Yeah, but we knew we were going to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Right. MR. KLATZKOW: We went -- we were in the Norm Feder six-lane age at that point in time. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Yeah. we were. MR. KLATZKOW: SixJane Norm. He did a great job for us. And it tumed out to be short term, but it was a great job. But at the end of the day, we knew those were coming, we knew when these were coming. From what I'm hearing, this is a hope. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, but - MR. KLATZKOW: You're asking somebody not to deyelop based on a hope that down the road we're going to do some road widening? YouVe got to have something more than a hope and a prayer. I mean, if we were in, like, the five-year plan that it was definite that they were going to be breaking ground - COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, those were within the five-year plan. MR. KLATZKOW: - yeah, that's one ttring. But simply on a hope and a prayer - and this isn't tle first one that's going to come through yow way. You're going to have rezone after rezone after rezone, all of them on failing roads, and I don't know what to tell you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, my fint thought was, we ought to consider -- we can - I mean, like I said, the building to the south can be handled as one segnent ofthis, but that main building, we may want to not see that permitted until the road system is - the negative trips are cured. I mean, I'm not sure how -- MR. KLATZKOW: YouYe asking for a de facto moratorium, all right. And at the end of the day, if we had a plan on when to do this, I could support that, but from what I heard from Trinity is it's a hope and a prayer. And, Trinity, if it's more than that, let me know, but that's what I heard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, no. That's \r+ry I asked. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: If we have a moratorium, don't we have to have a -- MR. KLATZKOW: You have to have a plan to get out of it, and hope is not a plan. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. And hope is not a method. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I understand. That's why I asked the question. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: As one famous county manager used to say. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Hi, Norm. MR. TREBILCOCK: Hi, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On behalf of your client, did you bother to - I know this is more work, but did you take a look at that relicfthat the easywest segnent of Livingston might provide? MR. TREBILCOCK: we didnt run any separate model for that but, you know, empirically I would I mean, you know, a key - and I know there's a certain skepticism on means and things but, you know, in reality these are major projects that -- as a result. So when we put something in like that, it does have a real positive impact, but we,re sort ofrelying on our step here for Old 4l to get improved, and you can see *trere we are in the line. Page 57 of 77 January 18, 2018 But that improvement, you know, certainly will have benefits, as mentioned by Tnnity, that you're to get some folks that will go scoot out to that north./south reliever as opposed to continuing on Old 4l . So, you know, there are benefits there. But, you k:ow, again, we're rclying on that, and that's why we have these overall planning policies, because these projects take so long to go fiom concept to concrete. You know, we're talking a minimum ofsix years, typically, in a shortened process once youte in the queue. You know, two years for PD&E, two years for PE, and two years for construction, or even right-of-way could add another couple years. So it could be a minimum of six-year to eight-year process. And that's why you guys, as a policy, and the Board established this rdea so that we can say, hey, we're going to live with some conskaint over here as long as the overall area is not under -- you know, 85 percent ofthe roads are meeting our level of service because we understand how big these projects are and how difficult they are to implement. And - you know, so that's *te reliance we have also on the system as we[l, you know, when we look at this. And I know there's some skepticism on some of these measures. If I looked at some projects where we did some of this TD stuff - and they can be beneficial, you know, in terms of encouraging the carpool and even folks fiom also working less number of days a week; you know, go, you know, four days a week or something like that to help bring down the h'a{fic. But collectively, if we could get evcrybody doing that in an area, it would have a real impact, you know. And we do, in terms of govem overall traffic, you know, you do have a trip cap on the overall system, so that allows us -- ifwe could do other projects, but you really do hold it all down. So, I mean, I hope that helps a bit. I guess - CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it does, and I appreciate it. One of the things that could help in North Naples in particular, because in all of Collier County, it's probably one ofthe areas with the least amount of affordable housing, not meaning approved affordable, just market-rate affordable. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would have been nice - this could have even becn a residential project for apartments or something. We heard Arthrex getting up not too long ago at the board meeting. MR.TREBILCOCK: Yep. CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: You've chosen -- I mean, that would have ach:ally helped because people living therc could travel right in that area. MR. TREBILCOCK: But what's neat here -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's not a - MR. TREBILCOCK: But what's neat here, you know, to your point, is you've got this apartment multifamily right next to us here, aad there is that potential ofthese folks going to this business, bccause you even talk about the idea of the daycare. You know, that's a two - you know, that can be real positive, too. So the folks - you know, everybody needs daycare when they have ktds and stufflike that. And so here you have this nght next to where you live, potential facility. So that's why I wouldn't, you know, dismiss that. And, again, that's what can be beneficial about this; you know, getting these small businesses in hcre that can really help, and you do have some multifamily, to your point, along this segment ofroadway. So ifwe could get some businesses to shorten those commutes, that would be awesome. And thafs really what this can offer, you know. And they are paying the - what we call the super impact fees, and that money is coming together, and the county's putting that together to really move projects forward. So, you know, I don't think you're sitting idle. I think these are proactive plans you-all have, you know. And it is, you know, a part of the planning process with you-all, too, that this - you know, so, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Norm? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. CoMMISSIONER EBERT: If the money would be used to go to what this - is needed at this particular spot, that's one thing. I moved here in 2000. I've heard about Veterans Memorial since 2000. This is2018. lt was supposed to go over I-75 and come to Logan Boulevard. Never going to happen. They shot Page 58 of77 January 18,2018 that down. Developers goofed it up a long time ago. This Livrngston to 41 has been talked about, and it is needed for those - it would help Immokalee Road. It would help many people. MR. TREBILCOCK: I'm with you. I mean, I'm 100 percent. You know, even the area we talked about a while back on Pine Ridge Road, that section, remember, we had a plan of Whippoorlvill I-ane to elbow in to Livingston Road, and we btinked at it, and now it's not being done. You know, so those - I agree with you. It's establishing that network. So that's what's neat to see transportation planning putting those links out there, because as much as it's great to get the six-lane facilities, it's really critical, to your point, to get the link - get the network established throughout. Because, you're right, at one point there was even going to be slip ramps offof 75 to this east/west, but that's gone away, you're right. But we still can get this east/west link in, and I think that will be helpful. You know, I didn't specifically model it but, you know, Commissioner Strain, you know, I do see the benefits the same as Trinity. If you can move folks fiom this north to south link over to the better capacity one on Livingston, I think that's great, you know. I could see that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think Diane's point was well made - MR.TREBILCOCK: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that we've had these mads and vision for a long time, but that also supports what Jeffsaid. Basically, it's ahopethatwill eventually go in. Some, as Veterans Memorial shows, they don't go in, and we dont have a time for them. And based on that, we cannot condition someone on something that wejust have a hope for, so... MR. TREBILCOCK: Sure. MR. KLATZKOW: Comrnissioner Strain, this is a policy decision for the Board of County Commissionen. They can fund these improvements. It's not like we don't have the land available for the expansion. It's a funding issue. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: fught. And for today, though, we can't do anything with prolonging a developer from using his land without it being athibuted to the five-year plan, and these aren't, so we really can't hold anybody up for a hope - MR. KLATZKOW: You could continue this for a period oftime and ask the Board of County Commissioners if - you know, if there's any relief on the way. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Actually, staffs probably going to have more -- MR. KLATZKOW: I mean, you could do that, but that's about it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, right now, I think the staffs probably got better information on the road systems - MR. KLATZKOW: But you're the local planning agency. You're in charge of this stuffat the end of the day. AII right. I mean, at the end ofthe day - and I've been here for 15 years - CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Subject to you and things you've got to say. What are you talking about? MR. KLATZKOW: For fifteen years, I mean, the planning decisions have gone through this board, you know, recommendations to the Board ofCounty Commissioners. And, you know, at the end ofthe day ifyou feel we've reached a point in time where we've got to hold back on developmentjust a little bit till we've got a better plan in place, you can make that recommendation and continue this item. You'ye got to bring it back in a relatively short period of time. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. MR. KIATZKOW: That's what you could do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Imean-- yeah, I appreciate that. Thank you. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah. It was - it's the fact that here these people are paying for their segment, but it doesn't go to their segnent. It can go elsewhere in the county, and that bothers me. Ifyou're going to put it for that segrnent - MR. TREBILCOCK: We could try to earmarh though, to your point, too, you know. It would be a good thing. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Absolutely. Page 59 of 77 January 18,2018 COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I think the suggestion that the County Attorney made, at least pointing out one thing we could do, is something that we should consider seriously. Another thing, perhaps, we should consider if we can -- if we can do it within the framework of not unreasonably limiting properly owners'rights, would be further to consfrain the uses more narrowly than we -- I mean, there are 96 uses in C3. Right now we're talking about a mail-order delivery of pool products. If - which doesn't suggest to me as though it's going to create a lot more traffic, but the purchaser from your client down the road might come in and put a restaurant in or an eating place, and all of sudden enormously much larger traffic. So it seems to me that we ought to consider, to the extent we can, more severely, if you will, constraining the uses and more limited to the exact use that you have in mind. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you guys don't have an exact use in mind for the 32,000-square-foot building; is that correct? MR. TREBILCOCK: Correct. I mean, but, you know - and certainly it's a balance, because they are trying to, you know, move it along, and by working together as a consolidated group here, I mean, there are benefits there by having a, say, a singular driveway instead of a, you know, multiples. I mean, so there's benefits to trying to, you know, keep it together. But also, you know, in trying to market the property, if you don't have -- if there's too much unpredictability, then it becomes a problem, too, you know, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, so you're not going to - your owners aren't going to build this property? You're going to market it and sell it to somebody? MR. TREBILCOCK: Well, market it for a use, for an intended use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. CRESPO: And both properfy owners are business owners who may utilize the properties for their respective businesses, so that is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I thought you said Driftwood Nursery was one of the operators or owners. MS. CRESPO: Correct. And -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. They run a good operation here already. It would be nice to know that that's what they're going to do here. Then we could focus on that as the reasoning for approval or denial, and I -- that would make it a lot easier. It's the unknown. You-all don't like the unknown of when the road's going in. I'm a little concemed about the unknown of 96 uses, or down to whatever, maybe 91 or whatever we've got left. That's going to create a different impact either way you look at it. MS. CRESPO: We certainly want your recommendation of approval -- MR. KLATZKOW: You could limit the uses. You can't tell them they can't develop, all right, but you can limit their uses to minimize the impact on the road. But there needs to be a plan in place, an overall plan in place rather than just an ad hoc approach to it as, you know, developer from developer that comes in here. But you can say, for example, no more than 50 trips, whatever uses you want. But you need some rationale to do that with, and you don't have that yet. You don't know what buildout looks like as far as the roads go and what we can handle and how much is left to be developed and redeveloped. CFIAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that's the same reason, though, why we can't restrict someone, because we can't do it on a hope of developing happening. We have to have it on a timetable. MR. KLATZKOW: No. I need some basis -- you need some basis to say, okay, you know, you can develop what you want to, but no more than 50 trips; otherwise, it's arbitrary. But if you had some study that was done and some plan in place, yes, you can do that on a going-forward basis. CTIAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions from the Planning Commission at this time? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Maybe Nickwould like to come down. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we've got - I mean, Trinity had good information, so did Mike, so we're good. Is there a staff report? Page 60 of77 January 18, 201 8 MR. FINN: For the record, I'm Tim Finn, principal planner. The project is compliant with the GMP and LDC; therefore, staffrecommends approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, Ti4 you've been here a short time, but you sure picked up on staff reports. Thank you. Ary questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there any public speakers registered? MR. BELLOWS: One speaker; Michael George. CHAIRMAN STMIN: Sir, come on up and identif, yourself for the record, and we'll move forward. MR. GEORGE: Good aftemoon. My name is Michael George. I live in Sterling Oak. I'm here today to file my objection to this proposed change in the zoning ordinance for this property from rural agricultural to commercial PUD. I believe that the Growth Management Planning Department has failed to adequately assess this proposed change and its impact to the predominantly residential nature ofthe west side of old U.S. 41. The center line of Old U.S. 4l is - almost evenly divides the corridor between the residential development on the west side and the office, commercial, tndustrial development on the cast side. A recent new development south ofSterling Oaks - of the Sterling Oaks access and abutting the Meadow Brook Preserve apartments has come into being since the October 25th neighborhood meeting. The project - this project under consideration is a graphic -- the project thore is a graphic examplc of thc intrusive nature of this type ofdevelopment. Thc parccl has been stripped bare ofall trees and vegetation and approximately a dozen - halfa dozen tall metal poles have been erected. It is not clear what the poles or the development will be, but ifthesc poles support lighting fixhues, the light pollution will adversely affect the adjacent apartment complex. I live in Sterling Oaks, and my community abuts the property in question. The street on which I live, Silver Strand Drive, is dftectly west of the property. While therc is preserve area between us -- between the developed portion of Sterling Oaks and this parcel, it is mainly a wetland with scrub trees ofa mixed deciduous nature. It is questionable how much ofa barrier this preserve will provide for light and noise pollution that will accompany this commercial mail-order development. In this proposed development, infill, as described by Mr. Fryer, is out ofthe character with the current residential nature ofthe west side of Old U.S. 41. In conclusion, ['d just like to state, with all due respect to the Commission, it seems to me that you have spent an inordinate amount of time this moming on what has been described as insubstantial changes to previously approved PUDs. I submit to you that we are on the other end ofthe planning process, the very beginning, when we are talking about rezoning a parcel that is currently agricultural. So I ask you to consider this very carefirlly, and I request that you send this proposed zoning change for commercial infill to be sent back to the planning office for fiuther review. I believe that a reevaluation will confirm the negative impacts of this development associated with the rezoning. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. George, could you -- MR. GEORGE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: - tell me a bit about Sterling Oaks, the improvements in there, the single-family dwellings, the relative size. What's it like? MR. GEORGE: I think one of the pictures that you have graphically would probably - right there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your nearest unit is well over a thousand feet away liom the property line of this property and even further away from the first - from the building; is that correct? MR. GEORGE: Conect, CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: And your own project to the south of this project has an industrial, light industrial use in that location in that triangle south of this project, right? MR. GEORGE: Conect. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 6l of 77 January 18,2018 MR. GEORGE: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ned, did you have anything else? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I still don't have a good comprehension of what Sterling Oaks is. MR. GEORGE: It's a residential commtrnity of condominiums, single-family homes. COMMISSIONERFRYER: Condominiums, okay. How high are the buildings? MR. GEORGE: Two stories at the most. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Two-story. Okay. Are they townhouses? MR. GEORGE: Most of them are condominiums and townhouses. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. And how many - MR. GEORGE: And then, as you can see here, all of these are single-family homes here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. How many dwelling units are in Sterling Oaks? MR. GEORGE: 740. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Right next to Sterling Oaks are a church on 41, there on the access, next to Christus Victor, and they just put in an ALF next to that, and then there is another church to the south. So that's what Sterling Oaks is facing. And they do have quite a bit of preserve in the back. There main entrance is on 41, not Old 41. COMMISSIONERFRYER: I see. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any member of the public here who wishes to speak on this item who has not already spoken? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Did you have any last-minute comments you wanted to make, Alexis? MS. CRESPO: Yes, sir. We've heard a lot of good discussion today. We've submitted this application within the frame work of the TCMA. I'm hearing concerns about that and also concems about the lengh of uses. We do respectfully want your recommendation of approval. If continuing for two weeks can allow us time to maybe look at those uses, maybe craft conditions that address some of the transportation concerns, bring that back to you for consideration, we'd respectfully request that opportunity. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'd put that in the form of a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, I would, too, and I would -- is there a second? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I second. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I just want to point out, though, also, we're talking about all the facilities around there. I mean, right across the street is public storage, right across the street is a Sportsman's self-storage. So, I mean, there is fairly intense nonresidential use in that area as well as, so this is -- MR. KLATZKOW: Industrial. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It's not really an incompatible. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, but I think what would help at least get more of a consensus from this board is to try to figure out what plan you really want to apply to that second building, that big building, and then the limitation on that, have Norm take a look at the ffaffic in regards to those instead of having to do it as the highest use available. Honestly, I think that will go a long way to help this offdead center. So I commend you for your suggestion. I'm in support of it. The rest of us? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So let's - all in favor, signiff by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: AYC. Page 62 of71 January 18,2018 COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: AYC, COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I just want to be sure I understood; you'r€ going to look at lowering the number of permitted uses? MS. CRESPO: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. I'm sorry. CTIAIRMAN STRAIN: And based on that, see, when your TIS is done, it's supposed to be considered for the most intense use, and Norm could maybe then take a second look at the TIS and provide us with some ideas on how you're going to look at the TCMA requirements so that we have a package to understand how this may look better to us then. I think that's a good idea. And you've got the vote to do it, so thank you very much, and we will see you in -- MR. BELLOWS: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. BELLOWS: It's continued to what, the February lst meeting? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: First meeting - yeah, the first meeting in February. MR. BELLOWS: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that okay with everyone? COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's just got one other agenda item, right, on the first? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So it wouldn't overcrowd the agenda. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So is that - fiom the motion maker and the second, is the February lst meeting acceptable to you? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And everybody that voted on it? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're good. Thank you. And now we've been at this for an hour and 20 minutes, and we'll give Terri a lO-minute break before we go into the LDC stuff. So let's come back at 2:45; that will be a little longer. (A briefrecess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Since everybody's here and is anxious to get started -- and I'm bad. I looked at the clock and I thought it said2:33. lt was 2:23, so I was l0 minutes off. So we are going to start back up now inste ad of 2:45 , since everybody's anxious to start, and I don't blame you. MR. KLATZKOW: Do we have any public speakers on any of these things, Mike? MR. BOSI: None have been submitted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll be asking them as we go through, so... MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, but if they're not here because it's - CHAIRMAN STRAN: No. But if someone comes in in five minutes, then we'll just - we're certainly not going to prevent them from speaking. If you dont mind, if that work. +++Item 9E is what we're approaching. It's called the adoption ofamendments to the Land Development Code. It's a series of some of our cleanup amendments. Some are new amendments directed by the Board. And, Jeremy, it's all yows. MR. FRANTZ: Yes. Jeremy Frantz with the GroMh Management Department. As you said, this cycle is a mix of amendments that are primarily cleanup but some directed by the Board; some other issues noticed by staffover time. I'lljust note fiom -- in the beginning that we willhave a second hearing for some ofthese amendments that changed the list of uses and the map changes. That hearing is on February 7th. That's a Wednesday, and that's at 5:05 p.m. Also in the memo to the Planning Commission, I noted a couple of amendments that also require EAC review. That's part ofthis board. And because we haye several amendments -- as you know, these Page 63 of 77 January 18,2018 amendments are a product ofseveral staffmembers, so we'll havc a few ofus coming up as we go through the different amendments. We have just a couple ofchanges to some ofthe amendments, and we'll point those out as we go. From there we can walk through these amendments any way you'd like. We can make a short presentation on each; we can jump to your questions. However you'd like to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd like - just for the benefit - there are members of the public here, and they may have a question -- open up each section by just basically stating the section number and what it is and Oten ask us if we have any questions. And we'll - I think that's the best, most efficient way to approach it, and we'll go fiom there. MR. FRANTZ: Sounds good. MR. I{ENDERLONG: My name is fuch Henderlong, principal planner with the Land Development Code section. The first section that we're covering is Section 1.08.02 for definitions, This is an amendment that reinstates a definition for nonconforming lot of record that was previous -- codified in a previous ordinance, 82-002, amended by Ordinance 9l -102. This definition is the definition that the staff uses in preparing letters ofzoning verification when they're identiffing deficiencies in lot area, lot width for nonconforming lots. In addition to this, since DSAC heard this amendment, there's a section under 9.03.03 that we were proposing some language. Upon further review with staff, we've pulled that fiom this amendment, so it just addresses the definition for nonconformity uses. And the strikethrough that youle looking at here you will find is almost duplicative of Section 9.03.03 ,A'4 in the code under types ofnonconformity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions on that fint section? It starts on Page 3. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What I'd hke to do is - we have sections of these broken down as clarification amendments, GMP amendments, and - let me get past - I'm trying to get - whatever section we're in, we'll complete the scction, thcn we'll vote on them - we'll call them out and vote on them per section. Does that work for you guys? MR. HENDERLONG: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Okay. What's the next one, Rich? MR. HENDERLONG: The next section is 2.03.03, commercial zoning districts, and 2.03.M, industrial zoning districts. This amendment is intended to codiry a memorandum that staffhas also used, a series of memorandurrq to remove an ambiguity regarding marshal arts as a permitted use in C3, C4, C5, and industrial district. For the C3 zorung district, the amendment differentiates between indoor amusement and recreation sewices as a permitted use and those outdoor amusement recreational services as a conditional usc approval. These uses that have been identified as outdoor services will require a compatibility review with adjacent propertres. And then, lastly, the amendment identifics that there is a missing SIC code, 799, that had previously also been codified in another ordinance. CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions on - and that starts on Page 5. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's move to the next one. MR. FRANTZ: Jeremy Frantz, for the record, again. This next amendment is amending the dimensional standards for accessory buildings and structures. The amendment began after a variance hearing with the BZA. As we start€d to carry out that board direction, working with staff, noticed some other problems with these tables. So it's kind of grown from there. There are now a couple of other changes. Those are identified in the narrative. There are a couple of changes to this amendment that I have. I'll put those up on the visualizer now. So in the narrative it identifies that the front yard setback for permanent emergency generators and Page 64 of 77 January 18,2018 satellite dish antennas are identified as not permanently in front of building. ln the draft that was sent to you-all, that language still said not permitted in front yard. So making that change on Page 9 of the amendment -- 8 and 9 of the amendment, and I think that's 18, 19, and 20 of the packet that you have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Permits -- I assume that came about because - if you have a side yard, But you could still put it in front of the building if it was just front yard; is that correct? MR. FRANTZ: Right, yeah. The definition of front yard is a required front yard. So there may still be space between the required front yard and the building. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anything else in that section? MR. FRANTZ: Those are all the changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jeremy, I've got just a couple. Under the permanent emergency generator designation, the new setback table, the rear is 10 feet. And the foohrote refers to that same LDC Section 4.02.0l.D,which is on Page -- oh, you have it here in yourpages -- 4.02.01.D. There it is. It's on Page l5 of the pack. And it reads: Permanent emergency generators may be placed within the rear yard subject to a l0-foot rear yard setback and within side yards subject to a maximum encroachment into the setback of 36 inches. Now, if I was reading this, I might be able to read it in the manner that if you have a l0-foot rear yard setbaclg you can have a generator, but if you've got a 25-foot yard setback, you couldn't. And because the side yards of the ones excepted for the 36 inches, and it doesn't say that in the rear yard, I'm wondering if that could be an issue. I don't believe it's necessarily as clear as it could be, and I'm wondering if it could be written a little differently. MR. FRANTZ: I'dhave to work more closely with the staffthat apply this section. This wasn't identified as problematic language when we went over it, but I could come back to you at the second hearing and maybe discuss if there's any changes necessary. CTIAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, see, when you added it to that table, in there you said 10 feet, but then you referred back to 4.02.01.D.13 as a footnote to that table. Then I read that and I said, well, you know what? They don't seem to match up, because I think you're saying that any setbaclg as long as it's 10 feet or more, can have a 36-inch encroachment into the setback as long as it's not a front yard. Maybe you could restate it that way. MR. FRANTZ: Sure. Yeah, we can look at that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we will hold offon this one then? Okay. Then that takes us to the next one: Clarif,/ procedures for lot line adjustments and lot splits. It's on Page25,I think it is. Yeah. MR. HENDERLONG: Yes. This is LDC Section 4.03.04,1ot line adjustment and lot split. Basically this amendment is codiffing the approval for lot line adjustments and splits in other zoning districts other than just Golden Gate Estates and agriculture, which is how it's been generally interpreted in the past. And, in fact, during the review, in the building review process, staffhad experienced problems with a lot split after it had been approved but it was not recorded. And following its approval, the applicant oftentimes would delay the recording until such time it got either one or two of the parcels under contract, a purchase and sell agreement. That has caused problems because if a building permit came in, they would apply for it. It would not be caught until that time. So the amendment is designed to put a time limit to a lot split whereas the current code provides for that time limit of 12 months in the lot line adjustment language and, therefore, we're recommending that -- staffis, is that there be a time limit established for a lot split. And that is also an acknowledgment that the code -- no development order can be issued until such time that the split itself has been approved. It will also assist the department in a timely assignment of addressing and assure that the legal descriptions are properly filed with the Property Appraiser's Office and set on the tax roll. Page 65 of77 January 18,2018 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions? COMMISSIONEREBERT: No. It's good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rich, if we could take a look at the fust underline on Page 26,4.03.M.A, it says: Under lot line adjustment and lot split, generally, only lot line adjustments or lot split requests meeting the applicable land development regulations, including the minimum lot area and lot dimensions for the existing zoning district may be approved. My concem there is, lot line adjustments themselves don't meet the lot area or the lot dimensions. They just add to an existing lot or take away from a previous lot. So, really, those are the two things you're trying to protect there, not the split piece itself, right? MR. HENDERLONG: Yes, that's correct. And, in fact, we have done adjustments. They're usually on a platted lot, and they1l come over, and rather than go to the expense of having to re-plat, that's why the lot line adjustment process is to approve, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've actually done it before. I'm fine with it. I understand how it works. I just - I'm worried that this is saying something different than what you intend. Only lot line adjustments or lot split requests meeting the applicable Land Development Code regulations including the minimum lot area and lot dimensions for the existing zoning district may be approved. You really mean the resulting lots and the remaining lot, right? MR. HENDERLONG: That's correct. For a lot line adjudgment, we've got to make sure that the setbacks are not violated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But do you feel this gets that point across? MR. HENDERLONG: At the time we were discussing it with staffmembers and having it reviewed intemally, it was generally agreed that it would be better to put it together under this general clause and that, yes, it was deemed appropriate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, we'll see where it goes then. If nobody else has a concem, I don't at this point. I just thought it was -- it read kind of odd. So, okay. Let's go to the next one. MR. FRANTZ: So the next one is an amendment to the process for approval of insubstantial changes and minor changes to PUDs. This amendment is - CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, your early work authorization. MR. FRANTZ: Oh,I'm sorry. I'm skipping one. You're right. MR. HENDERLONG: Okay. This is Section 10.01.02, development -- I'm sorry. I got that -- yeah. 10.01.02, development orders required. This - basically this amendment removing this requirement that there be a separate legal determination or sufficiency review done by the County Attomey's Office, and that language had appeared because the Board did not - they were taking the agreements back to the Board - this was prior to 2005 -- and that language is no longer warranted because the EWA permit itself constitutes a legal binding document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions? Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Just one point. The line above that, ACOE, there is no acronym - that is an incorrect acronym for the Army Corps of Engineers. It should be USACE, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. MR. ffiNDERLONG: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: ACOE is commonly used but incorrect. MR. HENDERLONG: Thank you. So noted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The binding agreement that was executed by the Board, do we use that agreement verbatim for the EWA? MR. FRANTZ'. l'dhave to look at the County Attomey's Office to confirm that. MS. ASI{ION-CICKO: I'm sorry. What was your question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're on the EWA section, and it references Ordinance No. 2005-12, alad it's apparently that ordinance that set up this binding agreement that was executed by the Board for EWA permitting. And because of that, there's no legal review because the document was already preapproved. So my question is: Is that language of that EWA ever modified or changed to a point where we're Page 66 of77 January I 8, 20 I 8 changing an ordinance and the Board has to review it again? Which means it would need legal review. MS. ASIIrON-CICKO: The early work authorization permits are not submifted to us for review. We've never been asked to review one. It's something that we would have to look into, read the ordinance, and let you know whether the process needs to be changed and go through our oIfice. I cant answer your question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that wasn't my question. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Oh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My question was, if the ordinance is the agreement, the binding agreement that was executed by the Board as the basis for the EWA, does that - has that language ever changed? ls it always the same so it's never amended? And that's - I'm bringing that up because of the next item wete going to be discussing. MR. HENDERLONG: It's a good question. My understanding, Marlg is that the EWA permit itself, those elements that required the binding, for instance, the bonding that has to be put up early, the commitrnents about the infi'astructure, whatever phase they're going to undertake during the construction - that initial phase, theyte at risk. That's part of the conditions that are issued in the EWA permit. But to my understanding, I have nol looked at the specific binding agreement. Ever - each and every one of them are a little bit different or tweaked based upon the issuance of the permit. So maybe - CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See, that's my problem. (Mulhple speakers speaking.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're leaming by the next one that you have coming up that because of an interpretation I disagree with, that the only people that can change an ordinance are the Board of County Commissioners. So my question is, if we're not going to have legal review because the Board, obviously, is not going to be involved in the EWAs because they already did it by the Ordinance 2005-12, did they dictate the language that's not being - that's - because it - did they dictate the language that's to be used in the EWAs? Is it being used and not changed; therefore, it meets the conditions of the original ordinance that was approved? MR. KIATZKOW: Let me ask it this way. ls your permit a form? MR. IIENDERLONG: Yes. MR. KLATZKOW: Board-approved form? MR. HENDERLONG: Yes. MR. KLATZKOW: Do you ever change it in a substantive manner? MR. HENDERLONG: To my knowledge, talking with John Houldsworth in the department, no. MR. KLATZKOW: If they're not changing the substantive matter, I don't have to look at it. If they're changing the substantive manner, than yes, I do have to look al. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I've been trying to get to. MR. KLATZKOW: Yes CHAIRMAN STRAN: Thank you. That's where I was trying to go. Okay. Good. Go ahead, Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Can I say something? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Sometimes these EWAs were not followed through on. We had projects where they were not collecting the 2,000 per acre. Theyjust let the developers do it with nothing. And we ran into a couple situations where back then they went banlirupt, so - and the county - MR. HENDERLONG: The county requires them to bond it, post the money now. They dont do that. You're correct. I remember those days, Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that takes us to the next one. Anybody else have any questions on that one? (No response.) Page 67 of 77 January 18,2018 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thankyou. MR. FRANTZ: So this is the amendment that I was excited to get into. As I started to say, it's amending the process for PUD insubstantial changes and minor changes, and we are basically memorializing the direction that the Board gave back n20I7. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bye, Mike Bosi. I'm sorry to see you leaving when things are getting into heavy discussion here. And Jeremy (sic) French, too. We'll see you guys later. MR. FRENCH: Jeremy's still here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, that's right. Jamie French. I'm sorry. I had -- Mike was trying to subtly go out. I just wanted to make it not so subtle for him. Go ahead. MR. FRANTZ'. I don't have anything else on this amendment. I guess I could note also that there is an admin - an administrative code change associated with this amendment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And normally I would hrn to the Planning Commission and ask for any comments, but before you comment, I'd like to express some issues on my own so you know where my position's coming. First of all, this involves the Hearing Examiner's Office, and it started -- well, first, I went back in our codes to -- remember -- for those of you who have been on this board a long time, 91-102, the 1991 code, was changed to what's now called the M40 044 (sic) code, 2004 code. Both of those codes have always had in them minor changes and u:rsubstantial changes and substantial changes to PUDs. The minor changes are done by staff. They have been done by stafffor decades. The insubstantial changes have been done by this commission for decades. I've been here 16 years, and we've done them. Never had a problem. Never had an objection. Never had an issue involving whether or not what we were doing was correct or incorrect according to the law. We based that on interpretations from the County Attomey's Office. We've had a slough of County Attomeys since then. We've actually got the best County Attomey I've ever worked with in 40 years in Collier County sitting here today. He concuned that the process was correct. My office opened up in 2013. This process was looked at again, and it was also assigned to my office for the very minor things. This board knows very well what's happening with that. When I have anything that even rises to a level of concem by neighborhoods and things or by commissioners, I immediately move it to this board. You heard two of them this moming. In doing so, I'm prohibited from sitting on the Board, which is ironic because the more complicated it gets, I would hope the more involvement I could have. I actually have less. This particular document now is saying that the amendment's going to be -- go to the Board for ordinance amendment, that the decision -- well, it used to be a decision - that the document produced by this board would have to go -- or the Hearing Examiner would have to go to the Board of County Commissioners for ordinance amendment. Now, that's because the Clerk's Offrce intervened six months, eight months, I don't know how long ago, after all these years, and decided our process wasn't right, even though I had a slough of attomeys believe it is. There's been no appeals to the process. The process seemed to be working. This kind of upset the apple cart. It's actually -- the tail's wagging the dog in this case so that right now, if we change this so it's an ordinance amendment, that may trigger some other problems that I'm concerned about. First of all, one of the reasons we opened the Hearing Examiner's Office up is to unclutter the system. We have less govemment and make it a little simpler for the projects that didn't need that higher level of scrutiny. Well, I shouldn't say higher level of scrutiny. Higher level of process that involves so much additional money. In fact, if you looked at the fiscal part of it, fiscal impacts to the applicant include increased time and costs associated with an additional board hearing and required advertisements for PDIs and PMCs. Operational impacts to the county include increased stafftime required to bring PDIs and PMCs to an additional hearing before the Board. This whole process was initiated to save money, save time on both sides. We're going completely opposite here. Now, my concem is if we trash the PDI process and the minor change process, which is the part that Page 68 of77 January 18, 2018 staffdoes, which is inconsistent, by the way, with every municipality that I could look at, Lee County, Bonita Springs, all the rest of then! they have this -- some ofthem have them to a greater extent than we allowed them. Some ofthe insubstantial changes that were rcquired for a public hearing by us are considered staff changes in Fort Myers and Lee Comty. So to bave us singled out in the entire state, fiom what I can see, to have our system changed is bad enough. But if we labeled this as an ordinance amendment -- it's $1,500 to do a PDI tfuough my office process. If it becomes an ordinance amendment, I'm concemed it's going to rise to that 5- or $6,000 level. The cost to do a PDI, there are 13 items in our admin code that talk about what you need to do for an insubstantial change. I'm looking at them -- there's 14 including electronic copies ofall items. Under a PUD amendment -- let me read this. In addition to all PUD - in addition, all PUD documents are rcquired to be submitted with a PUDA application. So if we do an amendment, we have 47 - or 37 items to supply, or the applicant does, plus 13 items that they have to confirm on their master plan. Some of this shrffis so minor. You guys don't see it an),more because I'm handling that shrff lt's a couple word changes, an acronym change, a simple reference. It's usually intemal to the project. I just don't want to see it become an amendment. Right now to appease the Clerk's Office, we have been applying it as final decisions, and then the Board would affirm the decision. Now, that's different than the Board looking at it as an ordinance amendment bccause ofthe way our admin code requires the processes and the dollan involved. So - and I have geat respect for Jeff. He and I are usually always on the same side. I'm very concemed about this one, and it does affect me differently than it does all ofyou. But ifthere's a way around this that isnt as cumbersomc as I'm feeling this one might be, Jefi I sure would appreciate it. MR. KLATZKOW: This is board direction. These arguments were made, and this is the direction Board gave stafl I think staffs changes here comports with the Board's direction. As far as the way this is going to be administered, my understanding - and staffwill correct me - is that the insubstantial PUD amendments and the minor changes will be done as they were always done with the one exception is that there will be an item before the Board of County Commissioners so that the change will be made by ordinance; otherwise the process is identical. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: But originally we didnt need to do that. Wc only had to do that because of the Clerk's concem over his interpretation of our enabling act that was new afler, what, since at least 1991 till now. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I heard it had to do with the state. I heard it had to do with the state. not the county. It's what the state requires this county to do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. That's thc ClerlCs interpretation that the state requires -- the state requires it because he interprets our enabling act diffoently. MR. KLATZKOW: The argument the Clerk is making is this, all right: The only way to amend an ordinance is by an ordinance, whrch is correct; that these insubstantial changes and minor changes are a de facto amendment of an ordinance. That's arguable. Okay. Therefore, if you'rc going to effechrate an insubstantial change or a minor changs, you must do it by ordinance. Now, I understand we've been doing it this way for many, many years. I understand many of the jurisdictrons are doing it the same way Collier County's been doing it for every other year. This was explained to the Board ofCounty Commissioners. Their direction was this amendment that you're seeing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they directed staff to bring it back in some manner that's consistent with this different interpretation to appease the ability to end up in court, because no one wants to end up in court in litigation over this issue, and I don't disagcc with that. But I am not comfortable that this is the best outcome we could have. MR. KIATZKOW: And it's within -- what you do is you make a recommendation to deny it saying there's nothing wrong with the cunent process. CTIAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm - my preference is to leave the current process. I mean, I can't sit in this board for the PDIs, and to me, after l6 years of being on this board that's disappointing, but I undcrstand the reasoning there. For me to be able to sit in this board, if these did become PUDAs, I could, Page 69 of77 January 18,2018 but then the cost to the business community is exheme for that, and I'd rather not do that and save the cost and save the overabundance of govemment and keep it smaller. MR. KLATZKOW: And staffwill correct me if I'm wrong. As I'm reading this, we're still going through the PDI process. That process is no different. We're still going through the minor-change process. That process is no different with the one exception that the termination of that process will be an ordinance of the Board rather than a resolution by the Planning Commission or the Hearing Examiner or whatever you do to document the minor change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, see, then itbecomes an ordinance amendment. MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, but only to document -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. KLATZKOW: -- what you've already decided or staffhas decided. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, I mean, ordinance amendments cost almost four times or more than a PDI. MR. KLATZKOW: No, they don't. It's going to cost an additional $3S0 to advertise on average, and that will be it. Otherwise the process is exactly the same. My understanding - and staffwill correct me if I'm wrong -- the process is exactly the same as we're currently doing. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Does that, then, go on the consent agenda? MR. KLATZKOW: Summary, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Summary agenda, I'm sorry, to the Board. MR. KIATZKOW: Yes. My expectation is that 99 percent of them will just pass without comment because they're insubstantial. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Jeff, you know, when we started on the golf course language change and we started on the gas station language change, your first reaction was, go see what the other municipalities are doing, and that was the ammunition we used in which to set our template up. On this one, we should be doing that, because somehow everybody else in the state of Florida's doing it okay, and they're keeping the business community out of this morass of process that now we canrt seem to be able to do because the Clerk of Courts doesn't want it to happen. MR. KIATZKOW: I fully understand your position. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm just frustrated with it all. It just seems a lot of extra time, paperwork, and money for both taxpayers and businesses in this county, and I, for one, will not go along with that amendment, but that's just me for my own -- the reasons I've extended. So anybody else on the panel have any other comments? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I think it bothers us on the Planning Commission, too, because if Mark has not heard this -- I don't care if it is a PDI, but if it comes to the Board because it's contoversial, I don't understand why Mark can't sit here. MR. KLATZKOW: Because Mark is also the Hearing Examiner, and he's got a problem with dual officers. COMMISSIONER EBERT: We got to do away with that dual officer. MR. KIATZKOW: And we're doing away with it partly by this process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well - but, see, therein lies the difference. If you left the insubstantial ones that came to my office as final and they had to come to this board if not and this board processed them as a PUD amendment, then by the mere fact it came before this boar( that might provide some relief. Then I could participate. MR. KLATZKOW: Once we go through this process, you can participate in all the PUDIs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then they're not PUDIs anymore. MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, they are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. KLATZKOW: But the final - the final - the finality of it will be the Board of County Commissioners, not you. Page 70 of 77 January 18,2018 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's - it wasn't me anyway with this new process. The Board still saw it, but they saw it as an affirmation ofa decision, not an ordinance amendment. MR. KLATZKOW: And that was the measure we had to do in order to get the LDC process to go through. That was the in-between moment we have. But at the end of the day, all that's changing. It's rather than you issuing a recommendalion or stafr issuing a letter, the Board will be doing this by ordinance. Three hundred hfty dollars to advertise. Am I wrong on any ofthis? MR. FRANTZ: No, that's correct. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So let me get this right. So Mark can participate - like, he couldn't this moming. He will be able to now sit on this - it will be 3 - it will cost the developer 5350 more, but he can sit with us. MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAN: And that doesn't go to me. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're not paying $350 - COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Oh, now I think it does. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Just for advertising. But - because that is upsetting to me, too, that here he hasn't heard it. I don't care ifit's controversial or no(. It would be nice that he could sit up here with us. MR. KLATZKOW: And he sits with you on every item you have that's a reconunendation to the Board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So what happens is the PDIs all tum into recommendations - MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: - but then become amendments. MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. CTIAIRMAN STRAIN: And if they stay recommendations through the lower boards, they can be done as PDIs. MR. KLATZKOW: It's still a PDl. It's just documented by an ordinance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Sounds rather simple to me what Jeffjust said. It's a PDI, but it's a PDI that ends in a - MR. KLATZKOW: An amendment. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: - sort of a perfunctory amendment - MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: - or codified in an amendment to the Board and on the summary agenda. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But in acquiescing to the Clerk of Courts' position on this, which, again, is different than anlhing we've experienced for decades in other municipalities, we've created a higher burden and cost for both taxpayers and the business community for irmocuous things that nobody even shows up for. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, it's just - it doesnt make any sense. But that's what we're stuck with to get out of this without a lawsuit. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I mean, it's - the Board, if the Board directed and we're complying - staffis complying with the Board in the process, and what Jeff said is this is nothing more than an advertisement cost, basically the same except for the - it is advertised. MR. KIATZKOW: The cost - COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I guess it keeps the fight between the Board and the Clerk to - CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the point. MR. KLATZKOW: Well - but the other thing it does -- and it's not a small thing - is that anyone who wants to know what the current ordinance look like, it's easy to look up in MUNI code. Minor changes and insubstantial changes, good luck finding what those look like. You'd never larow they were there. So Page 7l of 17 January 18, 2018 Iiom that standpoint, it's not a bad process. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I have no problem. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chairman? CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I was under the impression that the reason why the Hearing Examrner could not sit up here on insubstantial changes had to do with the fact that the Hearing Examiner had already touched the matter with respect to the decision makrng that it - whether it should or should not come to the CCPC and to prevent one person from making a decision at two different levels. And so what I was going to propose -- and maybe we've already solved it, and if that's the case, I'm fine. But I was going to propose that we clari$ the matters that would go to thc Hearing Examiner vcrsus coming to the CCPC, the insubstantial changes, that is, having to do with whether there is a level of opposition or something else to kick it up to a higher point. But if - CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That is already in thc ordinance that established the Hearing Examiner's Office. That's already defined. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I looked at that, and it talks about conflict of interest, but it also - it provides the Hearing Examiner with discretion in some cases. In other words, you, in your judgrent say that this is more significant and, therefore, should go to the Planning Commission. I was under the impression that in exercising that judgrnent you were touching the matter and then touching it a second time up here, and that's why - CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. What I've bcen doing, to be honest with you, is as I see items come tkough - I've been on this board so long and I've dealt with so many ofthe neighborhoods, I can generally tcll when something's coming in that may be objectionable. So as soon as I realize that, I tell thc applicant early to process it as a PUDA or a PDI before the Planmng Commission so they haven't got to advertise twice. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's all good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's how -- so I catch it as early as possible, and that's why you guys are ending up seeing so many because I'm trying to be conservative in that approach. I wanted the - I wanted the systcm to continue only because it is a time and cost savings, a tremendous time and cost savings, and that was the whole objective. MR. KIATZKOW: One of the architects of the Hearing Examiner - it was primarily Mr. Casalanguida and me that sat down and created this .- the idea was that for matters that were relatively ministerial in nature, that nobody had any objections to, okay, it would be a benefit for the community to have a process that was quiclg rclatively cheap, rather than going through the Planning Commissionen and then the Board of County Commissioners, and that's the basic concept behind your Hearing Examrner. Changes that are -- at thc end ofday no one cares about, all dght, should be handled by the Hearing Examiner. And like today, when you had a roomful of people on an insubstantial change, that's where it should come before the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, I agree with you. I understand that and agree with it completely. I just misunderstood that the reason that you couldnt participate a second time is because you'd already exercised - CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. COMMISSIONER FRYER: - ajudgnent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We hand it off- COMMISSIONER FRYER: But's that's - okay. So it gets fixed simply by the fact that it gets on the summary agenda, and then - MR. KLATZKOW: It gets fixed by the fact that the final decision's by the Board of County Commissioners and not by either Mark or the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm fine with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that's it. No more questions on that item that is the first section of our LDC reviews, and it's under clarifications of amendmcnts. I'm going to read the ones off that I know we havent had any disputed discussion on, and then we'll Page 72 of 77 January 18, 2018 work down to where - the only one left that I think there might be a different vote on is the last one. So, first ofall, we didn't resolve to clarifr dimensional standards for accessory buildings and structure, so I won't read that one. So the first - I'll read them all, and then we'll vote on them. LDC Section 1.02.08.02 and 9.03.03, LDC Section 2.03.03 and 2.03.04, LDC Section 4.03.04, LDC Section 10.01.02. If we can take those four and we've all -- there was no -- the discussion was limited; we were all in favor. Is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's made by Pakick Seconded by? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe. Discussion? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Discussion, please. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I spoke with Jeremy on this, and he was kind enough to send me these documents in Word formal so that I could possibly suggest more changes. I achrally found almosl nothing that I felt needed changing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, that's good. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah, I thought so, too. But there was one or two things, Jeremy, that I had asked for slight changes on. I think one was mentioning the fact that the CCPC can initiate LDC amendments and you, I thinl! added that language. MR. FRANTZ: Yeah. That's in an amendment that we have not covered yet. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What I just asked about were only those few pages we've already covered. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Oh, I'm sorry. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: We've got three more sections to get to yet. COMMISSIONER FRYER: My apologies. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: So then wele got those sections I just read off. There's a motion madc and scconded. All in favor. sigrifo by saying 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.) CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: Motion cames 74 (sic). And then the last one that we went through and we'll ask for a motion on is LDC Section 10.02.13 and 10.03.06. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Chairman,6 to nothing, not 7. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Six to nothing, I'm sorry. Thank you. On the prior votes, it was 6 to nothing. Yeah, Stan had to leave for family reasons. LDC Sections 10.02.13, 10.03.06. Anybody have a motion on those? That's the - COMMISSIONER EBERT: That's going to come back again, that stuffthat we just discussed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's what we just discussed. It's not coming back. That's the one with the PDI. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Move to approve. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Made by Patrick Seconded by Ned. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signiff by saying aye. Page 73 of77 January 18,2018 COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All opposed, same sign. Aye. Motion carries 5-1. Under the Growth Management Plan consistency amendments, let's start on those, Jeremy. MR. FRANTZ: Sure. So, actually, all three of these amendments are intended to provide consistency with recent Growth Management Plan changes. The -- we can walk through them individually if you'd like. They're fairly straightforward. CTIAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's see if we have -- anybody have any -- they're on Pages 47,47, 49, and 51. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Pretty benign. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me see. Oh, I only have one question, Jeremy, and I mentioned it to you yesterday. I want to make - I want your acknowledgment that the changes to the ACSC do not impact the Plantation Island area at all. MR. FRANTZ: Yeah. I had a chance to talk to David Weeks from Comprehensive Planning and indicated that there's no impact. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's the only question I had on that section. Does anybody else have any questions? [No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then I'll read all of the LDC sections. LDC Section 2.03.08 -- 2.03.08 and 3.05.07 and4.02.74. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Joe. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Diane. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAN: Al[ in favor, signifrby sayrng aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. MR. FRANTZ: And just to clarifu, that included those zoning map changes as well. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Znntngmap changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. That was all that -- part of that whole section. And that takes us to the final pages, 61 through 73, new standards for the LDC. Jeremy? Oh -- and we have to go back, and we will revote on the EAC ones. After we finish, I'll go back through and read those off, so... New standards? MR. HENDERLONG: Okay. The next item before you is LDC Section 6.06.01.05, soil erosion, sediment control plan amendment. Currently, best management practices are applied for soil erosion and sediment control on large-scale Page74 of77 January 18,2018 projects, and they're met under LDC Section 6.05.01. This amendment extends those practices and the requirements to smaller projects such as a single-family, duplex, to!.rrhomes, and underground construction utilities. It will require that the sedimentation control structures be initiated early on and established prior to the commencing of construction. Typically, on the large projects they find the violations or have been - would occur at the back end before the CO is issued. What this is going to do is advance it. we've discussed it with the Building Department, the Water Pollution Control staffas well, that this will allow the building inspectors, at their first inspection, to begin to look for these control devices so that they're not catching the violation too late to where the damage has occurred and can be remedied. In addition, here for us today are staffmembers fiom the Water Pollution Control, the manager, Danette Kinaszczuk, along with Steve Preston and Nicholas Lehmann, if you have any questions for them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nope. It's all pretty straightforward. Thank you. Anything else on the rest ofthe sections? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: A1l done. Goback to work. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anlhing - the other three -- there's a total of three sections. Anlhing from anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a motion on Section 6.01.05, 9.04.04, and 10.02.09? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Move to approve. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second. MR. FRANTZ: Mr. Strain, we did not get to 9.04.M and 10.02.09. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We don't have any questions on those. MR. FRANTZ: I just have a minor change on 10.02.09. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we have a motion, seconded. Discussion? What's your minor change? MR. FRANTZ: It's very simple. As Commissioner Fryer pointed out, he had caught something missing in the narrative of the amendment to Section 10.02.09. Simpty adding that we also get direction for LDC amendments fiom the Planmng Commission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He's 100 percent right there. Okay. With that amendment, does the motion maker still affirm and the second? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Affirm. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signi$, by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CTIAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. Now for the EAC review. EAC review, we have four of them. LDC Section 2.03.08,4.02.14 in the zoning maps, and 6.01.05. Is there a motion as the EAC for those? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Make a motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second. Pagc 75 of 77 January 18,2018 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Ned; made by Joe. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, sigu& by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: AYE. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. That wraps up our review on the LDC issues that have come forth. And that takes us to the end of our agenda. There's no new business listed. Anybody have anything? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Just one. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mr. Chairman, just one comment. We were promised -- I'm sure someone will follow up from transportation with that study graphic we saw. Do I need to send -- follow up with that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, no. Trinity's good with that. She'll make sure we get it all. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Old business. Anybody? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: We'll be inundated with it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that brings us to any -- COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mr. Chairman, one last thing; I'm sorry. The evening meeting on February 7th, I was able to check. The meetings in February I can attend, and earlier today I said I could be there February 7th for 5 o'clock. As of right now until I can change it, I cannot. So I'll work on trying to change it. But for now I cannot attend that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. As long as we still have a quorum, we should be able to be fine. Thank you, Patrick. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That takes us through new, old, and public comment. Nobody from the public's remaining. Is there a motion to adjoum? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Motion. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So moved. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Motion to adiourn. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Joe, seconded by Diane. All in favor, sigu& by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Discussion? Discussion? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Discussion on adjournment? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thankyou, all. Page76 of77 January 18, 2018 ttt+++* There being no firther business for the good ofthe County, the meeting was adoumed by order of the Chair at 3:23 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on Z - t C-rB , as presented / or as conected -. TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAI SUPPORT, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. Page 77 of 77