Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
CCPC Agenda 06/07/2018
AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 9:00 A.M., JUNE 7, 2018, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, THIRD FLOOR, 3299 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS W APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—May 3,2018 6. BCC REPORT-RECAPS 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS: Note: This item has been continued from the March 1, 2018, CCPC meeting and the April 5,2018 CCPC meeting and the May 17,2018 CCPC meeting: A. PL20170002684: Resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida, granting a parking exemption, to allow off-site parking on a contiguous lot zoned Residential Single Family (RSF-4) and providing for repeal of Resolution No. 09-152, relating to a prior parking exemption. The subject property is located between Rosemary Lane and Ridge Street, in Section 22, Township 49 South, Range 25 East in Collier County,Florida. [Coordinator:James Sabo,AICP,Principal Planner] Note: This item has been continued from the May 3,2018 CCPC meeting and the May 17,2018 CCPC meeting and further continued indefinitely: B. PL20160002584/CPSS-2017-1: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance No. 89-05, as amended, the Collier County Growth Management Plan for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, Page 1 of 2 specifically amending the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and Golden Gate Area Future Land Use Map by revising the conditional uses subdistrict to allow for the construction of a church or place of worship. The subject property is located at the southeast corner of Golden Gate Boulevard and Collier Boulevard in Section 11, Township 49 South, Range 26 East,consisting of 6.25 acres;and furthermore,recommending transmittal of the adopted amendment to the Florida Department Of Economic Opportunity; providing for severability and providing for an effective date. (Companion to PL20160002577) [Coordinator: Sue Faulkner,Principal Planner] Note: This item has been continued from the May 3, 2018 CCPC meeting and the May 17,2018 CCPC meeting and further continued indefinitely: C. PL20160002577: A Resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County,Florida, providing for the establishment of a conditional use to allow a church within an Estates Zoning District pursuant to Section 2.03.01.B.1.c.1 of the Collier County Land Development Code for property located on the southeast corner of Golden Gate Boulevard and Collier Boulevard in Section 11, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County,Florida. (Companion to PL20160002584)[Coordinator:James Sabo,AICP, Principal Planner] D. PL20170003535: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance Number 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code which includes the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from a Rural Agricultural(A) zoning district within the ST/W-4 Overlay to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district within the ST/W-4 Overlay, to allow for development of up to 148 single family,two family and/or multi-family dwelling units for a project to be known as 951 Villas RPUD; and providing an effective date. The subject property consisting of 37.5 acres is located on the east side of Collier Boulevard approximately%2 mile north of the intersection of Vanderbilt Beach Road and Collier Boulevard, in Section 35, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator:Timothy Finn,AICP,Principal Planner] E. PL20180001205/CPSP-2018-4: A Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners proposing amendments to the Collier County Growth Management Plan,Ordinance 89-05, as amended, relating to Affordable Housing specifically amending the Density Rating System in the Future Land Use Element; The Golden Gate Area Master Plan Element;the Immokalee Area Master Plan Element; and the Housing Element; and furthermore recommending Transmittal of the Amendments to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. [Coordinator:Corby Schmidt,AICP,Principal Planner] 10. NEW BUSINESS 11. OLD BUSINESS A. Discussion on Accela-Electronic packets"Go Live"for the June 21St CCPC meeting 12. PUBLIC COMMENT 13. ADJOURN CCPC Agenda/Ray Bellows/jmp Page 2 of 2 May 3, 2018 Page 1 of 86 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, May 3, 2018 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain (Absent for roll call) Stan Chrzanowski Patrick Dearborn Diane Ebert Edwin Fryer Karen Homiak ABSENT: Joe Schmitt Tom Eastman ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney May 3, 2018 Page 2 of 86 P R O C E E D I N G S CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Good morning. Could you please all take your seats. Thank you. This is the May 3rd meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. I'd like you to all please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Roll call? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. Good morning. Mr. Eastman is absent. Mr. Chrzanowski? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Is present. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Fryer? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mrs. Ebert is here. Mr. Strain is missing for a short time. Mrs. Homiak? CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Schmitt is absent. And, Mr. Dearborn? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Here. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Thank you. Is there any changes to the agenda? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: No? MR. BELLOWS: I have no changes. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Planning Commission absences. May 17th is our next meeting. Is everyone going to be here, or do you -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'll be here. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'll be here. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Yes. Good. Approval of the minutes, April 5th; minutes of April 5th. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'll move approval of those minutes. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: And April 19th minutes. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Move to approve. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: BCC report. MR. BELLOWS: The Board of County Commissioners met on April 24th. They heard the May 3, 2018 Page 3 of 86 Creekside PUD amendment; that was approved 5-0. They also approved the Marco Shores assisted living facility with changes, and the changes were to remove the prohibition on the developmentally disabled residents for the group housing for seniors, so that part will be part of their application. And then on the summary agenda, Rushton Pointe was approved. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Thank you. Chairman's report, I don't have one. Mr. Strain will be joining us later on in the meeting. We have no consent items, so I'll go to the first advertised public hearing, which is -- well, we'll do them both. They're companion items. We'll hear them both at the same time and vote on them separately. ***They're for Marco Shores Fiddler's Creek, and the first one is amending the development order of PL20160002727 and the other is PL20160002496. So if there are people -- anyone here that wishes to speak on this item, would you please rise and be sworn in by the court reporter, both items. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. We'll hear from the petitioner, then the staff report, and then we'll have the speakers. And disclosures. Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. I've talked to Mr. Yovanovich and gotten a bunch of emails from the public, from staff, and that's about it. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Same disclosure. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Same. Lots of emails. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Yeah. I spoke to Mr. Yovanovich and emails. Patrick? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Emails. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Good morning. For the record, Rich Yovanovich on behalf of the petitioner and applicant, the property owner. With me today are Wayne Arnold and Mark Minor from Grady Minor & Associates. They're both the engineering firm and planning firm for this project. Jim Banks, our transportation consultant, is here. I don't see -- our environmental consultant is Tim Hall, but I don't think there were any comments regarding the environment, so Mr. Hall is not with us today. We have two petitions in front of the Planning Commission today. They're companion items. Fiddler's Creek is a project -- I put it on the visualizer. It's approximately 6,000 acres in size, and it's in the general vicinity of Collier Boulevard and U.S. 41. It's both a DRI and a PUD. It's a DRI that actually involves multiple properties, multiple parcels, and multiple developments. Fiddler's Creek is one of the projects within the DRI, and Fiddler's Creek has a PUD addressing the development standards for Fiddler's Creek as well, and we're going to be making changes to both of those documents with respect to Fiddler's Creek. The project is currently approved for 6,000 residential units. In the DRI development order, it broke it into 3,000 single-family, 3,000 multifamily. We put that same language into the PUD to make them consistent, 3,000 single-family, 3,000 multifamily. One of the changes that we're proposing is to allow for the conversion of multifamily units to single-family units at the tradeoff of two multifamily units for every one additional single-family unit. Can't go the other way. Cannot exceed 6,000 units. So if we convert multifamily to single-family, we'll actually have less than 6,000 units. That's one of the proposed changes to both the PUD and the DRI. The Fiddler's Creek portion of the project is currently approved for 325,000 square feet of business commercial in the PUD. I'm going to put the old master plan up on the visualizer. If we convert from single to multi -- this is the currently existing master plan, and this is Collier Boulevard. This is U.S. 41. Most of the business acreage is here at the entrance on Collier Boulevard for Fiddler's Creek. There's some -- a small amount right here on 41. The proposed change to the master plan is to relocate a majority of the business commercial that was May 3, 2018 Page 4 of 86 located at the entrance on Collier Boulevard to this location on U.S. 41, which is the entrance of Sandpiper Drive. The anticipated development of that parcel is a grocery-anchored shopping center. The grocery store that is interested in that site looked at the location on Collier Boulevard and determined based upon the growth that's occurring out on the East Trail east of 951 and all the rooftops that are coming in Naples Reserve, Reflection Lakes, and some day further east the part of -- as the rural fringe mixed-use district, that that's the better location and will better serve residents with a grocery-anchored shopping center. So the primary change that we're making to the PUD today is to relocate acreage to that location. The square footage of 325,000 square feet is remaining the same. Now, Fiddler's Creek is a little unique. As I said, it's an older DRI, and older DRIs enjoyed a certain vesting that occurred before the Growth Management Plan came into place and, actually, Fiddler's Creek is -- has a vested rights determination. I believe that's in your backup materials. In two thousand and -- I have it in my notes. In April of 2006 Fiddler's Creek went through a formal vested rights determination to basically confirm that the 6,000 units is vested, the 325,000 square feet is vested, and the other ancillary uses in the PUD, such as parks, et cetera, are all vested for purposes of concurrency and other infrastructure compatibility. So that determination was made, and it even talked about the relocation of the different types of development, provided that we did not increase those development rights, could occur under the vested rights determination. We still go through the PUD review for compatibility, et cetera, but as far as the relocation of the different development rights, we don't have to go through any type of consistency with the Comprehensive Plan determination. We just have to go through the PUD review process. That's why you don't have any Comp Plan amendments as part of this process. Another change that we're making to the PUD is to convert a roughly five-acre parcel that's right here. It was going to be a passive park within the community. It will be converted to allow for residential development. Again, that was a five-acre parcel, and we're going to build an active linear park along a roadway, an extension of Fiddler's Creek Parkway, and I'll show you some details of what that park will be, and that park is over nine acres in size. So we're trading out one park location for another park location as part of this process. One of the concerns that came up in the review process -- well, actually, it came as some concerns as comments from the neighbors. The PUD has an obligation to basically provide two sites to the county for future county infrastructure. One of them is an EMS site. There was concern about EMS access if we no longer constructed the extension of Fiddler's Creek Parkway all the way to U.S. 41. We have designed the EMS site to have access to both U.S. 41, so if it's going out to a call somewhere other than in Fiddler's Creek, and then also access into Fiddler's Creek. So if there was an emergency call that they needed to respond to in Fiddler's Creek, as part of the park we're building a 12-foot-wide driveway that will have access to the EMS site. So there will be direct access for EMS through the park to address any emergency calls in the project. Another change that we're making is if you look at the current master plan -- this is the existing PUD master plan and, as you can see, it is extremely detailed but yet it's conceptual. I can tell you that even though that's the master plan that currently is approved, the PUD isn't developed exactly like that master plan. As you know, we generally show the road system. We show development parcels. And it's way more general than that because things move around, lakes move around, et cetera; development parcels move around. So one of the things we're doing is taking this area right here, which is a development parcel, we're consolidating that to look like the typical PUD that you would see today to show it as a development parcel as part of the project, and we will develop that parcel with all the same open space requirements that currently exist. It's not changing. It's just showing it as a unified larger parcel that will be divided through the platting process that typically occurs. So that's one of the other changes we're making. Now, along with that we're making some -- we're making some changes to the access points along May 3, 2018 Page 5 of 86 U.S. 41. We're making some changes to the access points on U.S. 41. The one mostly to the east, that's remaining. The one going a little bit further -- I'm sorry, mostly to the west is remaining. Going further to the east is Sandpiper. That's remaining. We're adding an access point to the shopping center parcel, and then we're adding another access point for that portion of the property, which we commonly refer to as Estancia, and that's the way you see it on the master plan. The anticipation is is that the Estancia project will be -- it will still be within Fiddler's Creek, but it will be standalone from Fiddler's Creek. It will have its own access on 41. That doesn't mean that people won't be using Sandpiper at times, because they will have connection to the shopping center, but predominantly to the Estancia property will be from U.S. 41, which will reduce the amount of traffic at Sandpiper from a residential standpoint. And Jim Banks is here to answer any questions you have regarding transportation. We've also modified the master plan. And a lot of these changes we discussed at the town hall meeting which we had after the neighborhood meeting. We have modified the master plan to no longer have Estancia with a direct connection to Sandpiper. It has a connection to the shopping center so people can go to and from the shopping center without having to go on 41 and finding their way to the shopping center, but it no longer has that direct connection to Sandpiper to help discourage the use of Sandpiper as an entrance to the Estancia project. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: If I can interrupt for a moment. That is not the master plan that's in the package. MR. YOVANOVICH: Did we not provide that? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Because the one that's in the package does show the connection. So this is different. I don't know if Nancy's seen this or not, but... MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, this is the master plan we showed at the town hall meeting. I thought we had provided a copy to staff. I don't -- all right. Well, we'll -- during the break -- I'm sure we'll have a break. Nancy, if you can take a look at that and see if there's major issues. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, I'll need a copy, too, because I'll need to see what other changes you made. And you probably should submit a copy to the court reporter. MR. YOVANOVICH: We will. I'm telling you the only change we made was the connection to Sandpiper. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: It's the one that I have. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: It's not the one attached to your DRI resolution. It won't be the one attached to your ordinance either. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: What's the differences -- MR. YOVANOVICH: The only difference -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: -- can you tell? MR. YOVANOVICH: I'll show you. The only difference, there is -- there's one up here. The only -- whoops. The only difference is the one in your packet -- this is a blowup of the one that's in your packet. You'll see how Estancia connected directly to Sandpiper. What we've changed is the connection is right there. It no longer wraps around the shopping center to Sandpiper. That's the only change from the master plan that's attached to your ordinance and to, I guess, the DRI as Map H. And that came about as a result of -- let me finish the changes to the PUD, and then I'll tell you why some of these things came about. We've also identified the location of additional golf courses as either in the Estancia project itself and/or in Section 29, which is Section 29 of the PUD property. And we added that -- we clarified that golf courses are allowed uses in the Section 29 portion of the PUD. And the last change that we made is -- anybody nauseous yet? I am. Okay. Do you see those two asterisks by the R and also by the red, those two asterisks? Those asterisks indicate where senior housing can be located within the project. Previously, if you looked at the PUD document, several of the tracts were identified as senior housing tracts. We moved it over to this location of the project because we anticipate that more than residents of Fiddler's Creek will be using the May 3, 2018 Page 6 of 86 senior housing. So putting it outside of the gates, if you will, made more sense for identifying the location. Now, we had a information meeting with residents of Fiddler's Creek. In fact, there was such a great attendance at the first one, we didn't have enough room, so we had to reschedule it and find a bigger location to have the meeting. At that neighborhood information meeting there were several concerns that were raised. And we told them we would come back and have another meeting with the residents about changes to the PUD after those -- after that NIM. One of the concerns that was raised was, was there going to be a hotel and where is it going to be located? We've deleted the request for a hotel so there's no longer a request to have a hotel in the project. There's a road called Cherry Oaks; it's either Trail or Drive. I've heard it called both. And it's currently a cut-through for some residents in the community. And there's complaints from the residents who live on that road that their fellow residents are not necessarily respecting the speed limit on that road. And one gentleman showed up at the NIM after, you know, being injured in a bike accident. And so what we've done is we've coordinated with the two associations that are on either side of Cherry Oaks, and we're implementing a radar and photograph system that basically it's like the red light stop where they can take a picture of you, they can record your speed, and if you're speeding, the foundation has the ability to fine people for violating the rules. There's going to be a system implemented where the foundation fines people for speeding along this portion of the project. It's probably a test case for the community as a whole but definitely will be a test case for this area. And I believe that that has been met with -- has been met happily with the two associations to address their concerns for cut-through traffic. There was also the question about open space and were we going to be using another part of the DRI not a part of Fiddler's Creek to meet our open-space requirement. We clarified on the record that that's not the case; that we will be meeting our required open space through our own community, and that will remain the same. We got into the details of the park and what will be the amenities related to the park. Now, this is a conceptual plan for the park, and I'm sure it's -- there probably will be some changes as we meet with the residents and how that's going to ultimately develop. That shows the -- again, the park is a linear park. Within the park -- and I've got to admit my eyesight's gone. Well, the park starts there with parking, and it goes all the way, basically, to the county parcels on 41, the commercial along 41. This is the 12-foot drive I was telling you about. The planned amenities right now are basically a playground, basketball, bocce ball, picnic area, shuffleboard. There's plans for a community garden, a memorial park. So if you want to plant a tree in honor of somebody, you'll have the ability to do that, and then a lot of open green space with, you know, park benches and the like. So we presented that to the residents at the neighborhood information -- I'm sorry -- at the town hall meeting after we had had the NIM. So I believe I've hit all of the highlights of the changes we're going to make to the PUD. Our response is to the comments at the neighborhood information meeting and adjustments that we've made as a result of that. Staff is recommending approval of both the DRI change and the PUD change. We see this as an overall enhancement not only for the Fiddler's Creek community by bringing this grocery-anchored shopping center to the community, but the overall community as a whole, we see it as a reduction of traffic on Collier Boulevard because the grocery-anchored shopping center's being moved over to U.S. 41 where you have all those nice new improvements that have occurred. There's capacity, roadway capacity in the location on 41. And, with that, we request that the Planning Commission recommend approval of both the DRI changes and the PUD changes to the Board of County Commissioners. You have all this information, the backup of my experts in the backup materials. I did a summary, but we're available to answer any questions you may have about the project when you deem appropriate, or if you want to hear from the public first and then ask us questions, that's fine, too. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: So you have a new master plan? MR. YOVANOVICH: We have a revision to the master plan. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Does it show the EMS connection? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. That all stays, yes. It will connect through the park. May 3, 2018 Page 7 of 86 CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Can you push it down a little bit -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Me? CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: -- or whichever way that is so we can see. MR. YOVANOVICH: There you go. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Oh. It doesn't actually show. MR. YOVANOVICH: We can identify an arrow if you need us to do that. But the park has been laid out to make sure that that happens. So if you need to show that inter -- we can address the interconnection issue for the park. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. And the conditions in the staff report? MR. YOVANOVICH: The conditions in the staff report -- I know we talked about this yesterday. I'm 99 percent sure I looked at them and everything -- yep. This is the one that there's no issues with the staff recommendations. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: So all four can be added to -- MR. YOVANOVICH: They can be added to the PUD. We have no issues with the service bays for the grocery-anchored shopping center not facing residential where abutting residential. The automobile service bays not facing residential. I'm just reading this into the record in case the people in the audience don't know these recommendations. We have no issues with no adult-oriented sales. We have no issues with outdoor music and television shall be limited to the area adjacent to and forward of the front facade of buildings along East 41. There will be no amplified sound between the hours of 10 p.m. and 8 a.m., and then I talked about the delivery bays shall not abut residential, and the service bays for automobile service stations shall not (sic) be located so that they do not face any residential district within -- well, they shall be located so that they do not face any residential district within 150 feet. So those conditions are all acceptable to us. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Thank you. Anybody -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have a few questions, then following the public comment I may well have more, but the ones I have now are largely procedural. First of all, Mr. Yovanovich, would you show me on that master plan map where the linear park is. When you put up the park map, I lost my way. MR. YOVANOVICH: This yellow right here -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- is the linear park. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Now, would you zoom out again so I can... Okay. I got it. And it's in yellow? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. Let's see. My next question has to do with the EMS access. Have you talked to the fire district, Greater Naples, with respect to the accessibility, physical accessibility for fire suppression vehicles like pumpers and hook and ladders and squads? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, this is an EMS station, which is Collier County. I don't -- I don't think we have an objection to their collocating, but we've not talked directly to the fire district. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm not looking for a physical location for a station. I'm looking for access, because typically a rescue squad or a pumper would arrive first on the scene in a medical emergency. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Yes. We -- I can't say we've had direct discussions with them. I believe -- I don't even know -- I know they attend the pre-app meetings, the fire department does. I don't know if the county has circulated for review the PUD changes, but -- and I was going to bring this up in my remarks, and thank you for the question, because I forgot to. As you know, when we do master plans for projects, we're required to show any potential interconnection to the county's road system. The fact that we show an interconnection on a master plan is not an obligation to build that interconnection. So we showed that interconnection because we were required to do that if we ever wanted to connect the community in that location to U.S. 41. So there was no -- we have not received any negative comments from any emergency provider May 3, 2018 Page 8 of 86 regarding the changes to the master plan that we're making and the access to the community that we're making. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So Greater Naples Fire Department, fire district, which covers this, they are aware of the EMS location? MR. YOVANOVICH: I believe they are. I've not had a conversation, but this EMS location's been there for many, many, many years on the map. It's not been requested, but it's been shown as a potential EMS location for a long, long time. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Right. I just -- I happen to know, because of other work I do, that the East Naples -- East, excuse me -- Greater Naples. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm with you. I don't remember which ones are which ones now. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Greater Naples Fire District tries for a four-minute response time. And they're not a transport capable agency, but they get advanced life support going within four minutes but they, I'm sure, would want the code or the key or whatever it is, and also the physical capability, it being wide enough, which I think 12 feet would be. MR. YOVANOVICH: Oh, yeah, it is. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Because they're going to want their statistics to show that they're still getting to the patients within four minutes. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm certain we have no objection to that. We'll need to coordinate that with Collier County to make sure they have no objection to -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'd ask that you do that, if you wouldn't mind, just being sure that access is going to be provided, both physical and electronic or key or whatever is going to be required. Then my last question has to do with vested. And I understand the concept "vested at law," but I want to just be sure that we have in the record the concept that a number of additional trips that would be brought about by the commercial uses on Collier -- excuse me -- on 41, that those numbers are actually built into the p.m. trips; in other words, vested in fact as well as vested at law, if you follow me. MR. YOVANOVICH: I could say "yes." Do you want to hear it from my transportation consultant, or is my saying yes -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Your "yes," without his objection, is fine. MR. BANKS: No objection. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. So basically there is some stress on Collier, but there's not going to be any stress on 41, physically, that your numbers are already built into the capacity that shows up on the AUIR? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Those are the only questions I have for now. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I don't know a lot about CDDs. I wish I knew more. It's a quasi-governmental body? MR. YOVANOVICH: It's an actual governmental -- it's a local purpose, local government. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Local government. So you could really set up your own rules about speed limits and enforce them? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, that issue -- I don't know the answer to that question. I don't know if the CDD has that authority. I'll look out and see if -- you don't know or you can't? The CDD itself cannot establish its own speed limits, so... COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's not one of the powers it has. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: These roads, if I remember, CDD -- the roads in a CDD are open to the public; is that right? MR. YOVANOVICH: They're public roads. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. Just curious. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Anybody? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm sorry. I do have a couple more. May 3, 2018 Page 9 of 86 CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Pardon me. First of all, the reference to the golf course and the possibility of a second one, would you explain what arrangements, if any, are in place between the golf club and the members who have paid initiation fees in the event a second course is not constructed? MR. YOVANOVICH: There is an existing agreement between the members of the golf course and the owners of the golf course regarding what amenities will be ultimately provided, and there are remedies in that agreement should those facilities not be provided, and those -- we're not changing any of those remedies that are available to people who have signed the contract with the developer of the golf course. We are making no changes to the relationship between the members of the golf course and the owner of the golf course through this PUD change. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. So the members have contract rights -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- that presumably they or their predecessors -- MR. YOVANOVICH: They do. COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- in this case agreed to. And presumably these remedies are financial in nature? MR. YOVANOVICH: There is probably multiple remedies, including just saying, hey, we like it, it's okay. But, yes, there is a contractual relationship between the two parties. That's not being changed by what we're doing today. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. And you mentioned that -- well, there's a gate at Sandpiper, and you're going to move that gate back. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So that there will be a continuation of the existing security so that people who are entering for shopping purposes won't be intruding into the neighborhood; is that correct? MR. YOVANOVICH: That is correct. The existing gate will move further into the community to keep that gate in place. The actual entryway will be improved and upgraded -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- to better than what's there today. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And I apologize for not picking this up first time around, but outdoor noise up to 10 p.m. seems like a rather late hour. MR. YOVANOVICH: But the location of it is right on 41. COMMISSIONER FRYER: How far is it from any residential activity? MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. I'm going to move this. I hope I don't go the wrong way. All righty. As you can see, this is going to be a recreational facility for the community. So you have 41 here, you have some residences here and here but -- you know, I don't know an exact distance, Mr. Fryer, but you have a roadway separating the community to the left on this screen. That's Sandpiper. And then you have a yet to -- I take that back. You have -- I don't know what that distance is there, but -- from where that is. COMMISSIONER FRYER: All right. Could you give me an example of what sort of noise-producing activity might occur -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I would imagine that you probably could have a restaurant that might have some outdoor music as part of the restaurant, that could occur, and it will obviously be shut down at, you know, 10 p.m. COMMISSIONER FRYER: All right. So this could be acoustic and electronically amplified music? MR. YOVANOVICH: I guess it could be, yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Those are all the questions I have now, I think. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have one question. Let me see. This is -- this has to do with the commercial square footage, and I know you mentioned 325-, but on Page 745 of 750, it says 355-. If we May 3, 2018 Page 10 of 86 could correct that. MR. YOVANOVICH: This is for -- this DRI -- and this deals with more than just Fiddler's Creek; it's my understanding that 30,000 square foot difference that I was mentioning is for other projects in the DRI, not Fiddler's Creek. That's why we mentioned the 325-. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. So this -- so the 350- is not all Fiddler's Creek. It's another -- MR. YOVANOVICH: 30,000 square feet of that is not within the Fiddler's Creek project. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: So the 325- is the same 325- that we had in the original master plan and is being reallocated in this master plan. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Could we have the staff report now then? Are you done? MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm done. MS. GUNDLACH: Good morning, Commissioners. The Marco Shores Fiddler's Creek PUD amendment is consistent with the Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Code; therefore, staff is recommending approval, and we are also recommending approval of the companion petition, which is the DOA, development order amendment. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Thank you. I love your reports. Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have a -- CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Oh, you have a question? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Comment, a correction, really, but it's not jumping out at me. There was -- is this it? No. Somewhere in here there was a missing word "not," and it was -- it's essential that it be corrected. And so it was just a typo. If I can't find it right now -- MS. GUNDLACH: Commissioner, is it in the ordinance or the staff report? COMMISSIONER FRYER: It's in the ordinance. MS. GUNDLACH: Oh. COMMISSIONER FRYER: It's where it needs to be fixed. MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And I will find it and get back to you shortly. MS. GUNDLACH: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Ah, here it is. On Page 43 of our materials, Section C it says, prohibited uses and structures, and it says, "any use or structure specifically permitted herein is prohibited. So you just need to put a "not" in front of permitted. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: What section number are you in? COMMISSIONER FRYER: It's on Page 43 of our materials. It's going to be in one of the exhibits to the ordinance, and it follows -- I'm sure it follows "permitted uses." Sorry, I can't -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I have no idea where you are, so it -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'll flag it. I'll flag the location. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Existing text or new text? COMMISSIONER FRYER: It might be existing, but it needs to be fixed. I'll get that to you. MS. GUNDLACH: We need the section number. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I understand. MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Could we hear from the speakers? MR. BELLOWS: First speaker, Jim Gaffney. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Is Mr. Gaffney here? MR. BELLOWS: Phil Brougham. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: I'm sorry? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: He went to the restroom. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Oh, okay. May 3, 2018 Page 11 of 86 MR. BELLOWS: We'll call him back. MR. BROUGHAM: Good morning. I know quite a few of you. My name is Phil Brougham, and I live in Fiddler's Creek, and I am also the chairman of Fiddler's Creek Community Development District No. 1; however, I am not speaking on behalf of my board. I and my wife have lived in Fiddler's Creek full time in a village called Pepper Tree since 1999, and we've been there through two hurricanes and a lot of other disruptions to that development. And I just have a few comments to make. We have, obviously, many, many of my neighborhoods here that have concerns about Fiddler's Creek, as I have over the years. But just tracing a little history, Fiddler's Creek is a huge development in terms of acreage, and it will be a huge development when it's completely built out. It's been evolving since 1994, 1995. And, yes, I realize we had and the developer prepared an original master plan which is conceptual and says, here's the way we see the development of Fiddler's Creek at this point in time in 1994, 1996. We see this here, we see that there, and so forth. This development has evolved as the business climate has evolved, as we've -- as the developer's gone through bankruptcies, as the developer has endured changes in the golfing pastime, et cetera, and plans have changed. And I think what you're presented with today is an attempt by the developer to bring the development up to date, number one, and to cast a view again of the future. I'm just going to end it with this: A development of this size is going to change over a period of 20 to 25 years. It's going to change in many, many respects. But here's the thing that's important to me as a homeowner here in Fiddler's Creek, and an elected, I'll call it, official, even though I don't consider myself official, of a CDD. One key thing has remained consistent through the 20 years, and that is the commitment of the principals of this -- involved in this development. They have stayed the course, they have changed their business plan, but they really haven't changed their overall commitment to make Fiddler's Creek a development that we're all proud to live in. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: Elliot Miller. MR. MILLER: Good morning. My name is Elliot Miller, and I am the chairman of CDD2. So you now will hear from both of us. But, again, I am not speaking on behalf of the CDD. I'm here individually as a happy homeowner in Fiddler's Creek where I have lived full time since 2009. Now, undoubtedly, with all the people here for Fiddler's Creek, you're going to hear some opposition to this proposal. I'm sure that planning commissioners hear a lot of opposition to a lot of proposals, but I also want to take this opportunity to tell you that there are a group of us, many of us, and many of us here today, who support this proposal. I feel, and we feel, that the benefits to the Fiddler's Creek community of having a fine retail establishment on our doors and especially a very highly respected grocery store on our periphery is a significant benefit to us. I think the increase in convenience will help us live our daily lives and will increase our home values and will be another selling feature for our home prices. The grocery chain prospectively involved is a premium retail operation which has a strong economic interest in being a good neighbor. It really will prosper if it's a good neighbor to a large cadre of customers on its peripherally and prospective customers on its periphery. It has a strong incentive to create goodwill and avoid ill will among its neighbors and to be a good neighbor to its customers. This premium grocery chain has a fine history, and there has never been, to my knowledge, any significant complaints about it as a neighbor. Now, I also want to emphasize that the Fiddler's Creek development has taken extraordinary measures to interact with the residents and to hear the concerns of the residents and to meet the concerns of the residents. You've heard Mr. Yovanovich talking about changes that have been made in response to the neighborhood information meeting. After the neighborhood information meeting, there was a town hall to further air neighbor issues, neighborhood issues, and to deal with them, and we've -- we are -- I and my colleagues, that is those who agree with us, feel quite strongly that Fiddler's Creek has been taking all reasonable responsive actions to May 3, 2018 Page 12 of 86 meet all objections, including redirecting roads, widening roads, strengthening paving, et cetera. Ironically, if this application had not been made and the applicant retained its commercial property on 951 and developed a retail center there with the grocery chain in question, its strongest supporters, its greatest advocates would probably be those that oppose it today. Progress always has its opponents, but it also confers benefits. I am, and my colleagues who support this are, looking forward to the convenience that this proposal, when enacted, if enacted, will bring to our lives at Fiddler's Creek. Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have a question or two, Mr. Miller, if I may. MR. MILLER: Sure; surely. COMMISSIONER FRYER: You indicated that you didn't feel sufficiently authorized to speak for the entire CDD, correct? MR. MILLER: That's correct. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. You're chair of the CDD? MR. MILLER: I am. COMMISSIONER FRYER: How many members of the governing board are there? MR. MILLER: There are five of us. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Are you at liberty to indicate how the other four feel? MR. MILLER: Well, I think you're going to hear from one today who's in opposition to it. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. So it's not unanimous? MR. MILLER: It's not unanimous, no. But I would say that from what I know and from my interactions with the others, I think that at least four of us are supportive of it. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Thank you very much. MR. MILLER: Okeydoke. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Madam Chair, before the next speaker, I've found the reference to the missing word. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: If I may, it's in Section 4.3.C of the document, which is in our materials as Section 4, multifamily residential development map designation, MF, Unit 24, et cetera. Thank you. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I don't recommend you change any text in that location. We will look it up and see if the original PUD had that language. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Can you put your mike on? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: As I believe was stated by Rich, this involves more than just the Fiddler's Creek property, and this particular section you're referring to relates to another development who is not participating in this matter, so I would prefer not to change any text in that location, but... COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. I didn't realize there were other people who were affected by that who were not in front of us, but it's an obvious typo. And the way it reads now it says, "Prohibited uses and structures: Any use or structure specifically permitted herein is prohibited." MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah. I mean, that doesn't make sense. COMMISSIONER FRYER: But we'll leave that because others who are affected by it are not here today I suppose, but it strikes me as odd, but I understand. MR. YOVANOVICH: We'll verify that we didn't -- we had to retype this entire document. So I'll go back to the old PUD -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Oh, okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- to make sure we didn't mistranscribe and leave the word "not" out in someone else's section. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Correct. That's what I was saying earlier. We also proofread it, but maybe we missed that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Thank you. Next speaker. MR. BELLOWS: John Orman. May 3, 2018 Page 13 of 86 MR. ORMAN: Good morning. My name is John Orman. I live in the Fiddler's Creek development. I attended the neighborhood meeting. I attended the Fiddler's Creek town hall meeting. I read the staff report to the Planning Commission. I frequently use the entry and exit at Fiddler's Creek at Sandpiper Drive and U.S. 41. I do not feel that any of the above meetings or staff report adequately address the issue of public safety of vehicles at the proposed project. The exit of traffic from Fiddler's Creek at Sandpiper Drive onto U.S. 41 is currently dangerous. You must cross over two lanes of traffic, oncoming traffic from the west, and merge into two lanes of oncoming traffic from the east. A dangerous condition exists even before adding more commercial activity at this location. If the Collier County Planning Commission does recommend approval of this project, I hope that they will place the following condition on the developers and management of the commercial area: No commercial business activity can begin operation at this location until a traffic light and control system or safety personnel are fully operational at the intersection of Sandpiper Drive and U.S. 41. Without this, the public safety of both the vehicles of the residents of Fiddler's Creek and the patrons of the proposed commercial area will be at risk. Thank you for your consideration of our public safety. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Madam Chair, may we ask the County Attorney the extent, if any, to which we have jurisdiction over this? MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. One, who's going to pay for it? I don't think the county wants to pay for it. Two, you don't put in traffic lights until traffic study warrants it. So simply putting in a provision saying there has to be a traffic light there, no, that's not the appropriate thing to do. If and when a time comes where transportation staff believes that from a safety point there needs to be a traffic light there, at that point in time the county will look at it. Everybody wants a traffic light. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Yeah. MR. KLATZKOW: You know, and if everybody got a traffic light, nobody would be actually moving anywhere. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Right. MR. ORMAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: And it's not a county road. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Right. It's a U.S. road I gather. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Right. MR. BELLOWS: Marshall Sutker. MR. SUTKER: My name is Marshall Sutker. I live in Pepper Tree in Fiddler's. Until several weeks ago, for two years I was the elected homeowner representative of the Fiddler's Creek Foundation and, as such, represented the interest of the 2,400 homeowners. I believe what I say here is consistent with what many, many owners would say if they were here. The current 2,400 homeowners represent over 50 percent of what will be Fiddler's when the southeastern portion of Fiddler's, Estancia is sold off as now planned. Many of us do not oppose the proposed shopping area carve outs or other external changes proposed along Routes 41 and 951; however, the proposed internal changes will significantly affect us in our daily lives and will impose economic costs on us such as increasing traffic in places and by forcing us to buy unneeded land from the developer. As we arrived and bought, we were promised Fiddler's would provide many things which have not been delivered. Of the many amenity promises of the existing master plan, the huge sales center, Fiddler's diorama, and the club and spa, which induced us to buy, few of those promises have been kept, and those which have been kept have been paid for not by the developer but by the owners. The developer now seeks this board blessing for PUD arbitrary changes made over the years. He asked this board to permit traffic pattern changes to take away the only central part, which would best serve all of what will be Fiddler's. He seeks to require the homeowners to purchase a nine-plus-acre parcel for which we have no need. Much smaller and cheaper park parcels would be sufficient and are available. May 3, 2018 Page 14 of 86 The current master plan shows Fiddler's Creek Parkway extending to Route 41. If built, it would have no monetary value to the developer, as the land would have to be dedicated to Collier County for that road. If the road extension is eliminated, the land becomes saleable and can be monetized. But the only possible buyer for that narrow non-buildable parcel is the Foundation, to which all owners are required to belong. The developer's question then is, how can he force the Foundation, the members, to buy it at the highest price he can conjure up? The developer controls the Foundation through his three appointed directors, two of whom are employees and one who is his lawyer. The developer controls the Foundation. His legal position has been that when he decides to sell parcels designated on the master plan as parks, the Foundation is required; it must purchase them. That is exactly what happened six years ago when he sold two park parcels to the Foundation without an appraisal and at an arbitrarily set price. If you approve the proposed master plan before you, you will be giving the developer the right to force the members to purchase the unneeded nine-plus-acre roadway parcel at a price dictated by him which, based on past practice, will be at buildable land rates. We would prefer the roadway simply remain platted for possible future use as a roadway; however, if you decide to allow the roadway extension to be vacated, please do not designate it as a park. The developer will still have the right to do what we wishes with it, and he will be able to make it a park or not as he wishes. If he wishes to make it a park and to sell it to the homeowners via the Foundation, his appointed directors, who are fiduciaries to the owners, would need to justify to the owners how much of that should be purchased, the price to be paid for it, and why the owner should buy a nine-plus-acre parcel in the middle of nowhere when only a few acres are needed for the park amenities. But if you designate that park -- that parcel as a park rather than just eliminating it as a road, you will be giving the developer the right to force it down the owners' throats on his terms, and the owners will have no voice regarding the price and acreage to be purchased, especially whereas here, as I see it, there is no requirement that you designate any particular PUD or master plan parcel as a park. The more appropriate thing to do is to just vacate it; don't designate it as a park. From what I can see from the planning board's staff report, the staff was not alerted to the burdens imposed on the Fiddler's owners of designating the roadway extension as a park rather than simply vacating it. In summary, if nothing else, to the extent that you may decide to accept the staff's report, please do not designate the roadway extension as a park. I see no legal requirement that you do so. There's plenty of other open space. You are the homeowners' only hope that the owners will get anything more than the back of the developer's hand and the economic burden which the proposed plan regarding that parcel would impose. Please consider us in what you decide we must live with into the future. Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Question for the gentleman, please. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mister, is it, Sutker? MR. SUTKER: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. You said several times "forces us to buy unneeded land from the developer, 9.1 acres of roadway." I just want to be sure I understand exactly what it is you're saying. Are we talking about the northern, what would have been part of the Fiddler's Creek right-of-way that was never built on? MR. SUTKER: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. MR. SUTKER: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: All right. And so that's proposed to be a linear park. And so you're finding the need to construct another roadway somewhere else, or you would prefer to put it there rather than have a park there? MR. SUTKER: No, no, no. All I'm saying is in that regard is that if you decide it should no longer May 3, 2018 Page 15 of 86 be platted as a road, the land goes back to the developer for him to do with it as he wishes, because he actually owns it. The developer owns that. Now, if you approve the fact that it will be, must be, a park, according to his lawyers, they have the right to force the Foundation to buy it. If you simply say, okay, it's no longer a road, so it then will go back to the developer, he owns it, but he doesn't have the same legal right, according to his lawyers. Here's his lawyers' letter, which I would like to leave with you if I could. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Let me just say, though -- and I can be corrected if I'm wrong -- but the developer plats or will draw on an image like this where a road -- where he would have a right to put a road, but I don't believe that that also creates an obligation on his part to put one there. MR. SUTKER: No. I'm not saying that -- I'm not saying anything about any obligation on his part to build a road. Right now it's shown as a road. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, it's -- MR. SUTKER: And if it were to be made into a road, it would have to be dedicated at no cost to the county or to the people living in Fiddler's. If it's simply a parcel which he owns which is what you would be converting it to by saying the road is okay, it's okay to vacate it, the question then becomes on what basis would he be able to sell it to the Foundation. Because I don't think it can be sold to anybody else because it wouldn't be usable by anybody else. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I fully understand what you're saying now. I just want to reiterate, though, my understanding is the developer is currently under no obligation to extend Fiddler's, the road, where that potential opportunity would have allowed him to if he wished. It's not a requirement. MR. SUTKER: Assuming that is correct, that's fine. The question is, when you get done with looking at this proposal, are you going to say it is a park, or are you going to say it's simply up to the developer to do what he wants with it? In one case -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, the developer has certain requirements as to content but not necessarily as to location. MR. SUTKER: I have no concern about the location. It is there. I mean -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: But you don't want the park to be there, so you kind of do have a concern. MR. SUTKER: And what I'm talking about, if the developer wants to make a park, that's up to him. What I'm saying is, you shouldn't -- I would prefer that you don't say it is a park, because once you say "it is a park," then we have to buy it at a price dictated by him. If you don't say it's a park, it goes back to him to do what he wants with; he then has to negotiate with us. He can't force us to buy it. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I understand your position. MR. SUTKER: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: A question -- MR. SUTKER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: -- for Nancy. When we say this, are we going to say that it must be a park or that it can be a park? CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: It's conceptual, isn't it? It's the master plan? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Linear park. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: It may be a park. MR. BELLOWS: Unless there's a commitment in the PUD for when it will be constructed, it's just an option in the future. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. And I assume the PUD says they have to have so many acres of park? Does anybody know how they sit with that? CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Open space. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Open space? Okay. I was just curious whether it must be a park or it can be a park. MR. BELLOWS: I think it's just can be. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Can be a park, okay. May 3, 2018 Page 16 of 86 MR. SUTKER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: But that means you can't use it because it doesn't belong to you. MR. SUTKER: As far as we're concerned, we don't need it. Actually, there was a park -- CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. MR. SUTKER: -- right here, and that -- the developer has simply decided he wants to put houses there instead of make it a park. But if he kept it as a park, he could sell it at a price he dictated, and we would have to take it. That's the point. Anything shown as a park on the PUD -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I understood that the first time. MR. SUTKER: -- we are required to buy when he decides to sell it to us. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Thank you. MR. SUTKER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Could we have the next speaker. MR. BELLOWS: Next speaker, Linda Viegas. MS. VIEGAS: Good morning. How's everyone's? First let me say, since Mr. Miller mentioned, I am a member of the CDD board. There are five members, and -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Your name, ma'am? MS. VIEGAS: Linda Viegas. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Will you spell the last? MS. VIEGAS: Sure. V as in Victor, i-e-g-a-s. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. MS. VIEGAS: You're welcome. And just so that you understand where I live versus where the other four members of the CDD2 board live, if you look at the lovely red item on the right-hand side of your screen, I live right next to it on the left. That's the Aviamar section. All of the other four members of the CDD2 board live far to the left in a section called Vinetta, so they're nowhere near the Sandpiper entrance. So I'm the only one that lives abutting Sandpiper. Okay. Just so that you understand. I'm a year-round Florida resident. My husband and I, as I mentioned, live in the Aviamar section of Fiddler's Creek which abuts Sandpiper Drive. When we bought our lot in 2010, we did our due diligence, and we were told that an assisted living facility was planned on the other side of Fiddler where the red circle is, and there would be two entrances to Fiddler's Creek Park from U.S. 41; Sandpiper Drive and Fiddler's Creek Parkway. The application you're reviewing now changes the assisted living area to the commercial site and eliminates the Fiddler's Creek Parkway entrance. The new proposed entrance on your plan is into the Estancia Village, as mentioned. We were told at the April 17th town hall meeting at Fiddler's Creek that the developer, and as mentioned today, is working to sell the Estancia Village as a separate community, which would not be part of Fiddler's Creek, eliminating that second entrance; therefore, the only full entrance to Fiddler's Creek from U.S. 41 will be Sandpiper Drive, a road that is now planned to also be the only full entrance to a grocery-store-anchored commercial site, a grocery store that has another location less than four miles away, a grocery store that we were told is going to dig up Sandpiper Drive in order lay down heavy-duty pavement to support the 18-wheelers that will be using Sandpiper for their deliveries and for their trash trucks, a grocery store that has a billboard sign at all their entrances for their current stores. That means the only entrance to Fiddler's Creek from U.S. 41 will have a billboard sign listing a grocery store and whatever other tenants come into that commercial site. That is not what we were told would be the signage for the main U.S. 41 entrance into Fiddler's Creek when we bought our lot. As we have already heard, there is no traffic light at this sole U.S. 41 entrance, and there will not be one for years, as this gentleman mentioned. The Florida Department of Transportation requires traffic studies and warrants before a traffic light will be considered. It takes years for those studies to be done and for the May 3, 2018 Page 17 of 86 light to be installed. The cost to install the traffic light, when it is finally done, and to maintain Sandpiper, will be borne by the Fiddler's Creek residents. Since the need for both will be significantly increased due to the use of the road by the grocery store, they should contribute to the cost. In addition, in Section 18 of the vested rights determination, it states that the developer is obligated to provide the traffic signal; therefore, the developer should pay for the traffic signal. Sandpiper Drive, as we know, is a public road, which means the additional traffic coming into Sandpiper has a right to ask to use it as a shortcut to 951. We were told by the developer in the town hall meeting that the Fiddler's Creek Parkway entrance was being eliminated so that shortcut for the public could not be used. Now the likelihood that the public will use Sandpiper as a shortcut will increase. Even WINK News, when I was watching it one day during their traffic segment, recommended the public use Fiddler's Creek Parkway to Sandpiper as a shortcut from 951 to U.S. 41 and vice versa when one of those highways has a blockage, which it did that day. On the plans reviewed at the Fiddler's Creek town hall meeting, the proposed U.S. 41 entrance directly into the commercial site, if you can read the small print, says right-in, right-out. I was told by the engineer when I asked that even though there is a median cut there, the Florida Department of Transportation would not allow the westbound traffic to cross over through the median. That means it is safe to estimate the vast majority of both the eastbound and westbound traffic for the grocery store, and whatever other commercial tenants go there, will be using the Sandpiper entrance. There are three rezone findings in your staff report, which I reviewed, that I would like to address; specifically traffic, living conditions, and property value. Your staff report states Fiddler's Creek is considered vested for traffic impacts, but I respectfully suggest the potential traffic increases based on this proposed commercial site and the fact that there is now going to be only one entrance into Fiddler's Creek from U.S. 41 based on the new proposal have not been thoroughly considered. Since the commercial site is inside Fiddler's Creek and will be using Sandpiper Drive, which is inside Fiddler's Creek, traffic will be increased by more than just the approved 6,000 units in Fiddler's. The proposed change will create an excessively increased traffic congestion on Sandpiper and on U.S. 41, especially at those peak times that we all know and love: Season, holidays, and sporting events, and including the construction phases of the development, particularly when Sandpiper is being dug up and paved with heavy-duty pavement. The living conditions of the Aviamar residents will be adversely impacted by this commercial site due to the noise of traffic and vehicular traffic, especially from the beep, beep when trucks back up, the constant glow of parking lot and store lights and, as already mentioned, the increased traffic at the one and only entrance and exit a large number of Fiddler's Creek residents already use. Living conditions will most be impacted in season during holidays and major sporting events when the commercial site will be most active. I would ask the Board if they would want to live adjacent to a grocery store, as I may be living, and commercial site, or if they feel that will adversely impact property values. I am told by realtors that are very familiar with Fiddler's that property adjacent to shopping areas, like mine, is less desirable and that my property value will be negatively impacted. I respectfully ask that the Board delay approval of this application and take a closer look at the traffic implications, the living conditions, and the effect on property values of Aviamar residents that will be impacted by putting a grocery-store-anchored commercial site in this location. We learned from Commissioner Bill McDaniel this week that the Collier County Interactive Growth Model will be available this month to use for zoning applications, so I would request that model be used for this rezoning application to assess the current impacts based on all the other approved growth projects in the area. If this board decides not to delay approval and does move forward with this application, at a minimum I would request the following conditions be added to the PUD: The dumpsters for the commercial site must be placed as far away from the Aviamar residents as possible to diminish the noise of trucks when May 3, 2018 Page 18 of 86 backing up and emptying the dumpsters, also to keep any potential rodents away from Aviamar. All delivery bays for the grocery store and other retailers must be placed as far away from the Aviamar residents as possible to diminish the noise of the delivery trucks when backing up and making deliveries. All delivery trucks and trash trucks must use the direct entrance into the commercial site from U.S. 41, the right-in, right-only (sic) entrance rather than Sandpiper Drive. All deliveries and trash removal must be done after 8 a.m. and before 10 p.m. And, finally, the developer, who's obligated per the vested rights determination, owner, grocery store, and all other commercial site tenants must contribute to the cost of the traffic light and the maintenance of Sandpiper Drive. Thank you for your time and attention. Do you have any questions? (Applause.) CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Please. No clapping, please. MR. BELLOWS: Peter Blicher. MR. BLICHER: Thank you. I'm Peter Blicher. I live in Fiddler's Creek, and I'm a retired developer of 35 years, and I've lived in Fiddler's Creek for over 18 years in two different homes. I have reviewed the staff report, and if you go to Page 4, which is the original plan, all of the purchase -- that have purchased have seen this plan. And that's sort of what we purchased from, but we did understand that there were a lot of flexibility that the developer would have, and we've went through some tough times. The developer has to follow the current plan that's in place unless you change it. It seems that the original approval has given him plenty of flexibility; therefore, why not bifurcate this application, allow for the commercial change with -- and the senior housing with various conditions -- and Linda has mentioned many of them -- and tell him he needs to follow his approval. He seems to be able to make all these changes, so let it just ride this way because, if not, you're sort of blessing these changes. He's been able to delete golf courses. He is going to -- he has told us that he's going to bifurcate 1,500 units over on the side. He may or may not build any future golf courses. The developer got into financial trouble during the housing recession, which many builders did, and made some choices that, in some cases, have been detrimental to both him and to us. Most other large communities prices have come back up, but Fiddler's Creek has been struggling. Homes bought before the bankruptcy are still down about 20 to 30 percent. The developer brought in many lower production builders. Many of them have been struggling with lower-than-normal sales rates. In order for the builders to try to increase their market share, some are paying the CDD bonds for their buyers, as the bond fee is a negative to many of the new homebuyers. The number of sales are extremely high and sellers, in many cases, are taking large losses. I and many of my friends do not want to move even though the entire dream that we were sold is not materializing. The people are great, and what we have is great, but it could get better. We were promised that Fiddler's Creek would be a premiere community and have a golf clubhouse, three golf courses, in addition to the Marriott course. Only one course has been built, does not have a clubhouse; it seems to be struggling, yet the Marriott course has almost 500 memberships on a wait list. I'm number 486. We were told we would have a tennis center. We just have originally four courts, and a few years ago they added two more. We were told we would have a yacht club on Isles of Capri. Looks like that will never happen. Where we have an issue is the five-acre park, which I think has been pointed out on the plan, that we thought we were going to get that was centrally located, and Fiddler's Creek Parkway that we thought we were going to get they don't want to do. The original master plan, we were getting a great park in no one's backyard so there would not be a fight by neighbors regarding the uses. The last one that they made us buy was overpriced and a waste since they won't put any amenities in it. They want to sell off the five-acre park site for development to make May 3, 2018 Page 19 of 86 additional money and increase their density. I guess they have the right to do that. They want to delete our best ingress/egress point, Fiddler's Creek Parkway and Tamiami Trail. It's clearly the best route north and west where most of us go. By doing this they benefit as -- if it's a road, they would have to donate it to the county, and they would not make money on it. But if it's a park, besides increasing their density, they will make us buy it. If it's a road, a new bond will have to be floated. They may have a problem with that due to a lawsuit with the CDD, the past bondholders, so this will be more difficult. The production builders are getting hit with a high land price, the builder, plus option price sharing from the developer. CDD fees, club fees, and neighborhood fees are adding to this problem. If the CDD2 fees go up because we were to build the road due to the finishing of it, the new buyers are the only ones that have to pay, because it would be a separate bond. You can't go backwards. And, in turn, the amount of money that the new buyers have to pay will be higher and, in turn, either the prices will have to be lower or the builders' sales will slow down or the builders will walk, and we don't want that. We want this development completed. The developer has to deal with the EMS issue. And I had thought -- I was told by staff that they thought that a representative of EMS would be here today, but I guess EMS didn't show up. They may have had some emergency. MR. BELLOWS: For the record -- I don't mean to interrupt, but we do have somebody from EMS here today. MR. BLICHER: Okay. So hopefully maybe EMS can comment. How EMS could be solved in this situation is rather than build a 12-foot-wide asphalt one mile long of pavement down through where they want to put this linear park, why not an entrance up in the lagoon area, an emergency entrance with a gate. You know, it can look very nice. No one will even know it's there except for emergency, and it can protect everyone, because then the response time would be a lot quicker. Because it isn't just the fire station and EMS station there, but when we get served, it doesn't always come off of 951. And a few extra minutes can be your life. If we really need -- if the developer really needs the green space, discuss making this right-of-way, rather than this ridiculous linear park, make it a preserve; clean it up. It's -- it looks terrible. Let's move on and hope the developer gets out as soon as possible and we, the owners that have lost a lot of money, make the right decisions in the future and our values come back up to the norm. Developer and homeowner should work together next season to come up with the best and quickest approach so the developer can sell out and we can get the best amenities we want. If you could, bifurcate this application. If you feel that the commercial and the senior housing adjustment is okay, put the requirements on it and approve it. But why -- if he can do all this with his original plan, why bless this plan? Hold off, and let's work together next season to try to resolve this. Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have a question, or perhaps it's a comment, to test my understanding of things here. The developer owns the golf club? MR. BLICHER: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. And there is an agreement of some kind in place, presumably a master agreement which is signed off on by the developer as one party and then by each homeowner on the other side; would that be correct? MR. BLICHER: There -- you mean on the golf -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: The golf club is an organization that supplies memberships to people, but it's my understanding that there is an agreement in place between the golf club entity and the owners who are members of the club. MR. BLICHER: Yes, and there was a settlement in the bankruptcy to secure their capital that has been moved around on property. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, the reason I raise this is because if there's a private understanding between the members of the club and the club itself, that's not anything we can interfere with. MR. BLICHER: No, no, no. We're not asking -- we know he can delete golf courses; he can do all this under his plan. May 3, 2018 Page 20 of 86 COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. It sounded as though you were asking for -- MR. BLICHER: We don't have -- no. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I thought you were asking for relief on that. MR. BLICHER: I was just making a statement that we were -- we thought we were getting things -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: I understand. MR. BLICHER: -- and we're not, but that's life. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. MR. BLICHER: And we have to deal with it. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So you're not asking us to acquire a golf course or anything like that? MR. BLICHER: No. Absolutely not. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Is there any more? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, there's a lot more. I just wanted to know if you wanted to take a 10:30 break or -- CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Yes. Let's take a 15-minute break. Well, I've got to figure that out. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Could you all sit down, please. Okay. We'll start with the speakers again, and I guess we have 10 more left. MR. BELLOWS: Approximately. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Or is there more? Okay. Some people have pulled their slips because what they wanted to say has already been said. So if that's the case with anyone sitting there, if you want to waive because you're repeating what's already been said, you can do that. And we're going to try and just give you five minutes each. MR. BELLOWS: Ron (sic) Johnston. MR. JOHNSTON: Good morning. I'm Richard Johnston, and I live at Mallards. I had the great fortune of being here for Irma. And I can tell you that Collier Road was impassable. It was very difficult to move through that. Therefore, I'm the one that would really vote for having that road put on through the other exit to 41. It may not be pleasant, but at least once you got to 41 you could move. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: Gretchen Scott. MS. SCOTT: Good morning. I'm Gretchen Scott. I've lived in Fiddler's Creek since 2002, and I served for 10 years as a supervisor for the CDD2 board. I agree with what Linda and Peter both had to say. I sold about $80 million of homes in Fiddler's Creek in the last seven years, and while a lot of my homebuyers are excited about the shopping center coming in, there are some reservations, as Linda mentioned. The point I want to make, though, is a lot of those homes I sold to people who assumed that Fiddler's Creek Parkway would eventually go out to 41. And even if we take off the Estancia property from the equation now, we have about 4,500 homes which will be in Fiddler's Creek eventually, and we currently have three entrances. And as the plan stands now, we will only ever have three entrances. And I want you to understand that the entrance on Championship Drive comes out on basically a back road that runs into 951. The county does not even own that road. It's owned by Pelican Lakes. We call it our back gate. There are traffic problems there. The neighbors who live along Championship constantly complain about the issues at the Championship gate. Now we're taking our Sandpiper gate, which is one of our major entrances, and we're making it the access point for a pretty large commercial area. So that is going to be compromised for use for the Fiddler's Creek residences. So, really, we have one very nice entrance for Fiddler's Creek which is the original entrance on 951. That's the one that really serves its purpose totally 100 percent for the Fiddler's Creek residences. So my question for you to think about -- and I'm not a traffic expert, but I want you to understand that we need to make sure that the 4,500 people living in Fiddler's Creek in the future have adequate entrance May 3, 2018 Page 21 of 86 to 41. And I personally believe that that one entrance at Sandpiper, which is going to be about 75 or 80 percent commercial traffic, is not adequate, and we definitely need the Fiddler's Creek entrance to be put through. Whether you have the authority to stipulate that as you approve this commercial portion, I do not know, but please consider that, and thank you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: You have an ingress and egress opportunity on Championship, right? MS. SCOTT: We do. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. That's gated at some point? MS. SCOTT: It is gated, but it's a two-lane road through Fiddler's Creek. There is not a separate entrance for the residents there where they can use their clickers. So there's only one in and one out. So when people come in with passes and vendors come in with passes, it stacks up. In addition, it comes out on Championship, which is not even a county road. And then you come out onto 951, and God forbid you try and make a left-hand turn there. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. MS. SCOTT: Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: Jim Gaffney. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Jim Gaffney is what you said? Is he here? MR. BELLOWS: Don McDaniel. Santo -- MR. McDANIEL: I'm sorry. Good morning. My name is Don McDaniel, and I live in Runaway Lane in Fiddler's. And my question, of course, is to what I feel is a -- when they talk about the park and the linear park, about the disparity between it and a given park. Parks are to be -- to have the maximum accessibility and that park, if it is linear in nature, with a roadway running through it, will be not a park at all. It is going to be accessible by almost no one, and the only usable part of it will need to be dedicated to automobile traffic, because people will have to drive to that park to utilize it. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Did you say a roadway running through the linear park? MR. JOHNSON: That's what they're describing if they bring the EMS or emergency vehicle lane through there. Yes, it's 120 feet wide, and they're going to put a 12- or 15-foot road, and it will have to be guarded. That makes it almost unusable, plus the distance from all -- it's going to only access maybe 15 percent of the people. It's probably on one of the most unattractive property lines within Fiddler's Creek, so it's not really a parkway. In most communities that have community parks, they are to be centrally located. Central Park New York. Well, I'm thinking that was because they don't want people to have to drive to utilize it. So to compare those two -- I think is putting some lipstick on in -- doesn't really make it a park. And then the other thing is most of those abandoned roadways or railroad tracks or anything usually are greenways, and they usually -- the definition of greenway is to connect up two service points or destinations. It only has one terminus. It will not be utilized as a park, in my opinion; however, if it is, and, if the developer is able to acquire five-plus acres of additional residential property, I think he wins. Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: There's a second -- there's the potential roadway, which would be the park, and then next to it is Creative Drive; is that the name of the -- Create Lane. MR. JOHNSON: Creative Lane is exactly adjacent to that, but it is not -- and I had just had a conversation with one of the Fiddler's Creek individuals, and that roadway is (sic) and never will be accessible into Fiddler's Creek by EMS. It seems redundant to me, but I'm not a developer. COMMISSIONER FRYER: We'll ask for some more on that when the developer returns for rebuttal. MR. JOHNSON: Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: Santo Golando. MR. GOLANDO: Yes. I live in a place called Cherry Oaks in Fiddler's Creek. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Last name, sir? MR. GOLANDO: The last name is Golando, G-o-l-a-n-d-o. May 3, 2018 Page 22 of 86 And I bought into Fiddler's Creek in 2004, and I was presented with this master plan, which you sort of have here. And one of the things was that I was going to be able to use this road here to get out eventually to 41. Well, the only way I get out now is usually Championship Drive, and in the season that road, after 3 o'clock, the traffic comes off Marco, backs up. And to my thinking is that I was originally promised that access and entryway, and that's what -- I'm thinking that's what I want. To go down to the proposed Sandpiper exit would be an extra four miles, at least, on 41 to get back to the point we all go to, which is the junction of 951 and 41. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: The next speaker is George Varianides. MR. VARIANIDES: Good morning. My name is George Varianides, and I live in Fiddler's Creek in the Village of Montreax, and I've been a Florida full-time resident for the last three years. Got tired of New York winters, so I decided to make this my permanent home. And I just love it here. And I love Fiddler's Creek, and I love everything about it. But I just ask that when you do make your decision on this that -- you know, everybody's entitled to make a living in our country, and that's what makes it great, and the developer should make a living. The developer should make a profit. That's what he's in the business of developing for. But I don't think it should happen on the backs of the homeowners. You know, we all invested in our homes in Fiddler's Creek and, as everyone is saying, we were all promised a lot of things, and some are there and some haven't come about. But I just feel that, you know, when you make a decision, make the decision for thinking about the developer and the profit that he needs to make, but also think about the homeowners and our living conditions and the future of our investment in Fiddler's Creek and what we were promised. There's a lot of promises that were in our documents that, granted, they say may be there or could be there. They don't say will be there. But a lot of us purchased our homes because of those promises, and it just seems fair that, you know, we should be in the equation as well as the developer. Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: Marty Joyce. MR. JOYCE: I'd like to waive my time to Bruce Martin. MR. BELLOWS: Bruce Martin. MR. MARTIN: Good morning. Thank you for your time. My name is Bruce Martin. I live in Fiddler's Creek. I notice you have a traffic engineer here, and he's kind of had an easy morning of it, so I have some questions for him. There's a plan of the proposed shopping center that we received. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Excuse me. Sir, have you been sworn in? MR. MARTIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: You're supposed to ask your questions of the chair. MR. MARTIN: Oh. The traffic engineer, there was a plan presented to us of the blowup of the site plan proposed for the shopping center. Do you have that on your repertoire of pictures? (No response.) MR. MARTIN: Let me get this right. You have a traffic engineer here, you have a blowup of the site plan of the shopping center, and you don't bring a copy of that plan for everybody to look at? MR. YOVANOVICH: It's not part of this process. MR. MARTIN: You have a traffic report, an impact study that you did on the shopping center, car counts, traffic amount. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's here. MR. MARTIN: Okay. So you can address some questions to that in general because you don't have a copy of the site plan, the general site plan, for everybody to look at; is that correct? CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: You can't ask the questions to -- May 3, 2018 Page 23 of 86 MR. MARTIN: Okay. What is the car count -- how many trucks on the average are going to be coming into the shopping center? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Sir, you're welcome to ask rhetorical questions, but... MR. MARTIN: Well, isn't that a fact? COMMISSIONER FRYER: But continue making your statement -- MR. MARTIN: I mean, shouldn't they know how many trucks are proposed to come into a shopping center? Don't you want to know that? Are they diesel? Are they natural gas? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, if you happen to know and you want to supply that information, please go ahead. MR. MARTIN: Well, let me say this: I think it's impossible for you guys to make a decision without knowing the car counts, the impact. If I understand this correctly, this thing doesn't even need a traffic light when it opens? So we're going to have everybody coming out of Fiddler's Creek and everybody coming out of the shopping center going into that intersection that's already at a 3 percent grade making a left turn on a state highway with people racing all the way through the Everglades? That's a horrible intersection. You're going to let that happen without a traffic light, this shopping center? Second question: Without knowing this information and presented to you, there's an air-quality issue. Do you realize that each one of these tractor trailers is air conditioned? They have a sit time and a load time behind there. Grocery store knows this. This should be presented in public record. It's sitting there pumping out diesel fuel. Okay. In front of this or in back of this is going to be our, quote, wellness center. Now we're pumping diesel air in here. And, again, you guys don't have -- they haven't supplied this information to you before you agree to let this go there? That doesn't make sense. How about the decibel level at the property line? These tractor trailers are going to stop and start trying to go out onto 41. Every time they start up, they have decibel level. Is that required decibel level of the property line to the homeowners? Do you guys have that information? If you don't have that information, how can you possibly make this decision on locating a major event like this at the entranceway to Fiddler's Creek? So as we don't have a plan and as I don't have a traffic report, that's about the extent I can go on that. The other issue I'd like to talk about is the open space, particularly that parcel right there. The problem with the open space in Fiddler's Creek -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- being a Planned Unit Development, it was entitled to 6,000 units. They take the 6,000 units and they cluster them into areas that they want to put them in. They then can build a product that they want to build. A byproduct of clustering is the roadways, common areas, and amenity lands. So it's a good planning process. You cluster all the houses in one area. You have open-space areas. Here you have green areas down here in this plan. You have plenty of open space. Our problem entered into on what the developer charged us for two pieces of parkland. One piece -- both pieces were less than an acre. One was a little more than an acre; $250,000 apiece. Give or take a little bit, based on $55,000 an acre for the ground. This was based on the price of mother ground as if the whole property was being bought. After a piece is developed as a PUD, these accessory pieces have no density. You can't build on them. They're unbuildable. They're an amenity package, and they should have been assessed as an amenity package price. That would have been consistent with what the Vineyards pays -- sells their open space for, WCI, Vineyards -- Lely. It's easy. You guys have a great county record system for pricing. Pull up the open space in your records, $500, $1,000, a token amount, because the developer has already received his compensation in the ability of having density. That's not what happened here to us, and that's why we all resent the idea of having to buy open space at this ridiculous price based on one appraisal that we weren't allowed to talk about, debate, or anything else. If this open space is five acres and it's assessed properly, it should be purchased by the Foundation for a thousand bucks. That would be very consistent with other people's property; not 55,000 an acre plus being assessed for depreciated improvements. That's our problem with that. So I would request that our five acres stay there; 20 years worth of people buying here expected that May 3, 2018 Page 24 of 86 to be park. I don't think it's right to take it away. I think that we should buy it, but we should buy it at a fair appraisal based on other people's property of similar property. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: George Serbe. (Applause.) MR. SERBE: My questions and issues have already been answered, thank you. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: Joe Vaccaro. MR. VACCARO: I cede my time to Elliot Miller. MR. BELLOWS: Shannon Benedetti. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: He's going to cede his -- MR. MILLER: Joe Vaccaro ceded his time to me. I'll use this time, if I can, briefly, to try to -- MR. BELLOWS: Can you state your name again, sir. MR. MILLER: Yes. Elliot Miller. I'll use this time to try to deal with some of the comments that have been made. First of all, a lot of the issues that people have articulated here are really not relevant to this proceeding, and so I'm not going to deal with what happened in the past and prices, et cetera. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Did you not already speak, sir? MR. MILLER: Yes, but this gentleman had ceded his time to me. So I'm going to not repeat myself and hopefully what I say will be useful to you. There's been a lot of comments about the extension of Fiddler's Creek Parkway terminating in a park. First of all, somebody said that he's walked back there and it's not appropriate; it's not nice. What he was talk -- the area that he's talking about is gated off at the end of Fiddler's Creek Parkway. Nobody's gone back there. But, secondly, there's a reason for the termination of Fiddler's Creek Parkway, and there's a reason for it being turned into a linear park, and that reason is the same reason that people are complaining about here. That is traffic. If Fiddler's Creek Parkway continued to 41, there would be an ongoing stream of traffic using it as a throughway to 951, and all we hear today are people complaining about that. The reason that -- these roads are public roads. They're built with CDD funds, which are funded by municipal bonds. They're public roads. And if people are complaining about using these roads as a shortcut and heavy traffic on these roads, extending Fiddler's Creek Parkway to 41 will only increase that issue, make it worse for the people who live there, not better. I just wanted to point that out to you, because there's been a lot of talk about that. Sir, Mr. Fryer, did you have a question? COMMISSIONER FRYER: If I may. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Oh, go ahead. COMMISSIONER FRYER: The first time you were up you introduced yourself as the chair of the other CDD. MR. MILLER: Well, we are CDD2. I don't know that it's the other one. But we're CDD2. I'd say Phil is the chair of "the other one." COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Understood. You have a five-person board? MR. MILLER: We do. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And how -- and I understand that you're not presuming to speak for all the homeowners in your CDD. MR. MILLER: I obviously cannot. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Obviously, you aren't. MR. MILLER: Right. COMMISSIONER FRYER: But I'd like to know, if you could tell me so, how many -- how the May 3, 2018 Page 25 of 86 other directors come down on this issue. MR. MILLER: Well, as Ms. Viegas pointed out, we don't live adjacent to the area. We're all in favor of it. COMMISSIONER FRYER: All in favor of it? MR. MILLER: Yes, absolutely, as far as I know; absolutely. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Except -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. And other people have spoken for themselves, of course, but it's interesting. It helps us know. MR. MILLER: I would say it's a 4-1 majority. And, by the way, let me just note one thing, Mr. Fryer. I think -- as chairman of CDD2 I made it a point to try to have representation from the Aviamar area, because I think it's unfair for all of us to live in the Vinetta area. And I welcome Ms. Viegas' point of view. I disagree with her here and some other times, but I want to have representation. I want to have representation from her area, and I think it's important, and I think she's a very fine representative of that. It doesn't mean I agree with her all the time, and I don't agree with her on this. But I would say that, in answer to your specific question, it's 4-1. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. MR. MILLER: Thanks. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: Weldon Birdwell. MR. BIRDWELL: Good morning. My name is Weldon Birdwell. I live in Runaway Bay within Fiddler's Creek. My objection is really quite simple. They are asking for a specific request for a word change in the PUD where it currently states that they shall, the word is "shall build a golf course." They want to change it to "may build a golf course", I would specifically request that you not allow that. All of us, as you've heard, have bought with the understanding that there would be a second golf course and a complete golf course community there. Thank you. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question for you, sir. MR. BIRDWELL: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: You have one golf course there now? MR. BIRDWELL: There is one golf course within Fiddler's Creek, correct. This is a second course within Fiddler's Creek that was there before Fiddler's Creek was built. It is operated by the Marriott Corporation and is owned by Massachusetts Mutual. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. How many members do you have on your golf course? MR. BIRDWELL: I'm a member of the Marriott Course because it's just substantially different than what's available now. It has, as you've heard, over a 400-family waiting list. So if the Fiddler's Creek could produce or would produce a competitive product to what's on the market, there's 400 families that would certainly be potential members. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Thank you. MR. BIRDWELL: You're welcome. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I believe -- sir? MR. BIRDWELL: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I believe the "shall" language that you mentioned is followed by a phrase like "if financially feasible"? MR. BIRDWELL: I'm sure it does, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And also, again, there are remedies provided for members of the course if that doesn't come to pass. MR. BIRDWELL: They are specific members who joined the club usually, I think, prior to the -- I won't say all of them, but most of them joined prior to the bankruptcy, correct. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. May 3, 2018 Page 26 of 86 MR. BELLOWS: Shannon Benedetti. MS. BENEDETTI: Thank you. My name is Shannon Benedetti. I'm a full-time resident at Fiddler's Creek at 9345 Campanile Circle, and I've been in there since 2001, so I've definitely seen lots of changes that have occurred from the beginning and all the changes in plans, and they were plans. I am in favor of the rezoning of the grocery store at the 41 entrance and -- for several reasons, but one is we definitely have an increase in traffic right now. If you look at 41 and Collier, it's extremely busy. And, you know, people trying to get to the grocery store there, you know, from where we live, that traffic is going to increase because we have a lot of residential properties now that are going up on 41. So as we consider this grocery store, we can't just consider ourselves and, you know, what's going on in our community; we have to consider everyone else. And I do understand about the entrance at Sandpiper. When I was at the town hall meeting, at several meetings, a plan was proposed to us, and they were showing us, you know, what their plans were to protect us, you know, from other people trying to get into our community and from the noises, and there was supposed to be a fence that was extended coming down Sandpiper up to our gatehouse. And what I would like is for the attorney here, the zoning attorney that represents Fiddler's and the changes, to please show that to all the people on the council so you can see how they plan to take care of us. Do you have that? MR. YOVANOVICH: I'll get it; I'll confirm it. MS. BENEDETTI: But I'd like you to talk to it. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right now? CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Ma'am, you need to finish speaking or -- MS. BENEDETTI: I'm finished speaking. That's my request is that you ask -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Let me ask a question of you then, please, ma'am, if I may, Ms. Benedetti. MS. BENEDETTI: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: If I understand correctly, the proposed development will move commercial uses away from Collier and toward -- MS. BENEDETTI: That's correct. COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- 41. In the 2017 AUIR, the inventory that the county takes of capacity of its assets, indicates that Collier between Walmart Driveway and Manatee will be at capacity in 2020 with only 94 p.m. trips left in the -- in what's permissible. So wouldn't you say that by moving some of the commercial activities over to 41 is -- the net effect of that is going to be better for people who drive in that area? MS. BENEDETTI: I agree. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Thank you. MS. BENEDETTI: Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: Michael Meehan. MR. MEANNONE: Who? MR. BELLOWS: Michael, M-e-e -- MR. MEANNONE: E-a-n-n-o-n-e? MR. BELLOWS: That's it. MR. MEANNONE: That's my handwriting. Many a nun that rose in their grave every time I pick up a pen and pencil. My name is Michael Meannone, and I live in the Aviamar section of Fiddler's Creek. My wife and I purchased a home in 2013. Now, if we had known that they were going to put a commercial property right at the entrance, I never would have purchased here, you know. I've owned many, many homes in my life, and I've never considered a commercial property at the entrance to my development to be a deal maker; not at all. If this project is allowed to go through, our home values will drop; traffic will increase significantly. I say this because the remaining -- most of the remaining development in Fiddler's Creek is to the rear or the May 3, 2018 Page 27 of 86 Route 41 side. The significance of this is that the only time these homeowners will ever use the Fiddler's Creek 951 entrance is if they're going to Marco Island. As an example, from my home to the main entrance at 951 and Fiddler's is four miles. From my home to the 41/951 intersection is four miles. So if I'm going anyplace other than Marco, I'm going out that exit. Let's see. I'm losing my place here. Now, what all of this means is that in addition to all of the existing and future residential traffic that's going to use that entrance, we are now going to have all of the construction traffic to put this development in, this commercial property, as well as all of the retail traffic that are going to go into that. So that traffic on that intersection is going to increase significantly. Now, I don't know if any of you are familiar with that intersection of Sandpiper and 41, but when you come out of the development, your nose -- or the nose of your car is pointing down. The road bed on 41 is elevated a good, I'm going to say, two to three feet above. I didn't put a plumb line on it, but it's clearly elevated. The posted speed limit at that point is 60 miles an hour, and everybody exceeds that. If you have any traffic that's in that right-hand turn lane to come into Fiddler's today on Sandpiper, you cannot, you absolutely cannot see that oncoming traffic. It's impossible. So, you know, it's just -- it's just flatout an accident waiting to happen. And I understand the warrants that they say you've got to have, so many accidents before they'll consider; well, all right. That's the law, but I'm telling you, you're going to have accidents there. Now, the only reason for this change is because that large grocery store did not like the original parcel off 951. Now, that parcel had a preserve area in back of it that would have buffered the existing homes in Fiddler's Creek from that commercial property. That's not so in this case. Our homes are wrapped right around it. I guess a question I keep asking myself is why would the owner of a commercial property that fronts a major highway not want their entrance off of that highway as opposed to bringing all of your traffic through a side street? The only conclusion I come to is one of money. They don't want to pay for whatever infrastructures or changes that need to be made on 41 to route that traffic directly in. So they're, in turn, going to burden the homeowners. I just don't think that's fair. I mean, every time -- those of us who live in that back area, every day we're going to be looking at that billboard, we're going to be looking at those lights stanchions, and we're going to be having to deal with all the lights and noise associated with that. I just don't think it's fair. And here's a final thought: If this is such a great enterprise for Fiddler's Creek, can we anticipate sometime in the near future them updating their TV commercial to reflect this new enhancement? Are they going to ask all of the existing builders in this community to advertise in their sales centers this wonderful enhancement? My guess is no. Thank you. I appreciate your time. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Thank you. Are there any more? MR. BELLOWS: Two more speakers. Clay, and I apologize; I don't think I can pronounce your last name. MR. WESCOTT: Thanks very much. I'm Clay Wescott. And I've been a homeowner in Fiddler's Creek since 2015. And I'd first like to thank the Planning Commission for spending so much time and hearing our views, because I know a lot of them are repetitive. And it's very useful for us. It's the first meeting that I've been to, and I find it really a great exercise of democracy, so thank you. I think that many of the aspects of the proposed update to the master plan are fine and should go ahead; however, I have concerns about the proposal to convert the Fiddler's Creek Parkway extension into a nine-acre linear park. Now, my wife and I were there yesterday on our bikes. It is possible to get in. There's a gate that's closed at night, but during the day it's open for landscapers, and they come in and they deposit things, and there's also a lot of brush that's there. So we rode our bikes all the way on this kind of dirt road to 41. And, frankly, it's not a very nice May 3, 2018 Page 28 of 86 spot. It backs up to a very dense housing and RV development on one side, and as you get closer to 41, there's a loud traffic noise of the trucks going by and so forth, so it's the last place that I would ever think of to go for a park. So what I would suggest that might be considered is to clean up the area and use it as a natural preserve, possibly maintaining the right-of-way with a permeable surface for EMS use, because you definitely -- if you're going to consider EMS coming in there, the current road is completely unsuitable. We had a difficult time even with our bikes. Now, I also know that the Deltona settlement says that the wetlands at Fiddler's are the primary wading bird habitat in the region, and so keeping the area as a preserve makes more sense than building new structures for basketball, shuffleboard, and other facilities that could contaminate the wetlands nearby. There's also the issue that Marshall raised of whether the Foundation members would be required to purchase the land and at what price if it became a park. So I propose the Planning Commission recommend that any change in the master plan concerning the extension of the parkway be postponed until homeowners are able to fully -- further consult with the developer concerning different options and to work out a mutually agreeable settlement. Thank you very much for your time. CHAIRMAN HOMAK: Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: Last speaker? M.R. Mickers or Wilks. That's all I have. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: The last name is Wilks? MR. BELLOWS: Well, the handwriting's hard to -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Why don't you put it up on the visualizer. Maybe the person can recognize their own. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: I think that might have been it. Oh, no. He's not a speaker. MR. BELLOWS: You can ask anyone who hasn't spoke who wishes to speak. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: He's not speaking. Is there anyone else that wishes to speak on this, or we're all done? Okay. Okay. You got something to say, Rich? MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure. I'm going to put my iPad up on the visualizer but I'm not making it part of the record so I can take it home with me. I'm trying to show the area that we're talking about. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Why don't you just go to Google Earth? MR. YOVANOVICH: It is Google Earth. I can't do it from here, though. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: It's on the county computer. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, Stan, you've already tested my IT skills. This is as far as I can go; sorry. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'm a Luddite, too. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I want to -- I kind of want to work my way backwards on the public comments. The proposed shopping center, the plan is to build a wall along the residents' side of Sandpiper to the guardhouse, the relocated guardhouse. We would then bring the wall onto the other side of Sandpiper, back behind the proposed shopping center back to 41 to connect to 41. So the shopping center will be walled off from all residences. So I also want to address some things. Obviously, the grade at Sandpiper and 41 will be modified to address access for the shopping center. I'm going to have Jim come up here in a few minutes to talk about the traffic study, because we did do a traffic study. We did do the volumes that we expect to occur and when we expect a traffic signal to be warranted after the shopping center opens. We -- and Jim's the expert. We expect after the first season that this shopping center is open a signal's going to get warranted, and we'll be going through the process of getting a traffic signal. That's already been -- the proceeds have already been set aside to pay for the traffic signal. So there's going to be a traffic signal, and it's not going to be indefinite into the future, as represented to you by a certain speaker who represented to you that -- and maybe I misunderstood. She said she lived May 3, 2018 Page 29 of 86 adjacent to the shopping center. And she does not live adjacent to the shopping center. She lives in the development over here, but not adjacent. She lives -- that's what I was looking for. She lives -- if I'm correct in looking her up, she lives down here in this development. MS. VIEGAS: No, that's not correct. I live closer to where it is. But I -- my community abuts Sandpiper Drive. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. You can't speak from -- ma'am, you can't speak from there. MS. VIEGAS: I'm sorry. Well, he's basically calling me a liar. MR. YOVANOVICH: No. I looked your name up on the visualizer, and you're either at this street right here or this one, one of the two. MS. VIEGAS: Closer to the commercial center; abutting. MR. YOVANOVICH: But you're not adjacent or abutting, as you represented. MS. VIEGAS: I said I abutted Sandpiper Drive. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Ma'am. MR. YOVANOVICH: So we're not going to put a billboard. You all know the sign regulations that apply to the project. This is going to be a first-rate shopping center with a first-rate grocery provider who we all know who is the number-one grocery store in this area, and we're pretty confident that that's who's going to land on this site. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Yovanovich, before we leave the billboard subject, would you describe what kind of signage there will be. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's the typical signage you see at every grocery-anchored shopping center. I'm sure with, you know, the -- and the prominent name is usually the grocery store, and then there's the list of the other users that will be in the center and then, of course, there will be on-building signage as well, but out front there will be the typical signage that identifies the primary tenant along with the other tenants. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Do you or does anyone in your team know the approximate dimension of such a sign? MR. YOVANOVICH: It's 18 feet tall and 124 square feet of copy. It will be at the project entrance. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Eighteen feet from the ground? MR. YOVANOVICH: The ground up, yeah, so you can see it; yeah. The access to the property; I put this exhibit up before. And if you look at what's existing and what's proposed, there has never been a commitment for the extension of Fiddler's Creek Parkway all the way to 41. Never been a guarantee; never been an obligation to build that connection. Currently exists, Sandpiper. That's the only currently-existing and identified on the master plan access on 41 for the project. We are, in fact, adding a second one that will serve the Estancia project. Roughly 1,500 homes will no longer be using Sandpiper for access to their homes. They'll be using their own separate entrance. We are, in fact, adding access to 41 and making it better than what exists today for the residential homes. We are not making it worse. We have the proposed changes regarding the park. There's a fund that people pay when they move into the community. They call it Delta money. When you move in, you pay X, and that's the money that will be utilized for the park improvements. There will not be a special assessment for the park improvements. That money is already being accumulated and will be utilized for the linear park. I think I already mentioned that the money is already set aside for the traffic signal. Someone represented that Sandpiper was going to be the construction entrance for the shopping center. It is not. The construction entrances are going to be further south on 41 for the shopping center. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: They also mention that that road is going to be strengthened. Why -- what's that all about? Those roads are all built to a, what, H20 loading standard anyway. MR. YOVANOVICH: The certain grocery store asks that you build the asphalt to be -- and I can bring Mark up here. Mark, why don't you come up here and explain it so I don't butcher it. May 3, 2018 Page 30 of 86 COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. I hate to get you out of your chair, but... MR. MINOR: It's comfortable. Thank you. My name is Mark Minor, and I'm a civil engineer. The grocery store has a specification that the pavement and the asphalt structural design is heavy duty; that it is designed to accept I think it's 180,000 trips of 18-ton axle loads for a minimum of 20 years. Anyway, they've got -- the pavement cross-section is predesigned by the grocery store. And they use a much thicker asphalt pavement than what's required on a road like Sandpiper from the county's typical cross-section. So that's what we're referring to. If the grocery store goes in there, we're going to make modifications to Sandpiper mainly to move the guard gate further into the project, thus we'll be realigning the existing roads and raising the curbs and repouring the curbs, and we would rebuild the road to meet the grocery store standard which exceeds the county standard, and that's what we're talking about; the super pave. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. MR. MINOR: That's all. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And you also raise it up. Because last time I heard a comment about coming to the road and looking -- having to look up, and I drove through there, but I'm in a pickup, so I'm probably a little higher than somebody that's in maybe a Corvette or something. But I didn't see any problem with that. But you're going to raise it up anyway. MR. MINOR: Well, my Chevy Volt I don't have that problem, so I don't think it's that low. But, yes, we would not -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. MR. MINOR: -- exceed any of your-all's -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'm impressed; a Volt. MR. YOVANOVICH: There were a lot of other comments that, unless you want me to address them, I just wanted to address the major comments regarding access on 41, Sandpiper, how the shopping center really is going to operate, the walls that we're putting in place. If you would like to hear from Mr. Banks about his projection for when the traffic signal will actually arrive, I'm happy to bring him up. And maybe you should just come on up, Jim. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Just one -- Rich, before you leave, just one thing. This buildout of Fiddler's Creek you said is 6,000 units? MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: None of these PUDs, developments, DRIs ever hit the exact number. Do you have any projection for how many you think you'll be at when you build out? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, honestly, if you look at the history of this specific PUD and DRI, over the various amendments the number has actually come down over the many years. So we're at the number that we really think we're going to achieve. It started at a much greater number. I think it was in the 10,000 range and it's down to 6,000 with the last amendment, so... COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And that's projected -- okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's coming down. We've added acreage over the years, and we've actually reduced the density over the years, so we're at the number we think we're at, other than it will be less because we do think that some of the multifamily will convert to single-family, but I don't know the exact number. But, you know, there's going to be some conversion. So it will be less, but I can't give you a specific number. I'm going to bring Jim up for the -- CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Rich, before you leave, there is something about the fence. Are you going to have a gated fence or something? They're talking about show a fence on the road. Are you -- MR. YOVANOVICH: There's already a security entrance on Sandpiper. It's going to be relocated further into the project so that security will still be there. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. All right. MR. YOVANOVICH: If I said "fence," I didn't mean to. I meant to say a security gate. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Security gate. So there is a security gate entering into Fiddler's Creek then? May 3, 2018 Page 31 of 86 MR. YOVANOVICH: Off of Sandpiper, yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. You'll be coming back, Mr. Yovanovich? MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm not leaving. MR. BANKS: Good morning. For the record, Jim Banks with J&B Transportation Engineering. My firm did prepare the Traffic Impact Statement which county staff did review as well as the Florida Department of Transportation. We have been in communication with the Florida Department of Transportation from the get-go when this initial proposal was made to locate the commercial from -- a portion of the commercial from 951 over to U.S. 41. FDOT has already indicated and committed to the fact that a traffic signal will be installed at Sandpiper and U.S. 41 when warranted. So as this project moves forward, and if the commercial is located at this location, the proposed location, as part of the SDP approval we will be in initial communications with FDOT again to indicate to them that the commercial project is coming online, and the expectations will be that the traffic signal will be warranted the very first season, peak season, that the shopping center is open for business. It is our hope -- and I don't want to -- I don't want to -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm sorry. Who said that? MR. BANKS: Who said what? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Who predicted -- MR. BANKS: I've said a lot since I've been up here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Who predicted the traffic signal by the summer of the opening? MR. BANKS: No. What I'm saying is is that we did the traffic study. My firm did the Traffic Impact Statement, and it's based on forecast, projections and expectations of how much traffic is going to be generated by the -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Your forecast? MR. BANKS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's what I needed. MR. BANKS: Our forecast. And FDOT reviewed those forecasts and accepted them as correct or good estimates, and it's based on their review of the information that was provided. They've made the determination also that a traffic signal will likely be warranted there in the near future after the shopping center is open. And prior to opening the shopping center, during the SDP application phases, again, we're going to be back in communications with FDOT. Your staff will require that. And we will, again, renotify them about the process of going forward with the commercial center. And it's our expectations that we will provide, again, the updated information. We're going to have new traffic data on U.S. 41. The traffic volumes are continuing to increase, so that's only going to support the previous forecast that we're going to warrant a traffic signal there. We will then initiate a signal warrant study shortly after the shopping center is open, and it is our expectation that the very first season that it is open we are going to meet warrants, and that traffic study, the signal-warrant study, will take about a month to prepare and submit to FDOT, and then hopefully within about 60 days after the submittal FDOT will review the information, and if it meets warrants, then we'll approve the installation of a traffic signal. I suspect that we will go ahead and begin the design. Once we already know that it's going to meet warrants, we will precede with the design of the traffic signal, and then FDOT would view the traffic signal. It will probably about -- the design, probably take another 60 days, and then about 60 more days to erect the traffic signal. COMMISSIONER FRYER: May I? CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Anybody? Yeah. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Yovanovich, I think you'd finished your rebuttal. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. I think I hit all the high points that I wanted to touch on. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Some things that I'm still concerned about here. Mrs. Viegas raised some issues and concerns that seem to me might be capable of being easily dealt with by the May 3, 2018 Page 32 of 86 developer, such as dumpster location, delivery bays, and the like. MR. YOVANOVICH: We will be going through the Site Development Plan review process as part of the overall approval, and dumpsters and all of that are located at that time. We've already got a commitment in the PUD that says we can't have any delivery bays abutting residential. So we're already not going to be facing her project with delivery bays. We've already got in the PUD a prohibition, if there's auto -- any type of auto repair, it can't be facing residential. I thought those were covered by the staff-recommended revisions that we'll be adding to the business commercial section of the PUD. If there's something else that we can do... COMMISSIONER FRYER: Is there anything further that you'd be prepared to say by way of a commitment with respect to location of dumpsters? MR. YOVANOVICH: That they won't be adjacent to residential? COMMISSIONER FRYER: No. That you will be mindful of the importance of not being proximate to residential, although I understand if you move away from one, you might end up moving closer to another, and I got that, but that you will be mindful of that as you proceed. MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure. We'll be -- your code already requires me to be mindful, so we certainly have no obligation -- I mean, no fear of doing that commitment. COMMISSIONER FRYER: You'll be sensitive to that? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Mr. Fryer, the language presented by the speaker was -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Turn your mike on, Heidi. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: The language presented by the speaker was that dumpsters shall be as far away from the residential as possible. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: So that is a condition you could request if you elect to recommend approval. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Let me pursue that, then, if I can. And I do understand that in some respects it can be a zero-sum game, that if you move it away from one group of residences, it might get closer to others. But I would like to see a commitment on the part of the developer with respect to that that's really stronger than the sensitivity that I asked for a moment ago. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, without having an actual Site Development Plan to pinpoint and identify where the dumpster's going to go -- and maybe Mark can help with that. Where would we typically site a dumpster? It would be in the back of the door, I'm assuming, correct? MR. MINOR: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Come on up. Which is where the service bays are going to be. So we're already putting them away from residential. So, you know, he's the site planning guy so... COMMISSIONER FRYER: The dumpsters will be by the bays. And then where will -- are they, again -- will they be very close to the wall that will insulate the commercial development from the residential area? MR. MINOR: Typically, in this grocery store chain, dumpster enclosures are up against the store. They're in enclosures like it's required but also have their own special requirements, and there would be -- I would imagine there will be two double dumpsters for the store, the shopping center that's proposed. And this particular grocery store has a compactor for -- they got a lot of boxes and whatnot, so they have a compactor; and typically that's not picked up but about once every couple of weeks, because they really -- they compact the boxes and the other materials pretty efficiently. COMMISSIONER FRYER: The dumpsters are going to be against the wall, and they're only serviced once every couple weeks. MR. MINOR: Well, no. The recycles are. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Oh, the recycles. MR. MINOR: Yeah. Well, the garbage will be picked up on whatever the regular garbage days are for the commercial establishments in that area. May 3, 2018 Page 33 of 86 COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Then with respect to the -- with respect to the linear park and the EMS access, will we be hearing from EMS? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And if so, who will be facilitating that, the applicant or staff or -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Is EMS here? Oh, there she is. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I think Chief Butcher is here. CHIEF BUTCHER: Good morning. For the record, Tabitha Butcher, chief of Collier County EMS. Obviously, when we're looking at placing stations, we like to look at access to communities. We do operate on closest unit dispatch, so having that access into Fiddler's Creek adjacent to the station is definitely important to us. If the access that has been described will remain, that will be sufficient for us to get into that community. And, furthermore, a comment that was made earlier, I'm not here to represent Greater Naples, but I do have conversations with them when we're talking about future planning, and they actually have property on Lakes Park, which is further east on 41. So that Sandpiper access would actually be better for them. So keeping that in place as well as having what is described for us would be sufficient for us to get into that property. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Chief, would you say that then Greater Naples wouldn't have any need in order to meet the time to patient contact by using your point of entrance as well? CHIEF BUTCHER: Yes. They could have a need if they're coming from the west portion, their station that's currently on Collier Boulevard but, like I said, they do have a proposed location on Lakes Park that will be collocated, potentially, with the Sheriff's Office. So that Sandpiper access would be closer for them from that east side. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. I just -- and I know that you're not representing Greater Naples, but it seems to me since they are going to probably be getting there frequently sooner than EMS gets there with their ALS coverage, that they, under some circumstances, would want to use that roadway in, that 12-foot roadway. And I'm going to want to hear more about that, whether that's Creative Lane or whether that's going down the park. When Mr. Yovanovich comes back, I'll ask him. But would it be your judgment in your familiarity with fire service that the suppression apparatuses could get in if needs be on medical calls or for fire calls? CHIEF BUTCHER: Yeah. As long as it's a paved roadway that's going to get us into that community. Again, I'm not here to speak for the fire service, so I would suggest a followup with them. But 12 feet seems sufficient for them to be able to pass. Again, that is going to depend on what kind of traffic as far as pedestrian that's going to be happening on that roadway. But as long as we have passable access that's paved, us, as well as fire, should be able to get down that road. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. That's all I have. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Anything else? MR. YOVANOVICH: Any others? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Could you say a word or two -- I believe one of the members of the public indicated that there was going to be a roadway going down in the middle of the linear park. Is that the roadway we're talking about, versus Creative Lane? MR. YOVANOVICH: That's the -- that's the park layout with the proposed roadway on it. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And the roadway will be used exclusively by emergency vehicles? MR. YOVANOVICH: It will be a path -- it could be a pathway -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: I mean for motor vehicles. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. As far as motor vehicles go, yes, it's going to be for emergency. It's not -- you're not going to be driving a car in there. MR. MINOR: Maintenance vehicle. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm sorry. Some maintenance vehicles as well for the community. But you and I won't be driving our cars there if we lived in Fiddler's Creek. May 3, 2018 Page 34 of 86 COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. I'm trying to test to what extent, if any, the roadway would be a material impediment for the ability to enjoy that park. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, if you look at the layout, the active parts of the park are -- you know me, I'm directionally challenged -- south. Thank you. Which that location is not -- it's about 300 feet away from the 5-acre passive park we're talking about where the major activity, the active portion, is. So it's not that -- and the other part was going to be a passive park. This is going to be, obviously, more active. The passive portion is to the north, and I don't see that roadway being an impediment to anybody enjoying the green space. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Thank you. I don't believe I have any more questions. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Rich, could you just please tell me when this is going to the BCC? MR. YOVANOVICH: Knock on wood, May 22nd. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Anybody else? MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. MS. VIEGAS: Am I allowed to make a rebuttal statement only because I was -- CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: No, we were -- the speakers are done. MS. VIEGAS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. So I guess we'll close the public hearing and have a discussion and vote. COMMISSIONER EBERT: We are also doing this for the EAC. This is also included in this, Karen? CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: There is an EAC review, because there are eagles nests in the DRI but not in that petition area; is that correct? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Is Summer here? MS. GUNDLACH: Summer, could you step up and confirm? CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: The seat's empty. MS. GUNDLACH: We're checking the staff report. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Well, that's where I got my notes from. That's what it said. MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. Then that's accurate. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. So you've made the commitment to add conditions for the -- MR. YOVANOVICH: The staff conditions and we'll add to the PUD and the business commerce section. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: -- staff conditions and the EMS connecting. MR. YOVANOVICH: We'll commit -- we'll make a provision that EMS will have connection through the proposed linear park to the current cutoff on Fiddler's Creek Parkway. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: And you're going to show that on the master plan. MR. YOVANOVICH: We can. We'll add that to the master plan. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, just keep in mind, though, that when you say EMS has access, the chances are the first EMS to arrive on the scene will be a fire truck. MR. YOVANOVICH: We'll say -- why don't we say "emergency vehicles," because that, in my mind, covers the sheriff -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's better. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- covers EMS, covers fire; anybody else who is emergency. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah, good. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: This item's coming back on consent? MR. YOVANOVICH: I hope not. COMMISSIONER FRYER: What do we need that -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, if you'd like it to come back on consent, then you just need to do a motion to bring it back on consent. MR. KLATZKOW: No, no. You have an issue with the master plan, don't you? CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Yeah. I would like to have it to see the master plan. May 3, 2018 Page 35 of 86 COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: It's a small issue, unless we can handle it here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: But the County Attorney's Office does not have it. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: We also have the road that goes around the commercial is eliminated. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: That was the issue. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. As long as we're clear on that, it's a small issue. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: I could put it back up on the visualizer once I take it back from Terri to show you what the one change was. COMMISSIONER FRYER: What -- CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: I know what it is. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Heidi? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, I can see the change that he's showing on the master plan. I just can't review the master plan to see if there are any other changes. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm representing to you there are no other changes other than -- MR. KLATZKOW: Well, if there are any changes, we'll bring it back. If there are no other changes, we won't. Is that fair? CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: That's fair. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's fair. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So we don't need consent. We don't need to bring this back on consent then. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: All right. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, I'll ask for an opportunity to say what I feel about this, if I may. Obviously, it is very important for us to be sensitive to the needs and expectations of homeowners, and we try our level best to be receptive to those and to try to, when we can, guide developers along the way that yields what I would call a win-win situation. And frequently we're able to do that; sometimes we're not. And in some cases when we're not, that, plus other reasons maybe that are of a more global nature, such as our concern for the larger geographical area -- I'm thinking of one recently that was a very large project where the residents didn't seem to care very much, but I still was compelled to vote against it. But I don't see that in this case; I really don't. Obviously, there are some legitimate desires on the part of the homeowners that are not going to be met. I think that all of the legal requirements, though, including the agreement to which the members of the golf club were a party and which provides for remedies in the event of a failure to measure up to the expectations that were -- that were created in that contract by the developer as the owner of the club, taken in all, the concessions that the developer made, particularly following the NIM, such as getting rid of the hotel and a number of others like that, point me to the conclusion that the developer has been quite reasonable in its attempt to accommodate as many of the concerns of the homeowners as possible. Obviously, not everything can be rolled into that, but it hardly ever is. You hardly ever get everything you ask for. So I want to commend the developer and their representatives for making an effort that is, I will have to say, something we don't always see, and so that was appreciated. And for those reasons, and with all due respect for the interests and wishes of the homeowners, I'm going to vote for this. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Is that a motion? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, unless anybody else wants to speak, and if not, I will move approval. But we've got to vote on two, don't we? CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Yes. We need to vote on the development order. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. The development order -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Which should I start with? Does it matter? CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: The development order. May 3, 2018 Page 36 of 86 MR. BELLOWS: The development order first. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. I'll move approval of the proposed amendment of the development order. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'll second. CHAIRMAN HOMAK: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. The PUD. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Then I'll move approval, unless you wanted to. COMMISSIONER EBERT: No. Well, what I want to say is I kind of made checkmarks of the pros and cons. I have more cons than pros (sic). We are -- the Planning Commission only gives reference to the BCC. They are the ones that make the final decision. So if you are dissatisfied with our recommendation -- that's why I asked Mr. Yovanovich when it was planning on going in front of the BCC -- that would be your time to go there. As far as the DRI, they've okayed that. It looks like everything that is in our packet has been followed through on. So I am going to make a motion to approve the PUD. I don't have the number of it, though. Karen, can you read the number? CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: PL20160002496. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'll second. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: And that includes all the changes -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: All the conditions, changes, concessions, everything. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: And you seconded it? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I second. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. And now we have to approve it as the EAC. COMMISSIONER FRYER: We do? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Yes. It's a -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'll move it be approved in our role as EOC (sic). COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Opposed, like sign. May 3, 2018 Page 37 of 86 (No response.) CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. That's it. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: I think we'll take -- we're going to break for lunch now and come back at 1:00. (A luncheon recess was had.) CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Could everybody please sit down. ***Okay. The next two items on the agenda are companion items, so we'll hear them both again. They're for the Tamiami Trail commercial infill subdistrict, the Torres Family Trust. And the first item is PL20160002771/CPSS-2016-2, and the commercial PUD is PL20160000226. Anybody wishing to speak on this item, please rise and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Disclosures; Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I talked to the developer's attorney and his engineering planner. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I spoke with Mr. Yovanovich and have received emails. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I spoke with Mr. Mulhere, and I have some emails. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: And I spoke to Mr. Yovanovich, and emails. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Emails. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And emails. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Yeah. Okay. So we'll hear from the petitioner, and staff, and then we'll hear the speakers. Bob? MR. MULHERE: Thank you. For the record, Bob Mulhere with Hole Montes here representing the Torres Family Trust. As was mentioned, there's two companion petitions. One is a small-scale amendment. The other is a PUD. The property's currently zoned "A" agriculture. It's 5.8 acres. I know you're all familiar with the location because you've been talking about it all morning. So I did put an exhibit on the visualizer. This is Imperial Wilderness right here, Fiddler's Creek right here, this is that other commercial tract within Fiddler's Creek, and this is the aforementioned, or it actually runs right here, Creative Lane, which I'll show you an exhibit that gives you a little better clarity on that. Just to take a look at an aerial, that is the subject property. It's a little hard to see, but there's a little notch that is not part of the property right here, which is owned by Collier County Utilities, and it will be more visual on the next exhibit I put up. And -- let's see. That is the PUD master plan. You can see that notch I referred to right here. I've forgot to mention, with me this morning is Rich Yovanovich, land-use attorney; Norm Trebilcock, who is the transportation consultant; Paula McMichael, who works with me at Hole Montes; and Jeremy Arnold, who's with Waldrop Engineering who has been doing the civil engineering on the project. The -- we have, you know, culled down -- and, as a result of comments made at the neighborhood meeting, actually some initial review of what we were requesting, and then back and forth with staff, we have culled down the list of uses. I'll tell you that originally we had thought about coming in just for C3 zoning, and the reason that we thought we could do that was we thought that this would be -- we'd comply with the policy in the Comp Plan that allows for commercial and office infill, and so we didn't think we would have to do a Growth Management Plan amendment, because if you have commercial on either one or both sides, there's a policy that would allow you to come in and ask for equal to or less than intensity than the commercial that you're adjacent to; however, I'll probably use -- this exhibit right here would be the best one to show you. It turn outs we couldn't do that because basically the depth of the existing -- the depth of the proposed commercial has to be the same as the depth of the existing commercial. And if you were to run a line from the existing commercial across this, you can see that a triangle of it falls outside of that requirement; otherwise, it would have met, at least in my opinion, all of the conditions prerequisite for commercial, office, May 3, 2018 Page 38 of 86 and infill and would not have required the small-scale amendment. Water under the bridge. We submitted it, and we're here today to discuss it. Since we did the small-scale amendment, it was just as easy to do a PUD because we could more easily restrict the uses and put in the conditions that are not applicable to a straight zoning district such as C3, including enhanced setbacks, enhanced buffers, and reducing the list of uses. Assuming you've looked at the PUD document, you are aware of the fact that we have restricted uses adjacent to Imperial Wilderness in addition to providing an enhanced buffer and a wall adjacent to them. We've reduced the uses adjacent to them as well. The language in the PUD says within 60 feet of the eastern and southern perimeter boundaries of the PUD, only the following uses: Conservation, preservation, landscape buffers, stormwater, essential services, and professional office. So the retail type uses that we've listed in our project or the other uses are not permitted within that first 60 feet, so we've moved them away from the Imperial Wilderness as sort of a stepdown. We were also able, since we were going through the PUD process, to ask for a couple of uses that were not allowed in C3, most notably self-storage. Let me just talk a little bit about the setbacks. You can see that there's a preserve here. One of the things that was mentioned in our neighborhood information meeting was, if at all possible, could we extend that preserve. Originally it sort of ran just, I guess, east and west, and we worked with staff -- Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you, Ray. You could have just told me that. I'm like Rich. I'm not real good with this machine here. Sorry, Rich. You know, this preserve here creates a buffer, but there are limitations on how far we could extend it because the quality of the natural area that we were to preserve is primarily in this area here, not up here; however, we did work with staff and did extend it a bit so it really runs about halfway up that eastern boundary. But we've also provided a 25-foot-wide Type B buffer with a wall and berm to create separation. This little area here we only have the 10-foot buffer because that is a utility easement owned by Collier County, so there's already separation, and you can see there's no units in that area. And over here is Creative Drive, which is a 60-foot right-of-way of which there's an easement of 30 feet on our parcel and 30 feet on the Fiddler's PUD/DRI. The access points are right here and here. I think that's important because we are not proposing access directly from the East Trail. So it will be, you know, a little safer in terms of high-speed traffic on the East Trail. Just checking to see if I -- I do have one clarification or correction which I did talk to staff about prior to the meeting. The PUD document limits the overall square footage to 60,000 square feet for the commercial uses, and no single use can be greater than 45,000 square feet. And I presume that staff felt that was important, because they didn't want to see just one big box there. However, we are also permitted to have an ALF, and that is regulated by a floor area ratio, and we are requesting 0.6 floor area ratio. It wasn't clear in the small-scale GMP in the language that was provided that the 60,000 square feet does not apply to the ALF; that that's regulated by the floor area ratio. It was clear in the PUD under Permitted Use No. 32 in the PUD, the last sentence says, assisted living facilities are not subject to the limitation on the square footage, and there is a floor area ratio in the PUD. So I would propose that in the GMP language on Page 2, Paragraph B, which reads, "The maximum floor area shall be limited to 60,000 square feet, I propose to say, comma, "except for ALF/CCRC, which is limited to a floor area ratio of 0.60," which would clarify the conflict between the PUD and the small-scale amendment. I should have picked up on that, but that language changed quite a bit during the process, and I didn't notice it. I would talk a little bit about the NIM. We had 35 people. Mostly -- there were a few people from developments across the East Trail, but mostly folks were from Imperial Wilderness, and there was certain give and take. They talked about, you know, wanting to have a wall, and we said we would put a wall in. We enhanced the buffer. We limited the uses adjacent to them. No one, to my recollection, spoke against the project, but there were concerns, and we feel we've May 3, 2018 Page 39 of 86 addressed those concerns. The biggest concern that was expressed at the time was there was a swath of land that was cleared for the survey crews to go in and survey the property. And I think the folks in Imperial Wilderness felt that opened up a security issue for them that people could walk down that cleared path and enter the project. Once this project is developed, there will be security because there will be a wall there. I think that covers everything, unless I've forgotten something. Rich or Paula could let me -- what did I forget? MR. YOVANOVICH: You didn't forget anything. I wanted to put a couple cleanups on the record. MR. MULHERE: Okay. Good. I'll get out of your way. MR. YOVANOVICH: I didn't get an opportunity to talk to Bob yesterday. We had a couple of -- in discussing some of the language in the PUD, there were a couple of cleanup items that Commissioner Fryer had requested that we put in the PUD, so I'll put them on the visualizer one by one. And I don't think that there will be any issues with anything that -- other than you probably can't read my handwriting. MR. MULHERE: Here. I'll assist. Between the two of us, we'll be able to do this. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't like our odds. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: While they're doing that, I just want to make sure you understand what Mr. Mulhere just did with the addition of the language to the GMP, because, as you know, the FAR for group housing under your LDC is .45. So by putting it in the GMP, he's now deviating from your Land Development Code and eliminating the necessity for a deviation in the PUD. I don't know whether Ms. Falkner has evaluated that change, and I do believe your staff has a lower FAR recommendation in the PUD. So I just wanted to make sure you understood what just happened. MR. YOVANOVICH: We assume they'll end up consistent with whatever ends up being the vote. So on the list of allowed uses, under Item No. 52, sometimes we list in the SIC code the things that are actually allowed from that SIC code. Sometimes we say the things that are excluded from the SIC code. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I'm sorry, Rich. Where are you? MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm on Page 3 of the PUD. I'm under the list of permitted uses, Item No. 52. I think this is the first time this has come up. And we go back and forth between sometimes we list which of the things in the SIC code we can have. Usually it's related to if there's a long list and we're only asking for a few, we'll list what we can do, and sometimes we put in the things we can't do because there's a long list and it's a shorter list to just exclude. We're going to try in the future to be consistent and only list the things we can do from SIC codes in the future. But we wanted in Item No. 52 to make it clear that for Item No. 7299 we're limited to the string of uses that follow that, just to make that clear. I don't think that should be a problem. Then under 72, which is kind of the catch-all, if there's something we didn't think of that comes along later, there's a process that we can go through, a public-hearing process to say what's comparable. We were asked to add the words that it's "comparable and compatible" so there's a more definite standard for a use that, you know, perhaps we didn't think of, because there always is. Something will come along that we just, frankly, didn't know existed at the time that might make sense on the property. Then on Page 5, I just wanted to clarify that the temporary display is obviously limited to outdoor areas and not indoor areas. So I think that's a good -- a good catch. And I think that's all of the ones that we talked about clarifying. If I missed one, I'm sure I'll be reminded. But I think I got the two or three that we talked about. We'll make those changes. Hopefully they're nothing that's significant, and staff won't have any issues with those proposed changes. That's all I wanted to add to the record from Bob's presentation, and then we're available to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Heidi, so we should not include the language in the GMP that was suggested? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, if you're in agreement that a larger building in this location is okay, because that's what a .60 FAR will give you, then, you know, that's your decision on how you would like to make a recommendation to the Board. But it would eliminate the need for a deviation in the LDC -- I mean, May 3, 2018 Page 40 of 86 in the PUD. COMMISSIONER EBERT: In the PUD. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Are there any questions for -- Ned, you have questions? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah, I have a few. Not many. Let's see here. Bob, you can take some good-natured needling, can't you? MR. MULHERE: Absolutely. What'd I do; typos? COMMISSIONER FRYER: No. MR. MULHERE: That's usually what I do. COMMISSIONER FRYER: It's in line with the conversation we had informally about coffee keeping you awake, you know. MR. MULHERE: Yes, yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: At the NIM, which I listened to, all of them, you said if you -- let me see if I've got the -- if you're ever having trouble sleeping, watch the Planning Commission on TV. MR. MULHERE: Whoops. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And so what I wanted to know is, were you talking about the planning commissioners or the applicant's representatives? MR. MULHERE: I was talking about my presentation. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's what I thought. Just wanted to clarify that. Thank you. MR. MULHERE: I must have been in a bad mood that day. COMMISSIONER FRYER: No. It's -- I understand. All right. Going back to the uses -- and I appreciate the changes that Rich made. They were indeed in line with our discussions. I think it makes it a better document. I still have a few concerns and questions, though. Oh, I also appreciate the expression of intent going forward to list the inclusion rather than generically say everything that's in 5299 except thus and so, because when you do that you force us to go back and look at another document, so I appreciate that very much. MR. MULHERE: And that primarily occurs -- I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt. I was just going to say that primarily occurs on those uses that are kind of like catch-all uses. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes. MR. MULHERE: Otherwise, the SIC's pretty specific, but where you have those catch-alls, yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. Understood. So we got clarified No. 23, eating and drinking places, restaurants only. I understand that. Number 29, garment pressing. I think Rich explained that to my satisfaction. I just wanted to bring it to the attention of others, that that's going to be a permitted use. Group care facilities, of course, talked about. Loan brokers. And it's my understanding this is -- use No. 43, loan brokers would include payday loans, would it not? MR. MULHERE: I'm not sure that it does. And I don't have the SIC code with me. I know it included mortgage. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah, sure. Mortgage bankers, mortgage brokers. That would be fine, but you might -- MR. MULHERE: But if you want to exclude that, we're happy to do that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I wouldn't mind it if you -- yeah, I'd like you to do that, please. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't know how you clarify. MR. MULHERE: Payday. COMMISSIONER FRYER: You know, those are the trucks that pull up sometimes at the very temporary locations that I don't think would be appropriate in the neighborhood. Use 45, membership organizations, and Rich and I talked about that as well. I think we can tie that down with some general language that I'm going to offer to you in a moment. MR. MULHERE: On 45? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. Well, if you add the general language, it would tie it down, I May 3, 2018 Page 41 of 86 think, for me. Fifty-two, personal services miscellaneous. You've got dating service in there. And I realize that that may well be on the up and up. MR. MULHERE: It's pretty much all online these days, right? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, I wouldn't know. MR. MULHERE: Well, neither would I, since I just got married last year. Okay. We could strike through dating service. I have no objection. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. Why don't we. MR. MULHERE: No objection. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Did you find her online? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Then repair services has exclusions. Retail services has exclusions. I was interested to see -- I'm curious. It's not a major point here, and I won't waste much time with it. But the USPS, the federal agency, are they subject to our zoning regulations? This has to do with No. 70. MR. MULHERE: To my knowledge, they are subject in terms of locating the use -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Are they? Okay. MR. MULHERE: -- but they are not subject to the site planning process. They have their own federal requirements. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Well, here is what I would like to see: First of all, a catch-all phrase that sometimes we see and sometimes we don't, but particularly the way that these uses have been set forth and the multitude of them. I'd like to see some language that any use not expressly permitted is prohibited. And in this case we want to be sure the word "not" finds its way in there. MR. MULHERE: I mean, I'm -- MR. KLATZKOW: Well, that's your LDC. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. MR. KLATZKOW: That's your LDC. MR. BELLOWS: The Land Development Code contains that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. But are we no longer asking developers to put that language in? Because it seems as though sometimes we do. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, we also have the language that you have is -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Heidi, your mike. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: -- Item No. 72. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. And, Mr. Fryer, you and I spoke about that. As long as it didn't take away Item No. 72 by putting that language in, because that was my concern is if -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: It was, and I think you fixed 72, at least to my satisfaction. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. But I just wanted to make sure that if you put in a general provision that says, if it's not in the PUD, you can't have it; does that mean that 72, that says if it's not in the PUD, I can't use this process? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, how about that language, "except as permitted above or under the proceedings identified in 72." MR. MULHERE: I actually have, I think, some language that would address your concern that we do actually put in there. If you look on Page 1 of the PUD -- thanks, Paula, for pointing it out to me -- under permitted uses there's a sentence that says, "No building or structure or part thereof shall be erected, altered, or used or land used in whole or in part within this PUD for other than the following:" and then it lists the permitted uses. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah, okay. That works. MR. MULHERE: Pretty clear. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That works. Okay. Now, what about the sexually oriented businesses language? Sometimes that's an issue that we ask for and sometimes we don't, and I don't think it's because sometimes we think it's okay in places. COMMISSIONER EBERT: No. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So wouldn't we want to put that language in? May 3, 2018 Page 42 of 86 COMMISSIONER EBERT: Not with Karen on the Board, no. MR. MULHERE: I'm perfectly okay with that. It would fall, I would think, under Paragraph 3 on Page 5, restriction on certain uses, and we would just add that as a restriction. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. All right. Good. Now, let me go back to my other sheet. MR. MULHERE: Or maybe it wouldn't fall there, but we'll find the appropriate location to go ahead with that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Those are all the questions I had on uses, but I've got other comments generally. Let's see. Mr. Mulhere, you may have explained this, but I think I might ask you to do it again, because one resident at the NIM expressed a concern that their gated community is being breached by the project, and if you wouldn't mind clarifying that again. MR. MULHERE: Yes. I think that primarily dealt with the fact that when you go to do a boundary survey, you can see this property is highly vegetated. It's not all high quality, but it's highly vegetated. So when you go to do a boundary survey, the surveyors have cut a swath through on the perimeters, which they did here. I think, typically, it's 10 feet. There are restrictions in the Land Development Code that limit how much you can clear. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Was it your understanding that that's what the -- MR. MULHERE: That's the way -- yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. MR. MULHERE: Well, once I think that it was understood -- and there was actually an agreement -- a preliminary agreement that David Torres was going to meet with the property manager, which I think he did, to talk about those issues. But once, I think, it was understood that we were proposing a combination of wall and berm eight feet in height and a 25-foot landscape buffer with landscaping on the Imperial Wilderness side of that wall as required by the LDC, I think that addressed the issue. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Madam Chair, that's all I have. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Anybody else? No? Oop, Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'm going to ask you about the .45 and going to .60. This is becoming -- coming up all the time now, so it's a deviation from the Land Development Code. MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Why is this? MR. MULHERE: We had to ask for that deviation. It's always been -- it's typically always been granted in PUDs, but as you're aware, there was a discussion some time ago. I wasn't involved. Rich was involved in that one. Maybe I should let him speak to it. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Oh, I know he's involved in most of them. MR. YOVANOVICH: I am. Bob's correct. We basically had been coming through for years with kind of a standard deviation, if you will, to go to the .6, because the .45 FAR was put in your code many, many years ago. The industry has evolved where you're doing bigger units for your residents. You're also providing a lot more common area, dining, fitness facilities, theaters, all of these things that people who are staying in these facilities have become accustomed to that was -- if you only had so many square feet under a .45 FAR, you either couldn't provide those amenities, therefore, you were not providing what the market wanted, or you had to go with smaller units, because to get the unit count you need to make it work, which was also not what the market wanted -- so I would bet you -- I know it happened back when Fred Coyle was a county commissioner. It was the first time we came through and asked for the .6 FAR as a deviation. I believe there was even a change to the Land Development Code working its way through its process to go to the .6. And then there was a discussion that came up most recently for the Cleary PUD where instead of -- that was the first time that the .45 to the .6, some planning commissioners wanted to tie that deviation to the provision of certain income-restricted units, and the Planning Commission at that time voted 4-2 to transmit the .6 for the Cleary PUD. We agreed with the neighborhood on a .5 FAR with no income restrictions. That's what got approved for Cleary. Cleary was a larger piece of property. It was a 10-acre piece of property versus a 5.8-acre piece of property. May 3, 2018 Page 43 of 86 So when we did the math at .4 versus .45 or .6, we could get the types of -- you know, the amenities people wanted and a unit count that made sense, so we could agree to the .5 in Cleary. But we had done, I've got to bet, at least 10, maybe 20, maybe more, you know, senior housings that are at a .6 or greater. I know each one stands on its own, but that was pretty much a routine deviation that was not finding any objections from the Planning Commission as we were going through that process until recently. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Mr. Yovanovich is 100 percent correct. It was an LDC amendment for the .60 because of the approvals that had been granted. It came to the Collier County Planning Commission, and this board said that they wanted to not go forward with the LDC amendment, and they wanted to consider it on a case-by-case basis. It was subsequent to that when they started requiring the Medicaid beds if you wanted to go above the .45. Cleary was an aberration. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. So it has to do with Medicaid beds? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: No, no. You know, deviations are something that the applicant can request under the Land Development Code, and they are to provide a justification. It's not an entitlement. It's something they can ask for so, therefore, the Planning Commission or the Board can request reasonable conditions. So after the LDC amendment, you know, didn't proceed forward, that's when they started some -- you as a board started requesting the Medicaid beds if they're to go to .60. Now, I'm not saying that's what you have to do. I'm just saying if, you know, there are conditions, you know, you don't have to approve a deviation. It's not an entitlement. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Maybe you can answer this for me. Rich, are there any Medicaid beds in Collier County? MR. YOVANOVICH: This is a -- and this is what happened when we had the discussion for Cleary is Medicaid -- first of all, the county can't dictate to the state when it will allow you to use Medicaid funds. The problem that I'm aware of is Medicaid is only available for skilled nursing beds, which is a nursing home. Medicaid does not pay for either assisted living or independent living. So even if I -- let's just say we agreed to a condition that a certain percentage of the, quote, additional units I'm going to get because I have a .6 would be restricted to Medicaid participants, I can't fulfill it because there's not Medicaid money out there for those types of services. So that's why we pushed back on the Cleary one is I said, you know, you're imposing a condition on me that I know I can't meet, because there's no Medicaid funds to cover that condition. Now, we think we've justified on many occasions, and specifically on this one, the rationale for why a .6 is necessary. You want to have -- you want to have community facilities that the residents want. They've become accustomed to nice dining facilities, theaters, workout facilities, things that they want because they stay on the campus, and that's what they're expecting. And if they can't get those uses, they'll go elsewhere. And if the county decides they're not going to -- they're not going to allow people to go greater than the .45 to provide those facilities, there'll be a shortfall in meeting the demand that is getting greater and greater every day, especially when you're talking about, like, assisted living facilities and memory care units. You know, there's a shortfall. MR. KLATZKOW: If I may, this is no different from the affordable housing issue where a developer comes in, asks for greater density and we'll say, okay, we'll give you the greater density if you reserve a certain number of units for affordable housing. Here he wants greater density for beds, as it will, and we're saying, okay, we'll give you a greater density for beds if you reserve some of them for Medicaid beds. It's the same concept here. It is. Now, I understand, you know, what happens if there's no applicants for it? That's simply because of the way the law works or whatever, you simply do not have the people available to fill those beds, and just like the affordable housing, we can structure the language saying that's sort of like first come, first serve. If you open available beds and you have Medicare (sic) patients, then they get it. If you don't, you don't have to keep the bed open. So we could work on language like that. But, you know, we've had this .5 forever in the land code, and we've had this deviation for as long as May 3, 2018 Page 44 of 86 I've been here. And I don't know if we're heading towards requiring these beds or not, but, you know, if we are going to be doing that, you know, I'd suggest a more thoughtful process than just the knee-jerk reaction we've been having lately. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I've been saying that all along. I'm saying, I think we've justified the need for the .6. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, yeah, but you justify it every time, and it's no longer a deviation. But it's no longer a deviation. It's the standard. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, it's not because every time I have to come and I have to ask, and you can say no. MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. But if you've got 100 applications and 100 times you grant the stipulation for the deviation, it's no longer a deviation. It's a de facto standard. And I'm just saying, just -- if you're going to keep the .45, that's fine. If you want to change it to .6, that's fine. That's a policy decision. But, you know, if the thought process is, okay, well, it's .45 but if you grant us Medicaid beds or Medicare beds, you know, you can get additional space, that would be a policy decision. Not much different from what we do for affordable housing. But it -- I think it takes some discussion rather than just doing it on the fly. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I agree with you, Mr. Klatzkow. What I'm suggesting is it's very different than affordable housing because under affordable housing I go to the Land Development Code, there's a matrix that says if I do a certain percentage of units restricted at this income level, I can ask for a bonus of Y. That does not exist when it comes to Medicaid beds, this new discussion. There's no formula. I can't go to a client and say, if you want to go from .45 to .6 or .9 or whatever, there's not a methodology for me to do that. We're suggesting that .6 -- frankly, I think you should have amended the Land Development Code to go to .6, because I think that is a more current standard. For whatever reason you-all decided you wanted to do it on a case-by-case basis. We think we've justified the .6 in our particular case, and we're asking you to give us the .6 with no restrictions on who can use those facilities. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Rich, can I ask you, do you plan on putting an ALF here for sure? MR. YOVANOVICH: Of course not. I don't know. I don't know. It's a possible site, but I don't have -- I don't have the ALF provider that says I want to go there. Do I? MR. MULHERE: There's been -- there actually have been calls and discussions. I spoke with David Torres. He has had some discussions. There's nothing final, but there is interest. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: So the .6 floor area ratio just gives you a better product, right? MR. YOVANOVICH: We believe it gives you the marketable product. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, it gives you a larger building. You've got a couple of them that are on Vanderbilt Beach Road, Bradford Square, and there's one more, so it just gives you a bigger building. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Well, I mean, they have hairdressers in them, banks, all kinds of -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah, some of them. MR. YOVANOVICH: It gives you the amenities that people want. MR. KLATZKOW: It gives you a bigger building. Whether or not it's a quality bigger building or not, that's always market driven. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: It's the amenities we're able to -- MR. KLATZKOW: Whether it has the amenities or not, it's marketability. It just gives you a bigger building. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I wasn't paying as close attention as I should have, Heidi, when you explained the effect of what we were doing with respect to the GMP. Would you mind quickly running through that again? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, they would like to include in the Growth Management Plan amendment that the FAR is .60, and so that is a deviation from our Land Development Code that they wouldn't have to make in their PUD because the GMP would trump it. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I got it. Thank you. May 3, 2018 Page 45 of 86 MS. ASHTON-CICKO: So, I mean, another option -- I do agree with Bob Mulhere that if it's not to be included in the square-foot limitation, it does need to be mentioned in the Growth Management Plan that there will be an FAR for -- you know, that will be dictated by the floor area ratio. Now, whether or not you want to put .45 in there, .60, or whatever number, I don't think you necessarily have to put a number in the GMP, but that will be your policy decision. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Anybody else have any questions for them? No? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'd like to keep it on a case-by-case basis. That's my input. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Well, that's what it is right now, so... COMMISSIONER EBERT: That's what it is right now. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Tim? MR. FINN: For the record, I am Timothy Finn, principal planner. Yesterday, you were emailed an addendum to the staff report, a revised Page 13. Also, before this item was heard, I gave each of you a handout of the revised Page 13 for your reference. This, again, is regarding the group housing deviation. We just wanted to clear up some information with respect to the approvals on the Cleary PUD petition that was heard at the October 5th, 2017, CCPC meeting and the November 14th, 2017, BCC meeting. Furthermore, this petition and the companion small-scale GMP petition, they are both consistent with the Growth Management Plan, the Land Development Code, and the rezoning policies; therefore, staff recommends approval. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: So are you still recommending the dedication of the beds as part of your -- MR. FINN: No. The only thing that we're recommending is the .50. COMMISSIONER EBERT: The .50? MR. FINN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER FRYER: The Medicaid beds is not at all a part of this? MR. FINN: No, it's not. MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I ask staff to explain how they came up with the .50? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. That was the last Board direction on the vote. MR. YOVANOVICH: So you're basing it solely on the Cleary PUD? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, until we get further direction. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Well, that doesn't mean that we have to use the .50. COMMISSIONER EBERT: That's what the Board put it. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: So that's their policy, the Board's policy from now, or we can do .6. MR. KLATZKOW: No, no, the Board's policy is the LDC, which is .45. Now we go into deviations. If you're going to have a deviation, you should have a reason for the deviation. Staff's coming up with a .5 for whatever reason. They want .6 for whatever reason. They do need a reason for the deviation. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I think a reason that was offered, if I heard correctly, was that it's a smaller parcel. MR. YOVANOVICH: We believe we've adequately explained why the .6 is justified. I just haven't heard why staff, other than the last one where there was a compromise at a .5 is the new standard. I just was curious, do they -- are they finding that our information and rationalization about the amenities that are required for these types of facilities is not what we're saying they are or -- I don't know. I'm just asking. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Mike? MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. The staff's recommendation of .5 was based upon the Board of County Commissioners' decision related to Cleary. It was framed within that executive summary that there was a suggestion of Medicaid beds that wasn't carried forward with in the recommendation from the Planning Commission. They evaluated the -- they evaluated the proposal, they evaluated the request to .6. They made a decision with no Medicaid May 3, 2018 Page 46 of 86 beds at .5. That is an action of the Board of County Commissioners. We felt that we would be in line with the Board's action at recommending .5. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mike, could you comment on whether the reduction in size of this parcel should -- to what extent, if any, it would justify a higher FAR. MR. BOSI: The size of the parcel is immaterial to an FAR. It's a ratio. It's a ratio that applies on an acre basis. So whether you've got 10 acres or one acre, the ratio's going to apply equally and fairly. What the argument is is it's a smaller parcel. They feel they can get more economies of scale with a higher -- because they'll have 15 percent per acre more square footage with a .60 FAR. So, in relationship to the justification, it will provide them more opportunities to provide more square footage within the amenities that are provided. The Board of County Commissioners, at their last meeting, decided that .5 was appropriate when these questions came up, and staff is following that lead. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Did the Board of County Commissioners evaluate the size of the lot in relation to the decision it made? MR. BOSI: I could only imagine that that was part of their considerations. MR. YOVANOVICH: When's it appropriate -- do I wait till the end to talk about that or -- I don't want to interrupt. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: No, go ahead. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Now, I have a slightly different recollection of how we got to the .5 in the level of discussion that occurred. We actually met with representatives of the association to talk about what the association would agree to as far as the floor area ratio, and that was a .5 for that particular project. I don't remember a detailed discussion at the Board level as to how to justify the .5. I remember it being agreed to with the neighborhood, and the Board said since the neighbors were supporting it -- that was not the discussion point that I remember happening at the board level. And I also want to point out that I understand that the ratio remains the same depending upon the acreage that you have, but the financial viability of a project very much depends upon how big the building can be. So in order for the building to be financially viable, we need to have more than a .45, especially because we only have 5.8 acres to get to a shell of a building that will allow us to have the amenities we need and enough residents for it to work. So we believe in this particular case the size at 5.8 justifies a .6. That's very different than a 10-acre parcel that when you apply a .5 on a 10-acre parcel you yield a much bigger building than you do with a .5 on a 5.8-acre building (sic). And it comes to the financial viability of the project and is it the type of project that Collier County has become accustomed to seeing when it comes to the level of amenities in assisted living, skilled nursing -- well, we're not doing skilled nursing, but assisted living and independent living facilities. We have a high standard in Collier County, and to meet that standard, we believe we need the .6 on this particular-size parcel. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HOMAK: Could we hear the speakers? MR. BELLOWS: Pat Cogswell, to be followed by Glenn McComb (sic). MS. COGSWELL: Good afternoon. My name is Pat Cogswell. I am a resident of Reflection Lakes which is situated across from the proposed project. You really can't see us on the map. We're over across the street. So as a real estate appraiser, I have seen East Naples slowly crawling out from the stigma that it had been living under. This has occurred primarily due to the quality new construction that has been built over more than the last decade. With this area being one of the few locations for Naples to expand, this high level of construction should continue if we maintain that level of quality throughout. This does not include, and this is my quote, "an industrial-looking warehouse project being placed in the middle of a residential area." The impact of this type of project located within view of a residential area will adversely affect the marketability as well as the value of homes in the surrounding community. There is talk of a moratorium on projects of this industrial-looking type which could -- which could May 3, 2018 Page 47 of 86 encourage quality construction to continue being built in East Naples. The care-facility project is in line with a residential community, so this should offer no negative impact on properties. And now a concern after seeing the plats has shown up. It's indicating a 15-foot buffer as well as access not on 41, and I'm hoping that that buffer will be something that would be inclusive of something high enough that it would be blocking, you know, the view from the residents across the street, as well as -- what else was I going to say -- wanting to know what the restriction of the height of the buildings could be for that proposed area. And I want to thank you for your consideration on this project. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Thank you. Next speaker? MR. BELLOWS: Glen McComb (sic). MR. McMAHON: Good afternoon. My name is Glenn McMahon. I live in Reflection Lakes on Grapevine Drive, and I, too, am here to speak out against locating commercial property of this type across from our residential location. I see it as very negative. My wife and I purchased our home in there two years ago, and I don't see how this enhances the area in any way. And our hope was always that our community would be residential and it would stay residential, and I don't see how putting something like this in amongst $400,000 homes and up enhances that in any way. And I would hope that the Board here will rule against it and consider something else in that location that would enhance our property values and not detract from them. Anyway, that's all. I'm not here in any official capacity. I am just here as a resident, a concerned resident, and that's my piece. Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: No other speakers. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Oh, that's it? MR. MULHERE: For the record, Bob Mulhere again. I would just comment that U.S. 41 is a 200-foot-wide right-of-way right there. We're across the street from Reflection Lakes. I can think of million-dollar and multi-million-dollar homes that are adjacent to commercial in Collier County. It doesn't devalue the property. The industrial look, I'm not sure where that came from. We don't have any design plans, but you have very significant design requirements in the LDC for commercial uses, for the ALF, for even a self-storage facility. They're made to look like offices today. So with all due respect, I get it, but I don't see those as being significant. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Anybody have any more questions or... (No response.) CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Nothing. You all set? MR. YOVANOVICH: We're good. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: I'm going to close the public hearing then. Anybody want to make a motion or discussion? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, I'll ask a question or two, I guess. Do we need to take any specific action to assure that at least as a result of this hearing we haven't changed our rule that we're going to continue on a case-by-case basis? CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: No. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Is there any part of the proposal that would move us away from that? CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: No. COMMISSIONER FRYER: No. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: We have an architectural ordinance; Bob is right. If you look at the intersection of Pine Ridge and Airport Road, what used to be a big box store, namely the Sports Authority, is being totally changed around. I don't even know what it looks like. Westminster Castle or something. Anyway, they're redoing the entire facade because of our architectural ordinance. And I suspect anything that gets built alongside Route 41 is going to be a fairly attractive building. What's the tallest you can make this building? CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Fifty-two. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Forty-five. May 3, 2018 Page 48 of 86 CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Fifty-two feet actual. MR. MULHERE: That's actual. Zoned is, I think, 45. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. The zoned height is 45 feet. The actual height, tippy-top, 52 feet. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. I've been looking at Google Earth and, you know, at the view that the people are going to have, and it seems as though your building is going to be no taller than the trees that are there. I don't know what kind of buffer you're going to leave along what side or what. But I don't see this as being tremendously objectionable from the other side of Route 41. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I observed that I didn't hear -- I hope I was paying sufficient attention, but I don't think I heard objections from the public to the increase in FAR. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: No. COMMISSIONER EBERT: If that's what he wants to put there. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. Well, I'll move approval as presented. We have to go to first, what, the small-scale GMP? CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: The GMP. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. Yes, please do the -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. I will make that motion for the small-scale GMP. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Are you including the language that Bob suggested or not? MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, just for clarify, are we .5 or .6? MR. BELLOWS: That's the question. MR. YOVANOVICH: Or nothing in the Comp Plan. We just deal with it in the PUD. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I don't want to see it in the Comp Plan. MR. YOVANOVICH: So we'll just put wording in there, as Heidi suggested, that says it won't count against the square footage, but we will not put a specific FAR in the Comp Plan. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. I should have said that. MR. KLATZKOW: Correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's fine. I understand. I agree with that approach. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I still second. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Next one. The PUD. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'll move approval of the PUD, PUDZ, and in line with how it's been presented, and I'm going to recommend an FAR of .6. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. And that includes all the changes in the language that Rich read off of yours and the -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: -- no adult-oriented sales? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes, all of that; yeah. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I still second. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: All right. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. May 3, 2018 Page 49 of 86 CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Opposed, like sign. (No response.) MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: That's it. MR. MULHERE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: ***So the next item up is Pezzettino Di Cielo PUD. It's an insubstantial change, and it's PL20160003482. I'll wait till everybody moves around here. All those wishing to speak on this item, would you please rise and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Disclosures. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Just some emails. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I've got to get my notes up here. Can you come back to me? CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Sure. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Disclosures, just emails. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: No, I take that back. I have briefly mentioned during a conversation -- Wayne mentioned it to me, but... COMMISSIONER FRYER: I spoke with Mr. Yovanovich. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Is that -- I spoke to Mr. Yovanovich and emails. Patrick? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Just emails. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I had emails as well. Sorry. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Okay. Again, we'll hear from the petitioner, staff, and then the speakers. MR. ARNOLD: Good afternoon. I'm Wayne Arnold with Grady Minor, certified planner, here representing the applicant. With me is Rich Yovanovich, the land-use counsel on the project. I also have Mike Delate, the civil engineer in our office who's been working on the site permitting, and we have Steve Fiterman and David Sturdyvin, who are both the owner and the developer of the proposed project. So the Pezzettino Di Cielo PUD was approved in 2006, and it was approved for 43 units, and at the time we intended that it was probably going to be a small-lot villa product. And, concurrently, the owners had also negotiated with their neighboring property owners, Long Bay Partners and Mediterra Community Association, for a buffer easement agreement in which it contemplated that the Pezzettino Di Cielo property could utilize portions of the Mediterra buffer with supplemental vegetation in lieu of providing the minimum 10-foot-wide Type A buffers on the Pezzettino property. As time has progressed and the economy has changed, Mr. Fiterman has decided that the highest and best use is really going to be 27 larger-lot single-family homes, and he has been working diligently over the past year with the Mediterra Community Association to perfect a maintenance agreement for that easement area for the buffer easement in which there are very detailed plans that have been presented to the association and have been approved in the form of a maintenance agreement by the Mediterra Community Association. That's an example of the existing PUD master plan. It was pretty conceptual, as you can see. It's got the residential tracts that had a long cul-de-sac, and that was going to support something that would look like a typical villa layout, if you can imagine lot lines on it. The new master plan that we are proposing is going to look like this. The entrance still stays on the north end of the project in an area that's known as Hardesty Lane, and then it forms a loop road around it with the residential tracts that are designated R. We have two lakes; we have a preserve. Those components didn't change. We thought there was ample flexibility under the current plan to build what we are proposing today. May 3, 2018 Page 50 of 86 Staff and the County Attorney's Office said you're going through the process and making other revisions to the master plan; you might as well make it look like your preliminary plat that's been filed with the county, so we willingly did that. So we're seeking two deviations to go with this. One, of course, is the landscape buffer to be able to reestablish those consistent with the easement agreement in the Mediterra buffer area, and the second is to get some increased height along Livingston Road for our proposed wall because of the elevation change between Livingston Road and our property line. There obviously have been several letters of objection that you've received in your packet, and namely the essence of those seems to say that there needs to be a wall that would be a part of our project. We had taken several photos that are in your packet and at strategic locations around -- that's an exhibit in your packet. And the intent of this was to show the maturity of the existing landscape buffers on three sides of our property. MS. GUNDLACH: Do you want me to do it for you? MR. ARNOLD: Now that Rich is the expert, maybe I do. MR. YOVANOVICH: Do you need my help? MR. ARNOLD: So these are views -- I'm just gong to go through these quickly, because I think you've all seen them in the packet, and if you've made a site visit, you've seen how mature those buffers are. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: See, Rich. Go ahead. Help him. MR. ARNOLD: But, again, these are -- they're views of the existing Mediterra berm and buffer that have been established when the community was established. They've got probably, gosh, going on at least 10 years worth of growth, so they're very mature. More examples. And then this last view is looking into the southern buffer. So, again, very mature buffers, well established. There's a large berm in part around the community. And to our north is a community that's part of Mediterra, but London Bay Homes is constructing there, and they decided to build a wall on the common property line, and primarily, it's my understanding, they decided to build a wall because an area known as Hartesty Road was yet to be vacated, and they wanted to make sure that if there was going to be a road there, they would have a wall between us and a potential road. So Mr. Fiterman and his group have been working diligently, as I said, with the Mediterra Community Association, and they were presented some of the exhibits I'm going to show you. And I know on this scale it's hard to pick up all the detail, but what we have are basically three cross-sections looking north, south, and to the east that show the area and supplemental vegetation that the applicant is proposing to install on the Mediterra property. By code we would need a 10-foot-wide Type A buffer, which includes one tree every 30 feet. And what we have proposed and what the Mediterra Community Association has approved takes us through a series of planting plans for each of those areas. And the applicant -- if you want to know a lot more detail about all the plants that are going to be installed in there -- but this includes ground covers, it includes shrubs, it includes midstory trees, and it includes cabbage palm trees up to 20 feet in height that would be planted on the backside of the Mediterra berm, and so it would be the vegetated area our residents would then look at. And I can go through each of the cross-sections if you wish, but this was an illustration that showed you we're getting far more than a Type A buffer installed there, and we think that's a good thing for everybody involved. And to the issue of the fence and the wall that has been mentioned in the letters, if there was to be a wall installed on the Mediterra property, it would require removal of an existing chain link fence and mature vegetation to install a wall. And if there was to be a wall installed on our common property line, then we would get no enjoyment of the vegetation that we've pledged to the Mediterra association to revegetate so that our residents can look at a similar buffer to what they have on their side. So in our opinion a wall is, one, not only -- it's not necessary. It's not required by code in any situation where you have single-family to single-family and, in fact, we already have mature vegetation that we're looking to enhance so that we can all enjoy the mutual benefit of that. May 3, 2018 Page 51 of 86 We created another exhibit that shows kind of three -- I'll have to move this around. It depicts our proposed, just, building envelopes to the north, but I put some dimension arrows on there and some views that we did. And if there was concern that this in some way is inconsistent or incompatible with the homes in Mediterra East, I think we've clearly shown in our cross-sections that the views from homes in Mediterra are obscured from our home views by the existing and proposed vegetation that exists. And I'm not going to say that there might not be a possibility for somebody to see part of a screen enclosure or the tippy-top part of a roof if there's a two-story home, but the views are long, and they're through existing mature vegetation. So, worst case, you get a filtered view of a homesite. And I don't know anywhere where you have a neighbor that you don't get to see them. But I know I do in my neighborhood. I'm just going to put on the record the county's code requirement, and I guess I'll ask Nancy to verify that since she's also a landscape architect. But for residential to residential it requires a Type A 10-foot buffer, and that's the table right out of your Land Development Code that tells you A, B, C, or D type buffers that are constructed. And they also have on the next page this exhibit which shows you what the code requirements are, and it shows one canopy tree planted every 30 feet center. And what I've shown you that gets constructed with our deviation is a substantially supplemented buffer that far exceeds the Type A buffer requirements. The resulting buffer that you get against Mediterra, it varies probably from 30 to 60 feet in width. So Mediterra's PUD did not specify a minimum buffer width. It was to code. They, obviously, chose to do many things above code, which many of our communities do. But the reality is, we're both going to end up with a very enhanced buffer that works to the benefit of, we think, both of the communities and is no detriment to the neighbors. We've looked at this; your staff has looked at this. We think this makes just good sense, and we know we've cooperated with the community, and we know we have their support. You have letters of support from London Bay Homes in your packet. We also had a letter from the Mediterra Community Association, and I think there's a representative of the Mediterra Association here that's prepared to speak. Rich, did I leave anything else out? With that, I'll be happy to answer questions. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Quick question. MR. ARNOLD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: When I went through the hearing you had, public hearing, there was a mention of Talis Park Association. You keep representing Mediterra being behind this. Is there any comment or have you heard from the Talis Park Association? I heard that mentioned in the information meeting. MR. ARNOLD: I don't recall that. I know I have had no conversations with anybody from Talis Park. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Okay. MR. ARNOLD: I know the context now. Mr. Fiterman reminded me. He's building homes in Talis Park, and I think somebody at our neighborhood meeting questioned what he was building and where he was building. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: There's reference to -- it's an unidentified male voice, but it says one of the -- I'm assuming one of the concerned neighbors, quote, "We're concerned about it as well. We wanted to talk with the Mediterra association. We want to talk with the Talis Park association," et cetera, et cetera. So I just -- it was referenced there. I didn't know if you had any comment. You've answered my question. No problem. Thank you. MR. ARNOLD: Thanks. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Any questions? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Nope. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: You don't have any questions? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Maybe I will after the public speaks, but not now. MR. ARNOLD: I'm sorry. Ms. Homiak, you-all have in your packet a copy of the May 3, 2018 Page 52 of 86 buffer -- landscape buffer easement that was recorded. If anybody cares to see a copy of the maintenance and easement agreement, is that something that I can provide to Terri and the record, too? It contains the exhibits that I put on the visualizer for the landscape buffer. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. That will be part of the -- give it to Terri. MR. ARNOLD: Sure. Thank you. Any other questions? CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: No. Nancy? MS. GUNDLACH: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm assuming you want the staff report. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Yes. MS. GUNDLACH: Staff is recommending approval of the Pezzettino petition. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Thank you. Okay. We could have the speakers. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. We have several speakers. Kathy Potts. I believe she wanted to speak for several others. MS. POTTS: My name is Kathy Potts. I'm a Collier County resident and a homeowner in Mediterra, and this is Dr. David Ortbals, who is my neighbor, and he is my assistant handing out, so I keep your-all's attention. Since you've been listening all day long, I'm giving you my handout. I'm sorry. I have so many papers here, I've lost my way. If you just want to follow along with me, and I'm going to try to read and not be too boring, but I wanted to make sure my facts are correct. Today I am representing my family and approximately 65 residents on the east side. I believe in your Attachment G, which Nancy helped to provide in the staff report, this is how many letters of objection you have received. These numbers -- this number of objections represents almost 50 percent of the homeowners on the east side of Mediterra. As you know, Mediterra is split down the middle by Livingston Road. And the east side, we have about 120 built out, so half of them have objected to this -- this PUD alteration. Mediterra homeowners do not consider Distinctives proposed PUD revisions as insubstantial, and the Mediterra residents consider the proposed changes very incompatible with our abutting land. The facts I'll read: Mediterra property completely surrounds this proposed development. It doesn't touch Talis. And it's 17.5 acres which they want to develop. If I can go back in time and try to do this chronologically for you. In 2006 Mediterra agreed to give Distinctive a 10-foot landscape buffer strictly to intensify the density of the landscape. The landscape buffer was never proposed to become an offsite buffer for Distinctive. To correct Mr. Arnold, the current PUD was not 2006. It is a 2008 PUD that is currently in effect. And in this particular document, if I may, this goes back to the drawing. This is the current PUD that's in effect today. And if you look at this PUD, which was, I believe, your Attachment B that was sent to you, in this PUD it calls for a Type D landscape buffer which requires a 3-foot hedge and trees at least every 30 feet. So Distinctive's claiming that they want to greatly enhance, then why are they asking you to downgrade to a Type A? Because currently -- and if you see my pink area here -- and you'd have to blow it up which, Nancy, I don't know how to blow it up. In the current PUD there's a 10-foot buffer requirement on the north and south boundaries of this development; however, along Messina Lane, which is the easternmost, which is the most impactful upon Mediterra homeowners, it requires a 20-foot buffer on that eastern boundary, and that's per the Grady Minor Page 12 of the PUD. Now, in March and April of 2017 discussions began between the Mediterra Community Association and Distinctive regarding easements. So we had already given them 10 feet of an easement, gladly, because they said they were going to build and develop landscape. So we said okay. And then in March and April they came back as they began to alter things and they said, you know, they wanted sewage connection to our property, they wanted stormwater connection to our property, and they also just wanted to reiterate how the maintenance was going to occur on this landscape. Now, the Mediterra MCA board had discussions. Based upon my research, it appears that Distinctive May 3, 2018 Page 53 of 86 did not disclose -- and I spoke directly to Mr. Greenberg who is the attorney who spoke to Distinctive and signed the agreement. The MCA representatives, that it was never their intent to petition the Planning Commission to eliminate the current mandatory PUD buffer. In other words, never -- what -- we told them they could use 10 feet of our property and put plants on it to try to intensify the buffer. And I greatly appreciate all the pictures they've provided you. That is not easement land. That is inside of the Mediterra community just where they decided to take some pretty pictures. So I'm glad they're promoting the Mediterra property. However, we never gave them -- Distinctive never disclosed to Mediterra their intent to reduce the landscape buffer, nor did they ever disclose to Mediterra that it was their intent to eliminate all buffering on their property. So what they're trying to do is use Mediterra land and a 10-foot buffer that we were willing to let them plant on and put their irrigation on but now what they want to do is eliminate all of their buffers and bring their homes right up to our -- to our property line, literally. Now, in May of '17, based upon my research, it appears that the easements allegedly provided by Mediterra may not have been properly authorized by the Mediterra Community Association and board and, therefore, they are invalid, because we have been able to disclose that the Mediterra community board had discussions but never voted upon this, this arrangement. So Mr. Greenberg was outside of his area when they did. And I have these documents available. Additionally, the landscape buffer drawings presented with Grady Minor exhibit in B and C of the maintenance easement do not present the property in alignment with the 2008 PUD. In other words, the drawings that they presented assumed they were going to eliminate their buffers and use good old Mediterra property as their buffer, and that's how they were presenting it with their drawings. And they presumed that they could use an off-site buffer. Now, let me move forward to October 26th of 2017. That's when the neighborhood information meeting happened. And you have the transcript. It's a 30-page transcript, and I have that transcript. And I read the transcript because at the time I wasn't in town to attend, but we did have people attend. And at the time Mr. Arnold presented this. On Page 3 of page -- of 30, this is a quote that he made: "But there's already a wall and landscaping around the entire project." That is completely false. There is not a wall around this entire project. And Mr. Fiterman, the developer, was there and did not correct this misstatement. Mr. Arnold goes on to say, "It will result in the same amount of landscaping for this project." That's incorrect. They are asking for a reduction in the landscape, and that is not acceptable to us. He goes on to say, "So it will supplement and beef up what's there." Well, you know what, we spent the money, and we put in the time, and we created a beautiful environment within Mediterra, and we do not appreciate, and I especially take offense that they came on to our property and took all these beautiful pictures of Mediterra's landscape and trying to shmooze you guys to think, well, hey, everybody's going to want to look at this. That's unfair. I'm trying to keep calm. Then he went on to say, "It just seems like, you know, it's already a mature buffer with a wall." Once again, that's not their wall. There are not walls all the way around. And, additionally, let me say, and I've -- I really have truly enjoyed working with Nancy. She's been very helpful, as have Ray and some other of the folks at the zoning area; however, we notified them when the staff report came out -- or the Hearing Examiner document came out in January that there was not a wall. This was all being misrepresented to say that there was a wall around our entire property. That's not correct. And it took until April 24th to get that correction made. And, additionally, in the staff report that just came out for this meeting, there was a change, too, that said that during the -- during the neighborhood information meeting, that the state -- there were -- the prior document that came out in January said that in the neighborhood information meeting that there were commitments made by the developer, and now that document in the staff report says there were statements made. So there were not commitments. The pictures that you saw are inaccurate. The 10-foot easement that Mediterra gave Distinctive is raw ground with nothing but weeds and trees damaged from Irma that we've been looking at. The trees are May 3, 2018 Page 54 of 86 falling down. It is not the beautiful landscape that you see. Mediterra did not invest in mature plantings on the Distinctive side of the fences and walls. So, in summary, objections in summary, we object to the elimination of the 20-foot buffer on Distinctive's property because by removing this added space of separation, it will push the physical structures of Distinctive Homes and the pools right up to the Mediterra property line. Many of the Mediterra neighbors on Cabreo and Lucarno will be forced to look right into the backs of these homes and cages. Additionally, we also have a recreational walking path, sort of a park, along Messina Lane, and the people who are walking on that path, which I do every single day, we will be bombarded with the sights and sounds from these homes. We also object to the modification of the landscape type from a D to an A. If they show all these pictures, which -- CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: You're going to have to wrap it up here. MS. POTTS: I have other minutes signed over from (sic) me as well. We object to the downgrade of the landscape, and the photos are misleading. We object to the construction of the sound barrier and security wall along Livingston Road, because Distinctive is not providing a wall between Distinctive's property and Mediterra. A solid wall, according to an acoustics engineer, creates a 50 percent sound reduction barrier. Even if you have a solid hedge, you can get a 25 percent. They are not proposing even a solid hedge. So we're rejecting their wall along Livingston as well. Our entrance, our properties are going to be impacted directly because they are trying to create a minimal buffer around their property. They're trying to use our land and our landscape as their buffer, and we believe that is unfair, and we would like to retain the buffer that's in place in the current PUD. And if -- we would strongly recommend they create a wall along Messina Lane as a minimum. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Are there more speakers or -- MR. BELLOWS: The next speaker was Abby Dickson, but I don't know if she -- MS. DICKSON: Could you please bring up the first picture that we had? Because I'd like for the Commission to understand exactly how this is completely encased by Mediterra, which I think is very unusual. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Your name? MS. DICKSON: Excuse me. Abby Dickson. I'm Mrs. Abby Dickson. And we've been full-time residents of Collier County for over 15 years, and I've lived in Mediterra since 2005. And if we could bring up that other picture, the first picture, the colored one, which actually isn't very good for the Commission to understand how we're surrounded by this -- no, not the vegetation, the first map. The map. MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. It's a map. MS. DICKSON: It was the very first map, not the vegetation. MS. GUNDLACH: You want to come over and pick it out? MS. DICKSON: It was the very first one that -- representative from Mr. Grady. MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. This is the first one. MS. DICKSON: No, that wasn't it. MS. GUNDLACH: I'd really prefer -- MS. DICKSON: It has color to it and it shows the -- that's it. If you could just bring it down here, down to show -- so this is a very old map. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Can't hear you. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: You have to speak into the microphone. MS. DICKSON: This is a very old map that you're looking at. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Turn it on. MS. DICKSON: This is a very old map that you're looking at. To the north is all the London Bay property. And currently London Bay built their wall to the north, but these two sides -- it's an old chain link fence. It's been there for 15 years. It was never supposed to be a permanent fixture. So on these two sides -- May 3, 2018 Page 55 of 86 CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: You can't -- you're going to have to speak at the microphone here. MS. DICKSON: Sorry. Okay. I'll just read what I have to say then. Majority of the west side owners were sold their properties without the Distinctive property being disclosed within their border, so a majority of the residents on the west side have no idea that this Distinctive property is totally encased in the Mediterra neighborhood. The county maps first showed solid walls and buffers around Distinctive's communities, and it's been this way for a long time. If you look at the original maps for this development, it shows a wall and a wall and a wall. It does not show a chain link fence and buffers. So we're respectfully asking the Commission to require Distinctive Homes to add the two extra walls on the southern and eastern perimeters and retain the buffer as originally shown on the county plans. The 15-year-old chain link fence currently in place was only meant as a temporary measure. By erecting these two walls, retaining the buffer, and adding landscaping, the result will be continued privacy, security, noise abatement, and protection of property values for both communities because, actually, we're looking at this as a benefit to Collier County. We want both communities to be happy, not just Mediterra. So by erecting the wall, continued landscaping, I think it would be a benefit to both communities. Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: Tim Richards. MR. RICHARDS: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I had the opportunity -- my name is Tim Richards. I'm the general manager of the Mediterra Community Association. I came to Mediterra after all of this was negotiated. I started September 15th, and what I learned early on when I joined Mediterra, that a landscaping buffer easement agreement was put in place and a utility easement agreement as well. And my understanding is that there's a 10-foot buffer. The vegetation that you saw in the pictures, that is on Mediterra property. My understanding, that the buffer is going on the opposite side of those trees, 20 feet in height, underplanting, hedge material as well. The other thing that I understand is that we have a one-year look-back where we are going to visit, you know, the site. And within the first year if we're not satisfied with the growth, that Mr. Fiterman's agreed to take care of whatever needs to be taken care of. As far as any of the other changes that are being discussed, the MCA board does not have a comment at this time. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: Lou Rutkowsky. MR. RUTKOWSKY: I bow to Mrs. Potts if she has any. MR. BELLOWS: And I think David did also. MR. ORTBALS: I did, too. MR. BELLOWS: That's it. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Karen? CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Yes. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: It is time for a break for the court reporter? CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Yeah, I think it is. THE COURT REPORTER: If we're almost done, I can wait until we're finished. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Because Patrick's got to leave in 15 minutes? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Can you go another 15 minutes? THE COURT REPORTER: Yes. MR. ARNOLD: Hi again. It's Wayne Arnold. If I could just clarify one point. And Ms. Potts is correct that the master plan that was recorded shows a 20-foot-wide Type D buffer along the east property line. There was also a plan proposed by the developer, because there was another -- Rich and I inherited this project from another team, and we presented May 3, 2018 Page 56 of 86 to the Planning Commission a buffer plan that showed a 10-foot-wide Type A buffer, and the county recorded the one that had been previously submitted when we incorporated the line work, and we don't believe there was ever an intent to install a 20-foot Type D buffer. A 20-foot Type D buffer is what you install adjacent to a right-of-way. This is adjacent to a landscape buffer tract, in which I think you could fairly argue there might not even be a buffer required. But, nonetheless, the code required by the county code would be a 10-foot Type A, not a 20-foot-wide Type B -- or Type D in no circumstance. I know Rich had some other comments, but I wanted to clarify that for the record. And, unfortunately, the untimely death of Mr. Reischl, but we had had conversations with Mr. Reischl over the years indicating that that's probably a scrivener's error that needed to be corrected because of the wrong document being recorded. MR. YOVANOVICH: Good afternoon. For the record, Rich Yovanovich. I need to -- I need to give a history lesson to both the Planning Commission and Ms. Potts about what the landscape buffer really was supposed to be back in 2006, because she is incorrect. There was an agreement that was entered into between -- and I'll make it part of the record -- between my client and Long Bay Partners, LLC, who at the time was the developer of Mediterra; Bonita Bay. And I'm going to put on the visualizer a very specific provision in that contract that deals with the landscape buffer and the intent of that landscape buffer, but I'm going to read it to you first. It says that purchaser, having -- "Obtaining easement for Mediterra Community Association, Inc.," is the title of the paragraph. It says, "Purchaser, having obtained an easement from Mediterra Community Association, Inc., over and across the property described in Exhibit B, attached hereto, allowing purchaser to use the easement in calculating up to 10 percent -- 10 feet of the width towards the landscape buffering requirements applicable to the north, south, and east side of the project according to the Collier County Land Development Code." So we acquired an easement 10 feet in width to count towards the LDC required -- LDC required landscape buffer which Mr. Arnold -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Could you zoom in on that? These old eyes ain't as good as they used to be. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Amen. MR. YOVANOVICH: The very top, first sentence. So there is no question that when Mr. Fiterman paid a million dollar to Long Bay Partners for a one-acre parcel, together with a 10-foot-wide landscape buffer easement, that landscape buffer easement was to count towards the required LDC buffer which Mr. Arnold just showed you is 10 feet in width, Type A, and that was a condition of closing on the parcel. And I guess to show you kind of how we got to where we are, this is the existing master plan. There was a roughly one-acre parcel in this area right here that Long Bay Partners owned. It would have been the hole in the project. Mr. Fiterman approached Long Bay Partners to buy that one acre, bought that one acre together with the landscape buffer easement, to allow for Mediterra's -- 10 feet of Mediterra's land to satisfy the landscape buffer requirements for this proposed development, which was supposed to be 43 dwelling units. We didn't need that 10 foot to meet the requirements based upon the site plan that's up there on the visualizer right now, so we didn't use the 10 feet to get the 43-unit project approved. Now, market changed. We, frankly, think that this would be a very fine product to build next to Mediterra, but we've decided to go with a less dense project and exercise the rights we bought originally in 2006, and you have the easement in your packet that shows we bought the easement and we had the right to do the plantings. And we want to do this. That's the aerial. I can give you another version without the aerial on it if you want. We want to do bigger lots and less units. Now, I, for the life of me, can't understand why the residents who live on the east side of Mediterra would prefer eight, or eight or nine depending on whether the lake counts -- eight or nine villas adjacent to them with a landscape buffer that requires one tree every 30 feet versus bigger homes, nicer homes with our May 3, 2018 Page 57 of 86 doing the enhanced landscape planting plan in the 10-foot easement we bought back in 2006 that there's no question was always intended to be the landscape buffer between this project and Mediterra. I don't understand the logic for that. If they wanted to move into a community surrounded by walls, they should have moved into a different community. At no time, at no -- and I've been on this project for a while. At no time did we say we were going to have walls around our community; never. We never had walls around this community. They have a chain link fence in their community to serve their needs. They are now trying to get us to build a wall for them that we never said we were going to build as part of the 43-unit site plan and development. We think that the change that we're making is better for both this project as well as Mediterra. I can show you -- I could show you that Mr. Fiterman is a quality developer, quality builder. We're talking about homes that are 3,200 square feet to 4,500 square feet -- 5,000 square feet. This is the type of quality product they want to build instead of, you know, detached villas. Why -- and how is this in any way negatively impacting the residents of Mediterra? Oh, sorry. How is this quality development, bigger homes, 3,200 to 5,000 square feet, in any way negatively impacting Mediterra? We showed you accurate pictures of what it looks like from their side of the landscaping. That is exactly what Mr. Arnold said. He didn't misrepresent where those pictures were taken. You don't have that quality landscaping from our side. We are going to put in that quality landscaping on our side of the project into their 10-foot buffer that we own. We negotiated that in good faith with the association. The association is happy with that. The association hasn't said, no, we don't want to do this anymore. Do you have upset residents? Yes. They want a wall, and they want us to pay for their wall. We're not paying for their wall. If we were to put the wall where their fence is today, we wreck their existing landscaping. It is not an option for us to put the wall on our property line. We're not going to spend that kind of money on that kind of landscaping to block the view of it. What we've proposed, and your staff is recommending approval of, is a less dense project with high-quality homes with a tremendous amount of landscaping in an easement we own. We're requesting that the Planning Commission approve our request to changes to the PUD. And I'll answer any questions you might have. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Anybody? No questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Did you have anything else? MR. YOVANOVICH: Nope. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. We'll close the public hearing and -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Can I -- CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Oops. Now she has a question. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I do have a question. You're not asking for any more deviations than you had back in 2008? MR. YOVANOVICH: We're actually giving up a deviation for the cul-de-sac. We're asking for a deviation for the wall out on Livingston Road to be able to go a little bit taller, and then we're also asking for the deviation for the landscaping to go in the 10-foot easement that we've owned since 2006 which has been supported by staff and that's -- so that was -- that is a new deviation for both the wall on Livingston Road and for the use of the landscape buffer. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Because -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Wayne said that in his presentation. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I know. Because if some of the other deviations were now, you know it wouldn't go by me, so... MR. YOVANOVICH: I know, I know. But we're not changing that. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. All right. That's what I just wanted to make sure of. Thank you. May 3, 2018 Page 58 of 86 CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Anybody want to make a motion or discussion? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'll make a statement and then maybe a motion. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I am always glad for the opportunity to hear from homeowners and to allow them to express their concerns, and I believe they have done so. I have listened carefully and taken to heart what they've said; however, maybe you might file this under "be careful what you wish for," but going from 43 to 27 lots I think is a significant plus. I'm not -- and I'm not second-guessing your judgment. This is your neighborhood, and you know it better than I do. So I'm not trying to say that you're wrong. I just try to put myself in your shoes and how I would feel, which helps me judge how I would want to come down on it. MR. KLATZKOW: Just as an aside, there is no reduction in density. COMMISSIONER FRYER: But they -- they're going from 43 to -- MR. KLATZKOW: No. You're still 43. MR. YOVANOVICH: Why don't we add -- MR. KLATZKOW: You're still 43. I know what he's telling you what they plan on doing, but the ordinance is still 43. MR. YOVANOVICH: We're happy to commit to twenty -- what is it, 27? We're happy to commit to 27. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. I thought that had been a commitment. MR. YOVANOVICH: It was. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. So, again, I'm not trying to substitute my judgment. You're the experts; you live there. But to me this looks like a property-value enhancer at the end of the day. And, again, I'm not trying to substitute my judgment, but I think to put a wall up there, you would end up, I think, reducing your property value, and -- well, I believe this -- I believe in the longer run you're going to find this is an enhancement to your property. I hope you do. And I thank you for participating in the process, but I'm going to vote in favor of this. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I don't ever remember us requiring a noise wall between residential parcels. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: No. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And I'm going to vote in favor of it. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Is that a motion or -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'll make the motion. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'll second. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Opposed, like sign. (No response.) COMMISSIONER EBERT: With the corrections that they will reduce? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, with the 27, yes. MR. ARNOLD: There's a reference to 43 unit density. We'll change that to 27. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And, of course, as our chair said at the last one or the one before, we're only a recommending body. This comes -- MR. YOVANOVICH: No, this is final. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Oh, this is final? MR. YOVANOVICH: It's final for you-all. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Because it's insubstantial. May 3, 2018 Page 59 of 86 COMMISSIONER FRYER: Oh, that's right. Okay. Never mind. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: So the motion is with the 27 units? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yes. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Break for our court reporter. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Now we can take a break. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Fifteen minutes. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Fifteen minutes. MS. GUNDLACH: 5-0 approved. (A brief recess was had, Chairman Strain is now present in the boardroom, and Commissioner Dearborn is absent for the remainder of the meeting.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody, welcome back from break. We'll resume the meeting. We left off on our regular agenda. ***We have Items 9F and 9G up next. I'll read them. They're companion items. It's PL20160002584. It's the -- that's the -- let's see. That's the subdistrict for the GMPA. It's for the Grace Romanian Church at the corner of Golden Gate Boulevard and Collier Boulevard. PL20160002577. It's the conditional use for the same church at the same location. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Disclosures, and we'll start with Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I don't think anybody talked to me about this one, and I don't remember getting any emails, but I've gotten something now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you need a senior living facility in this county, you won't be able to afford to live in one, so don't get worse, okay? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: How do you know he can't afford it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I've looked at the way he dressed. Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have no disclosures. COMMISSIONER EBERT: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have talked to quite a few people: Residents from Golden Gate Estates who have called me, Pat Miller, who came in my office. I've talked to various members of the Golden Gate Estates Civic Association, I've talked at length multiple times and had multiple emails with the applicant, I've talked to staff as well at a staff meeting, and I hope that's everybody at this point. Karen. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Nothing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nothing. Okay. And that takes us into it. First of all -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry. I have to amend my disclosure. I've received emails. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. When we have a -- which threw me a little bit when I announced the hearing. We usually have a CC or a CPSS number that goes with when we have a GMP change. That's why your Item F for this is just a PL number. Is there another CSCC number that goes with it -- CPSS number, I mean? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. I have on my record it's CPSS-2017-1. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that's not on mine. That's why it threw me for a minute that -- to make sure. COMMISSIONER FRYER: It's on mine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is it? It's not on mine. That's interesting. I got a different agenda than it May 3, 2018 Page 60 of 86 sounds like other people have. Okay. With that, Fred, it's all yours. COMMISSIONER EBERT: It's because you're special. MR. HOOD: Good afternoon, Commissioners, Mr. Chairman. Frederick Hood with Davidson Engineering representing the applicant, Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples. Just kind of go through the presentation, PowerPoint presentation with you pretty quickly. Stop me if you have any questions, but I'll take questions after the -- sorry, I always go too fast. I'll take questions after we're done with the presentation. Again, this is for Grace Romanian Baptist Church. Site location is on the screen. We are at the corner of Golden Gate Boulevard and Collier Boulevard, and our property is about -- is 6.25 acres. That circle represents the property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to get closer to the microphone, Fred. We can hardly hear you. MR. HOOD: Is that better? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Closer. MR. HOOD: Better? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ah, much better. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Bingo. MR. HOOD: Well, I'll just raise my voice. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, yeah. You've not been shy before, so... MR. HOOD: To the east is Big Cypress Elementary. It's about .62 -- I'm sorry -- .75 miles down the road if you take First Avenue Southwest or if you go Golden Gate Boulevard. Just a little bit closer, Max Hasse Community Park is at .62 miles down the road. That's just to give you an idea of where we're at. Again, site location. I just wanted to give you an aerial representation of what the property looks like currently. 6.25 acres, again. Consists of two parcels. The southern parcel has a home on it and an accessory. I believe it's a shed or a small barn. That parcel itself is 2.28 acres. The northern parcel, which is the larger parcel, is 3.92. It's -- yeah, 3.97 acres, and it is on that hard corner of Golden Gate and Collier Boulevard. That property does not have any structures on it. Just talking quickly about the existing zoning, it's Estates zoning. Permitted uses per the LDC are single-family dwellings, family-care facilities, essential services, educational plants, and churches are permitted as a conditional use which is, again, why we're before you, part of the reason why we're before you. Existing future land use, it's also Estates designation. The Estates land use defines -- the Future Land Use Element defines the Estates designation as "the area as identified as having potential for population growth far removed from support of services and facilities." Just want to touch quickly on the small-scale Growth Management Plan amendment that is the companion application to the conditional use. What we did here is when we were coordinating with staff, we were required to do a data and analysis report to find out why we would need this church here and what other potential areas that we could go into. So we did three things. We looked at the vicinity to the church for the Collier County congregation, which a few of them are here today. We also looked at the location, again, of alternative Romanian Baptist churches in the State of Florida. We also lastly looked at available property for alternative site locations just to make sure that we were looking at everything and following staff's recommendations and requirements for us to do this data and analysis. This image gives you an idea of where our existing parishioners are within Collier County. There's 26 of them. The data and analysis area, which I've highlighted here in blue, it basically goes from -- well, I shouldn't say "basically." It goes from I-75 to the west, five miles west of -- or east of that to, basically, the middle of the Estates area. To the north we took it to the county line and to the south we went to Golden Gate Parkway. Again, there is the proposed location for the church highlighted in red. Again, 26 households within Collier County for the existing congregation. May 3, 2018 Page 61 of 86 These are the existing Romanian Baptist congregations in the State of Florida. There's five of them. The closest one is in Hollywood, Florida, and it's 122 miles away. The next one is also in Hollywood, 123 miles; Jacksonville, 379; Lake Worth, 132; and Seffner, Florida, at 160 miles. There's nothing in Southwest Florida for Romanian churches. So that's another reason why we're here before you, to find them a place for their congregation. Just getting a little bit more detailed into alternative site analysis. The criteria that we looked at when we were looking at additional properties, including the existing applicant-owned property, we looked at properties in size of five to 10 acres, we looked at a minimum lot width of 300 feet, access to collector and arterial roadways, and then zoning available without a GMPA request. There really weren't any that fit those criteria -- especially that last criteria. We had a few that fit some of those criteria. I'm going to talk about those couple in two seconds here. Again, just highlighting the data and analysis area for you in red. Another thing that we looked at was comparable sales price. The two items -- that's, again -- sorry. In yellow is the site location. The two properties available are there to the south of the property. One is at -- close to the intersection of Pine Ridge Road on the east side -- I'm sorry, on the west side of Collier Boulevard. The other is also on the west side of Collier Boulevard just north of Golden Gate City. And here are the blown-up versions so you can take a look there. 795 Collier Boulevard is the first alternative site. It's right next door to the VF Post 7721. This is a collection of two properties totaling five acres in total. It also has Estates zoning. Future land use is also Estates. It has a couple of prohibitive conditions, existing conditions. This one would also require a GMP amendment and a conditional use rezone. The main reason why we kind of put this one to bed was the restrictive access. It also is not at a corner, but mostly the restrictive access. It wasn't as good as what we had, and we have some limited-access issues on the existing property that I'll go over in a little while here. The second property is also known as the Sungate PUD. It's a commercial PUD; 4087 Green Boulevard. This site is also a little over five acres; 5.17. Estates future land use, and the prohibitive conditions there; we have some increased water management requirements within the PUD to take on some of the water from 951 and also Green. There's limited square footage remaining within this PUD as well. And just as an aside, this property is slated to be under Site Development Plan review. So, again, it's not available to us. It's going to be developed -- the entire thing is going to be developed. Going into the conditional use site plan. This is the existing plan as it's been presented to the county and to the public. We're talking about the access points here. There are two access points that have been reviewed by staff. One is on Golden Gate Boulevard, and the other is on Weber Boulevard South. Proposed landscape buffers; just go through these really quickly. There's a type -- there's Type D 15-foot buffer along Golden Gate and along Collier. The Type D buffer -- there's another two sets of Type D buffers. One is along First Avenue Southwest and the other is on Weber Boulevard South. Just to give you an idea, the Type D buffer specifications, we don't need to go through them, but double hedge row of hedging and trees 30 feet center. And that just basically tells you exactly what I said. Again, back to the master site plan to go into the Type B buffers. Type B buffers are along the south and eastern boundaries of the property -- of the existing property and the abutting single-family residential on the corner of First Avenue Southwest and Weber Boulevard South. Those typical Type B buffer specifications, again, single row of trees, 10-foot high, 25-foot on center, hedge at five feet, planted four foot on center. That's per the LDC. We had some coordination with the neighbor -- his name is Mr. Charles Dorta -- to discuss with him what he'd like to see for buffering. He did not want a wall, and he has sent us an email that I can provide to you-all as well that speaks to that fact. He would rather us do enhanced vegetation in that area, so I'm going to show you what that enhanced vegetation is. It's basically the Type D buffer -- Type B buffer with some palms, areca palms or paurotis, I believe, was the other species, planted behind those required trees to shield Mr. Dorta's property within -- 80 percent within a year. And, again, that will be a condition that I'll go over May 3, 2018 Page 62 of 86 in a little bit. These are some images of what that buffer would look like. Obviously, I don't have real trees to show you, but this is a mockup. You can see here that the brighter green ones are the shrubs at the bottom, and the lighter green trees are set at about 25 feet on center, and then behind those would be those palms that you would see. And this is facing west. So if we're standing at the entrance on Weber Boulevard, this is what you would see, or if you were standing on Mr. Dorta's property. The north side, if you're on Mr. Dorta's property, looking toward our preserve area, this is what you would see. It's the same buffer type. Just getting back to the site plan, just wanted to talk quickly about the setbacks. We've got 75-foot setbacks on our front yards, and that's on three sides: Golden Gate, Collier, and First Avenue Southwest, and that is nothing different from the Estates zoning. We didn't -- we can't ask for anything different, so those are the buffer -- setback requirements. The preserve setback requirement is 25 feet. That hasn't changed from the LDC as well. And then, lastly, the 30-foot side-yard setbacks along Mr. Dorta's property are at 30 feet. Again, nothing's changed from the LDC there. Just to give you an idea of the building envelope with those setbacks all put together. That's the red box. Proposed water management area, conceptually we have placed them on the periphery of the project. These water management areas will obviously be designed and reviewed at the time of Site Development Plan approval. Preserve area, .77 acres. We've put this in the northeastern portion of the property. Our proposed sanctuary multipurpose building is in the north -- I'm sorry -- the northwest portion of the property. Let's see here. Our proposed accessory green space is to the south of that, that sanctuary -- sanctuary multipurpose area. We have also said in this area -- and I'll go over these again when we get into the conditions of approval, but we are not considering any amplified sound and no accessory lighting in that area. Just quickly about the proposed septic drain field. We have a letter from the county identifying that water service is available within the Weber Boulevard right-of-way. There's not an easy way to get to the sanitary, so this property will operate on a septic system until such services are available. Just quickly, talking about traffic conditions. I know this has been an issue. Overall, prospective view of the property again here. Collier Boulevard to your right if you're looking at the screen, Golden Gate Boulevard to the bottom of the screen, and Weber Boulevard to the top of the screen. First Avenue Southwest is where you see that star there. The turning movements that are existing, there's a right-hand turn lane on Collier Boulevard. There is also a right turn lane into the property on Golden Gate Boulevard, and then the turning movement, obviously, going onto Weber would be where that additional access would be on Weber. There's a traffic separator in the middle of Golden Gate Boulevard, and it was placed there, I believe, in the fall of 2017, and it cuts off access for Weber Boulevard to traverse north and south. And there, again, you can just see the arrow pointed to that area. Back to the site plan. This was the original site plan. The original site plan we considered three access points, and I can show them to you here. The first access point was here on First Avenue Southwest, the second one is here on Weber Boulevard, and then the third one is the existing curb cut. And just for your edification, each of these access points had existing curb cuts, so we basically kept the areas for vehicular access the same on this property. There was -- that first access, there's already a curb cut there, there's already a curb cut here on Weber Boulevard, and there's also that existing curb cut on Golden Gate Boulevard. Through coordination with county transportation staff, we got rid of the access on First Avenue Southwest, and we moved forward through the rest of our review period with just these two Weber Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard access being left over. Okay. Just showing you that this is what happened when we got rid of the First Avenue Southwest. We were basically just creating that loop so that the traffic stays on site and not coming onto First Avenue May 3, 2018 Page 63 of 86 Southwest for access to the property. Just really quickly, and Norm is here with me from Trebilcock Consulting. He'll talk a little bit more about transportation issues if you have any questions specific to his TIS report. Just quickly, we're anticipating 70 percent of the traffic to come to the site from the Golden Gate Boulevard access point. And we have -- again, there's existing turn lane that will facilitate that. Coming into the property along Weber Boulevard, we're presenting about 30 percent of the property coming that way. Leaving the property, 50 percent of the cars will be leaving from Golden Gate, 30 percent would be -- 30 percent would be leaving north from Golden Gate -- not Golden Gate -- Weber Boulevard, and another 20 percent would be going south, again, on Weber Boulevard. To get to -- to go back west, when you make that turn out of Golden Gate Boulevard on the north side, it's about .3 miles until you get to a turnaround before you can head back west. I'll just go over the development standards quickly. Minimum lot size in the Estates is 2.25. We're, again, at 6.25. Minimum lot width is at 165. We're at 275 at our smallest point. Maximum zoned building height at 30. We are retaining that 30 feet and asking for a limited 60 feet for the actual building height. That will cover things like church steeple or parapets that would, you know, come off of the roof, things like that, things of that nature; not habitable space. Some additional ones. LDC required parking, church parking is at three spaces per seven seats. We have anticipated being able to park this property without asking for any dispensations or any other applications. Now we're going to get into our proposed conditions of approval, and this is what I handed out to you a little bit earlier. Starting with the hours of operation: Sunday services are from 8 a.m. to -- we just gave a range of 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. There's two services on Sunday, but we just -- we gave you that range so that's when they would have Sunday services. Weekday hours of operation, this would be for things like Bible study and church meetings and whatnot. We've limited it to not to exceed 100 people, and that would be from 6:30 to 9:00 p.m. That's off-peak hours. Maximum -- No. 2 is the maximum square footage of 24,000 square feet for the church. Number of seats, 300 maximum. Number 3, we are going to go over the accessory uses that we have prohibited: No daycares; no food services, i.e., soup kitchens, catering service open to the public; or eating places; educational services were another one. Number 4, the following accessory uses we have asked to be permitted in conjunction with the church: The outdoor multipurpose play area; gazebos, if the church would like to have some covered areas; sheds and covered pavilions; and then if they need one or would like to have one in the future, a pastor's residence. That pastor's residence shall be limited to 3,500 square feet if they so choose to build that residence. Okay. Back to the master plan. Just showing you here what the changes were from your packet to the master plan that I handed to you. What we did here, there are two changes, and they are textual. We added the 24,000 square feet into the sanctuary and multipurpose area to just put it on the master plan, and then the second one is adding that square footage for the pastor's residence on the accessory area. That's where it would potentially go. Going on to No. 5, we've agreed to no rental to any facility outside of the -- to outside groups, agreed not to exceed any more than 12 special events a year. Special events would be something like if the church was approached and they wanted to do a farmers market on one day out of the month. We've limited that to 12 special events a year, and those events would have to go through the process for Collier County with getting a temporary-use permit for something like that. Number 7, we have prohibited amplified music or sounds outside of the church. Lighting within the outdoor accessory recreational area shall be prohibited. That kind of cleans up any ideas of that area being used at night for any sports activities or anything else like that. There's no lighting that's going to be in that area. May 3, 2018 Page 64 of 86 Number 9, this speaks to that buffer that I was talking about a little bit earlier. This is the text that contains what we are discussing of putting in that buffer area. So I'll just read it off. An enhanced 15-foot Type B buffer shall be provided along the abutting residential properties' shared boundaries with the church located on the northwest corner of First Avenue Southwest and Weber Boulevard South. The enhanced buffer shall provide the following plant materials in lieu of a wall and shall reach 80 percent opacity within one year of installation. And those -- I'll just read these into the record. Those -- that vegetation is trees, 25 gallons, 10 foot tall, and 1.75 inches in caliber, 52 foot on center. The hedge shall be five foot tall; plants at four foot on center, proposed alternative buffer requirements. And then the palms are 12 foot tall, and they are planted 12 foot on center. They're about six foot wide when they get planted. And those would be the addition to that required Type B buffer. Just getting back to the site lighting. Number 10, site lighting shall be directed away from adjacent residential properties as much as possible. Site lighting shall be LED, shielded, and directionalized fixtures so that light spillover does not encroach adjacent property lines. Again, as best we can do that, we are going to try and make sure that we don't have any lights set on the property lines to Mr. Dorta's property. If we do have to do -- with the pole-mounted lighting, it shall be no higher than 15 feet. Moving on to No. 11, again, zoned building height shall be limited to 30 feet. That is an Estates designation. And then the actual building height, again, for steeples or any appurtenances will be limited to 60 feet. Again, covers the church steeple. Number 12, the conditional use shall be limited to -- and there's a typo there -- eight maximum p.m. peak hour weekday trips, two way trips, and a maximum of 183 peak hour Sunday two-way trips. And then the last items is for traffic control. It's our typical language that we put into our PUDs, into our conditional uses. I can read it off, but it's -- basically what it says is when the county deems it appropriate, they will have law enforcement -- they will have the applicant get law enforcement or a -- sorry. I'm losing my train of thought. Anyway, they will have law enforcement. They will have to be at the property to direct traffic. That's basically what that says. And now just questions and discussion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. From the Planning Commission. Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have a few. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: First of all, I think the largest issue that I was able to discern from the materials has to do with the traffic on Weber Boulevard. In the tape of the NIM, I think it was you, Fred, said that the ingress and egress points are Golden Gate Boulevard and Weber Boulevard that was chosen by the county. MR. HOOD: Chosen probably wasn't the right word. It was through coordination with Transportation Planning, those were the access points that we agreed on. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. To what extent were you able to look into alternate access points, for instance, off of Collier Boulevard? MR. HOOD: So we looked at that -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: I know there's a canal there. MR. HOOD: Yeah. So we looked at it quickly. We decided with the two access points that we've provided for Weber and for Golden Gate, that the access on 951, for what our congregation is looking to do, it wasn't feasible for them. So what we did was we left it at those two access points that are already existing. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Do you see any way that this project could go forward in a way that would alleviate the additional traffic or much of it on Weber? MR. HOOD: I'm going to have Norm speak to that. It's more of a transportation -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. I have a couple of questions for him anyway, so that's good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Norm, before you go too far, the spacing requirements for a connection onto Collier Boulevard would have been what from the intersection of Golden Gate Boulevard and Collier? MR. TREBILCOCK: I don't have that number, but I can get that. But the issue and the conflict with Collier Boulevard somewhat would be that northbound right-turn lane to Collier -- to Golden Gate May 3, 2018 Page 65 of 86 Boulevard, where sometimes when you get an access that close, it can be confusing, and then folks will end up taking a right into the church that really intended taking a right into Golden Gate Boulevard. So even though there might be an access management spacing criteria we could meet, as a practical matter, the county would typically want to push that further south. So it would be an issue. But we didn't specifically measure that, but I can ascertain that if we need. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just wanted to know what the spacing requirement was. I know that on some other projects, especially at Heritage Bay where they go into Immokalee Road, there were some very strict spacing requirements from the main intersection of Collier Boulevard. It's a similar T intersection we're dealing with here, so... MR. TREBILCOCK: Correct. No, you're absolutely right. There is a criteria. I just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Didn't you work that one? Weren't you involved in Heritage Bay and some of the issues up there? Is that another traffic engineer? MR. TREBILCOCK: No, no. It must be another. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's not many of you. I guess that could be a good thing, huh? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, but I'm -- okay. I'm sorry. Again, for the record, my name is Norman Trebilcock with Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, a certified planner and professional engineer. We prepared the traffic study. I'm sorry. I can answer -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm going to -- I'll probably want to come back to this same question after we hear public comment. MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: But I have a few other things. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: A couple maybe for you, Norm. The 70 and 30 percent statistics, ingress and then there's -- there was another statistic for egress. How exactly do you -- is that measured? Is it just an estimate, or how -- do you try to identify where members of the congregation reside? MR. TREBILCOCK: No. That's a good question. What we did is we really estimate our cells. We come up with what is somewhat empirical. We coordinate with the client. We also then work with staff as well and kind of with an understanding. In particular here, there are restrictions with the roadway, so it sort of impacts the normal continuity of flow. Usually what comes in comes out the same location. But because there are prohibitions, say, on Golden Gate Boulevard you can't take a left into Weber now, so actually a lot of those folks would be bringing a left-in from the east a little further. And then again, we would foresee a fair amount of north/south traffic using Collier Boulevard to come to the property. But then exiting what we'd see is -- and you see in the numbers, is folks would take a right going down Weber to go down to White and Pine Ridge to go further, because you can't take a direct left out off of Weber onto Collier -- onto Golden Gate Boulevard, and you have to make a right and do the U-turn. So that's why you see the numbers, like, kind of a little different. But it was really an estimate, and then we kind of run that by staff as well and then also with the client as well. But when you looked at the numbers Fred showed in terms of the current congregation, you can see it; there's some in it in terms of where everyone's located because we kind of weigh everything really coming off of Collier Boulevard. That's, you know, 35 percent from the north, 35 percent from the south. That gets us that 70 percent, and really that other 30 percent is coming from within the Estates to the east. And, again, if their coming down the Boulevard, they're going to take a left prior to because you can't take a U-turn at the Boulevard and -- at Golden Gate and Collier Boulevard. So there's some restrictions on the roadway that kind of cause that distribution. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. I'm probably going to want to come back to that after public comment. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's all I had right now for you unless -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: While you're up there -- MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- if the county didn't have an objection to it, which I know they don't, do May 3, 2018 Page 66 of 86 you see any problem with your main entrance and exit being the one on Golden Gate Boulevard and a right-only on Weber going south? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yeah. The issue I would see there, Commissioner Strain, would be really from people that are trying -- that live to the east in the Estates trying to get to the church. It would be rather difficult, because if you live east here and you're going to take Golden Gate Boulevard to get to the church, right now what you do is you take a left just prior to it. Right around Max Hasse Park there's a little road that will kind of tie you through and let you come in because, otherwise, if you come to Collier Boulevard, you can't take a U-turn there. It's a prohibition, so then you'd have to take a left. You'd have to come down Collier Boulevard, you know, turn at Pine Ridge Road, then come back up Weber. So it would be really circuitous, you know, and actually you couldn't come there either. It would be almost -- it would be very difficult to get to the project, you know. You'd almost actually have to -- to do that you would head from Golden Gate Boulevard, you'd take a right, go up Collier Boulevard, do a U-turn, come back, and then make a left on the, you know, Boulevard there and then take a right in. It would be very circuitous. So that's why there is some sense to having it. I see the number as a low number for it and, overall, it's not a high trip generator. And when you look at the predominant traffic using the Boulevard, the remainder really isn't a high number in volume. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: First of all, your argument for being circuitous kind of doesn't work because Collier County doesn't believe in that. If they had believed in that, they wouldn't be putting a concrete barrier across Weber and Golden Gate Boulevard. For me to go to an Estates Civic Association meeting, I have to go down Weber -- I used to go down Weber, take a left, and I could be there in minutes. Now I've got to go all the way up Weber to the Catholic church and fight their traffic on the north end, make a left at Vanderbilt Beach Road, go out on Collier Boulevard, make another left to go all the way -- a mile or more south, and make another left to finally go down Golden Gate Boulevard to get out to the civic association meeting. So I'm just wondering why you're concerned about circuitous avenues for a one-day-a-week event or maybe two at the most when they could go down, like, 25th, which is more of a collector than First Street, and then go down White and come back up 951. Now, those are all bigger roads than First Avenue Southwest is. MR. TREBILCOCK: I guess, if you have the singular access on Golden Gate Boulevard, so for folks to get there that live to the east -- so, you know, it's a matter of, you know, providing the availability. You know, with them having frontage, you know, on a bunch of roads and having access on a singular, it just seemed reasonable to have the two access points, you know, for the project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The problem is, the only way to get to your other access point now is going to be forcing people to turn down to get on First Avenue Southwest to get into that Weber access point. MR. TREBILCOCK: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think that's the problem. The people on First Avenue Southwest already have enough problems. MR. TREBILCOCK: I see. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, we've got a church already down at the end. We've got a school down at the end. We have Max Hasse Park down at the end. And while those are off hours compared to your operations, still that doesn't mean we should fill that street up when it's available. I mean, give it a break. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So just something I wanted to throw on the table, because I believe, in talking to Mike Sawyer, the county would go along with a pork chop at that entry to keep it right-in only, and that would eliminate 50 percent of the traffic that you're now calling for on Weber Boulevard because they wouldn't go down that road to make a left in. They'd be going down 951 or out on the main roads. So, anyway, that's just a thought I wanted to -- MR. TREBILCOCK: I understand. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Ned. May 3, 2018 Page 67 of 86 COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's all I have right now, Norm, for you. MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay, thank you. Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Back to Fred. The reference to 60 feet -- MR. HOOD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- for a steeple, and then you said, "and any appurtenances." MR. HOOD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: What would you say about limiting it to just the steeple? MR. HOOD: I'm sorry. Just a second. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's okay. MR. HOOD: Yeah. What we can't do -- based on the roof, the roof that they haven't designed yet, inside of that 60 feet would be -- for example, if we had a parapet wall, I wouldn't be able to go above that 30 feet. So that 60 feet just being for the steeple, I would need it for -- if I did a parapet wall, if I had to screen HVAC that's on the roof, things like that. So that's what would be included in that 60 feet. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Most of those things, if not all of them, would be well beneath 60 feet. MR. HOOD: Sixty feet. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well beneath it. MR. HOOD: What we could do is, if you want it to have two actual heights -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's what I'm thinking. MR. HOOD: -- we could do 60 as the maximum for the steeple and then, what do we usually do, seven feet above? We can do -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: I personally would prefer that. MR. HOOD: I'm sorry. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I would personally prefer like a mezzanine level of seven feet or something to cover the other things rather than leaving it wide open to allow them to go up to 60 feet even though you don't intend to. Sixty feet for the steeple, and then you can name some other things, the air conditioner, whatever, and then how much you would realistically need for that we can talk about. MR. HOOD: I'm just going to write this down. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's fine. While you're writing, you mentioned that there are two Sunday services, but you're not necessarily going to be limited. They're not going to be in the morning, necessarily. They may be; they may not be. They could go as late as to 9 p.m. on Sunday. MR. HOOD: There are two services currently. One is at -- and I can have Adrian Roman, he's the president and secretary of the church, speak to that a little bit more in detail. Actually, why don't you just do that. MR. ROMAN: Adrian Roman, secretary of the church. Currently, the church has two services on Sunday. One starts at 10:00 in the morning. It finishes by 12:00. The afternoon service starts at 6:00, and it finishes at 7:00. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. MR. ROMAN: That's how we currently have the services, but because of the flexibility, you know -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: I get it. I just -- I wanted to be sure that that was in line with your present practice rather than just keeping the door wide open for what -- MR. ROMAN: It's rehearsals that happen before the services, so I can't really tell you I only start at 6:00 and I lock the door at 9:00 or 7:30. So it's just because of those practices. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Clear. Thank you. One of the concessions that you've made, there would be no rentals. MR. ROMAN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: There will, though, or could be up to 12 special events per year. Could these be the events that are hosted by outside groups who don't pay rent? MR. HOOD: So what we did there, instead of it being an ability for the church to just have someone come in off the street and say we want to rent your building for however many hours on a Saturday, for instance, they would have to -- what my intention and what the church's intention is, in those 12 events a May 3, 2018 Page 68 of 86 year for something like a farmers market, they would have to go through the temporary-use permit process with the county. That was our idea behind it. If there is some way that you'd like to restrict that a little bit more, I'd be willing to hear what that would be, but that was our intent. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, I guess my concern is -- and it gets back to traffic, as most things do on this -- that having outside groups come in, whether they pay rent or not -- MR. HOOD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- is going to be a contributor to traffic in that area, and I suppose my question is, would you be willing to limit further your 12 per year with respect to use by outside groups? MR. HOOD: I'm going to let Adrian speak to that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. MR. ROMAN: Wouldn't farmers market be considered an outside use? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It depends on how you managed it. If you hired -- if you leased your property to an outside management company to run a farmers market. I think that's what Ned is pointing to. Some organizations, like the church on Davis Boulevard, they manage the functions themselves, and I think that's what we're getting at. It would be a church function. You wouldn't lease the property out to an outside management firm to hold a farmers market. MR. ROMAN: Correct. We already mentioned that we're not going to lease. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you said church facility. So I think to clear it up for Ned's purposes -- and I think it's a good point -- leasing of the church facility or property to outside groups is prohibited. MR. ROMAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That means you still have your special events, but you would run them. Your congregation would have to run them. MR. ROMAN: Correct. That's fine. That's fine with us. I just wanted to understand how, if I'm having a special event, that would be somebody else that's coming on our property. So I just wanted to clarify that in my mind so I know how to answer. COMMISSIONER FRYER: All right. So that's clear to me now, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And, Mr. Chairman, those are all the questions I have for now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Just one little thing. The Dorta property next door, are you going to put a berm between your land and his? MR. HOOD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. The LiDAR shows he's a lot lower than you. MR. HOOD: Yeah. I think what we proposed was something like -- and we haven't designed it, again, but something like two to three feet of a berm. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. That will keep the water from flowing onto him. Thanks. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: The language that you handed out in the conditions -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your mike's not working, Heidi. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: The handout that contained the conditions as well as the revised conceptual plan I received just today. I can see some of the conditions of approval will require some cleanup, which I'd like to work with Mr. Hood outside of the meeting. But I do have a question on the accessory recreation area. Is that outdoor only? Is the accessory recreation area outdoor area only or -- MR. HOOD: That's our understanding right now, except for the pastor's residence. If we put it in that area that -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: So I'd like to -- that was the one question I'm not clear on. So if we put on the conceptual map "outdoor accessory," that would be okay. MR. HOOD: (Nods head.) May 3, 2018 Page 69 of 86 MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Otherwise, it affects the square footage cap for the project, potentially. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And part of the issue's going to happen today, we're going to ask our questions, then we're going to hear staff -- or public input, then we have -- will have more questions, and because this was just passed out today, I'm not expecting we're going to come to a conclusion today, especially with the issue on the traffic. I did talk to Mike Sawyer. He indicated he had not even received the TIS until this morning on this or something. So I want to make sure we've got everybody's input to final it up, but I do expect that after we get done today, the bulk of the issues can be put on the table, and we can come back and finish it up at the next meeting, or close to that. But we'll talk further as we finish up today and see where it goes after public speakers. MR. HOOD: And I just want to just put this out there. I just want to make sure that with doing that that we don't start messing with our BCC -- I mean, it may be inevitable, but if we can try not to put us off for our BCC date. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're not trying to do that. In fact, normally we have this kind of meeting, then a consent. My suggestion would be if we were to continue this to finish it, we finish the consent at the same time because it would be that much further along. And these handouts that are multi pages and changes to things would have a little bit of time to make sure they didn't miss anything. MR. HOOD: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because, honestly, they did miss the traffic issue. And the fact that the TIS had a different number than what you were building is problematic, and I want to make sure everybody on staff understands the way the traffic count will be capped regardless of the square footage, which still puts it back at the same stature that it is today. MR. HOOD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So some questions that I had, Fred. I think you've got quite a few of them at least answered and stated. The parking, you have 132 spaces shown on your parking plan, so we would need to indicate that that's the maximum amount of parking spaces you would be getting based on this continual use. MR. HOOD: We can do that with the -- oh, well, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I've counted them, and they're stated on your traffic study. MR. HOOD: Per the 300 seats, we'll have to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that also keeps your seating down to what you've agreed, because you need 129 for the seating. So you've got three more than the seating would allow, which means you'd have enough for your pastor and that use if it is there. Trip cap, we got that. Amplified sound. Oh, the lighting. MR. HOOD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number 10, site lighting shall be installed to protect neighborhood properties from direct glare by directing all light sources away from adjacent residential properties as feasible. I'm not sure "as feasible" is a clear understanding of how it's going to be. Do you have some area on there that you didn't think was feasible based on that site plan that I've previously seen? MR. HOOD: Let me just open this real quick, and I'll get to what I was talking about. Okay. So areas at the -- we really wouldn't be worried about this area here or this area here. And if we were -- when we light this accessway for this drive aisle for Weber that's going out onto Weber, the lights would be pointing in the northerly direction so that they wouldn't be spilling over onto Mr. Dorta's property. The same would go for this western area along his property line. We forced the lights going that way. With that extensive buffer, that buffer's probably going to grow pretty quickly. But -- and with even that, these parking spaces here along the west side, we would be lighting them going towards Collier Boulevard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. HOOD: I just -- I was leaving it so that in case there was an issue that we had to put a light that may face south or may face east in one of these areas that wasn't directly abutting his property, that we would if we could if we needed to at SDP. May 3, 2018 Page 70 of 86 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Either by the end of this meeting, if we get to finish this today, if not, by the time we come back, think about where your lighting needs to be while -- we're going to have some public speakers. I'm not sure you need the words "as feasible," and the reason I don't like those, it's pretty ambiguous. MR. HOOD: Ambiguous. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that's a little bit of a problem. MR. HOOD: And the addition -- and this is something else that we talked about with the lighting is that the light will be LED, and it will all be directionalized and shielded. So the spillover effect that may have happened in some of the older type of developments will be significantly mitigated here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me make sure I've got everything right now. Oh, in your -- you talked about the prohibited uses. You said educational services and soup kitchens. Also, what about the outreach services such as alcohol rehab and things like that? You can add that to the list as well. You don't do any of that, do you? MR. HOOD: No, we do not, and we will definitely add that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think that's the only questions I hadn't gotten -- that weren't addressed from what we've seen. The enhanced buffer, at some point I'll need to make sure that -- I don't know what -- you said a paurotis palm. MR. HOOD: I believe it's a paurotis. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got arecas, and I know what they do, and they do a really good hedge. MR. HOOD: They're similar to arecas. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And they do grow well in the Estates. So at some point -- I don't want to leave it palms clustered, because that could be just some sabal palms clustered in groups of three, which will give nobody anything. So we'd really need to look at something to follow up with the diagram you showed. Now, areca was a good choice. They grow well -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Paurotis are native. MR. HOOD: That's what it is, paurotis. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, okay. But do they get as -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Oh, they grow like areca. A little slower but, man, they really fill in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. When an engineer tells me a paurotis is the same as areca, I've got nothing to do but to believe that. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: It's a clumping palm. It grows nice. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's fine. MR. HOOD: Thank you for that, Stan. That's the one I was thinking of, paurotis. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the questions I have at this time. Okay. With that, there's no other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll go to public speakers, and you'll have an opportunity to address some of the issues at the end of the public speakers. MR. HOOD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And those of you that want to speak, we generally allow five minutes per speaker, but we're here to listen to your concerns. And if they're not redundant and if they're new information, we'd still like you to make sure you -- we hear it and understand it, so whatever it takes, we'll work with you. Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Did you want to do the staff report first? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a good idea. I didn't think -- I talked to James already about it, so I forgot that he hasn't talked to us as a group. James? MR. SABO: Not a problem. James Sabo, for the record. The Zoning Division recommends the CCPC forward the petition to the Board of Zoning Appeals May 3, 2018 Page 71 of 86 with a recommendation of approval for the proposed conditional use for a church if the companion GMP amendment is approved and becomes effective, subject to conditions as may be presented today. MR. BELLOWS: Ready? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Because now that he mentioned that, I did have one question. Why didn't you have under your -- in your normal staff report you have zoning division analysis, but we also usually have transportation and environmental, and I see neither one on here. Does that mean neither of those departments reviewed this? MR. SABO: No. Environmental reviewed it, and as did transportation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then I'll need them to jump in on behalf of their position, so let us know, because there's no -- there's nothing in here from either one. Normally we have their separate paragraphs for them. So in the future we might want to make sure those are there. MR. SABO: Very good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So with that in mind, will Summer come up and then Mike and let us know if your department has any position on this so we get it for the record since it wasn't in the staff report. MS. ARAQUE: Summer Araque, Environmental Planning, for the record. And we did review this petition. We have our staff report section draft ready to go, but it's not -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have it ready to go? MS. ARAQUE: Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it isn't here. MS. ARAQUE: No. So we did review it, and everything that's been stated today is correct, and the site plan's correct, and the acreage is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you -- MS. ARAQUE: I have nothing else to add, really, except that there's a .77-acre preserve required, which you've already seen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Would you make sure you get a copy of that to James and that he gets the Planning Commission a copy supplemental to the report -- MS. ARAQUE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- so we have it for the record? MS. ARAQUE: Yep, will do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you didn't have any issues? You're fine with everything you heard? MS. ARAQUE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you very much, Summer. MR. SAWYER: Good afternoon. Mike Sawyer, Transportation Planning, for the record. We did look at the petition. We reviewed the TIS. We do find that it is consistent with the GMP. The traffic, which is normal for a church, is primarily mornings on Sundays. The GMP requires us to look at consistency for p.m. peak during the week. So because it's on the weekend and on Sundays, we found it consistent. Additionally, there is capacity on the roadway systems, the adjacent roadways. We also did check the class for Collier Boulevard as far as access locations. It would be 660, which would basically get you to First. Additionally, because there is already an access on Golden Gate, that would certainly be the preferred location for an access point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You heard the discussion about the potential right-in only with a pork chop configuration. Did you have any concerns about that from your department's perspective? MR. SAWYER: None. That would be fine with us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Could you supply your staff -- you normally have a paragraph in the staff report. Just supply it to James so he can include it in the record when we finish up with this. MR. SAWYER: We'd be glad to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chairman, am I hearing correctly that because of the spacing requirements that there really -- it would be impossible to put an entrance and an exit on Collier? MR. SAWYER: Let me put it this way. If the site did not already have an access point that was May 3, 2018 Page 72 of 86 already provided on Golden Gate, certainly we would look at that as a possibility. We would also, at the very same time, also look at an access point on Golden Gate. Because Collier is considered a larger, more important collector, and in this case a divided collector, we would place preference on looking at a location for an access point more likely on Golden Gate. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well -- okay. It sounds like an area where you would exercise some discretion. MR. SAWYER: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And, presumably, we could also. MR. SAWYER: Just as much, sir, yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, one more question. MR. SAWYER: Certainly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If part of the cure to the concerns over the traffic would be to enhance the traffic management, using my words carefully, traffic management on Weber Boulevard, do you have any objections or do you believe there would be -- how would this be approached from putting stop signs on Weber? I mean, it would be a -- I can tell you living on Weber myself, it would great to have stop signs on Weber. I have the similar situation with the church on the north end of Weber where I live and, you know, on Sundays they drive down the street, and the police are there a lot. But it would be nice if they just had stop signs, because people would be slowing down because they'd have to stop more and they may decide it's simpler just to go out on 951. How could that be processed through the county? MR. SAWYER: Anytime that we do stop signs or other types of management, there are criteria, and especially for stop signs. There is clear criteria that we've got for allowing or not allowing stop signs. Now, I can't tell you -- we certainly haven't looked at that -- whether Weber would qualify for stop signs or whether it wouldn't. We would certainly want to take a look, and we certainly could do that through our traffic operations division and look at seeing if stop signs would be warranted. We have also done other types of management on other road segments, especially out in the Estates, where we've had other projects come in. Those would also be possibilities as far as management. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If the -- my concern is the reasonableness of whoever would make this decision, because I do have the following information from the Transportation Department that says, "Stops signs: When used for traffic calming, stop signs often do one or more of the following: One, increase mid block speeds along the street because the driver's trying to make up for lost time." Of course, the alternative of that is they just continue at higher speeds the whole length because there's no stop signs. So I think that maybe not -- may not be a good argument. Increased noise because of quick accelerations and decelerations. I don't know what they would have used to test that. I'm trying to understand how that even applies. Increased pollution. A stop sign. This is kind of obscure reasoning. Reduce driver's expectation of a uniform flow. Exactly what we want to do to stop people from going down Weber and go out to 951 where they belong. Relocate the problem. There's no stop signs on 951. It's six lanes, so it's not a two-lane road, so there's no problem there. And then this one's curious. Cause disrespect for stop signs by drivers and bicyclists. So now we have to worry about disrespecting a stop sign. I'm just -- if that's the reasoning that someone in the public gets when they try to obtain a stop sign for their street, like I know -- I have been told by some residents there they've tried to do that and they've got turned down -- that really isn't sensible reasoning. So how would this be looked at? Someone with that mindset's going to be deciding whether or not Weber can have stop signs on it or not, or how is that done? MR. SAWYER: I believe where that criteria is coming from is from the NTMP program we have. When we look at stop signs from an operational standpoint, it is based on numbers, and it is based on traffic counts, speeds. There are a number of things that are looked at. I can tell you it is not that same criteria. May 3, 2018 Page 73 of 86 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. Thank you. Anybody else? COMMISSIONER FRYER: That concern was echoed really by speakers at the NIM who seemed to be more concerned about speeders as opposed to quantity of cars. Now, there were some who expressed concern about each one. But are there other traffic-calming devices that could be considered besides stop signs? MR. SAWYER: There are always traffic management techniques that can be used. The issue that we would have is that we would want to make sure that they are consistent with other types of management that we've done, basically, in the same type of area. So if there are -- if there are techniques that have been used out in the Estates in a similar road area or similar segment, those are the types of things that we would want to go to first. That's not to mean that those aren't (sic) the only ones that we would consider. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, I think we've had all three staff reports now. Thank you. MR. SAWYER: Indeed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now we'll go to public speakers. And everybody, if you want to speak, as I was saying, just come up to the microphone and state your name. You may have to spell it if it's not easily understood when you say it. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Sworn in? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pardon me? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Sworn in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We already swore everybody in, didn't we? All those wishing -- yeah, we already swore everybody in. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I thought Sue wanted to say something. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know. Sue, did you have something you wanted to add? If you do, come on up. MS. FALKNER: I did. Sorry. Sorry about that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's fine. Yours was only a sentence. MS. FALKNER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't think there was much to it. Go ahead. MS. FALKNER: Sue Falkner, Comprehensive Planning. Staff does recommend approval for this project; however, we do have one little revision. We'd like to add that the list in the Golden Gate Area Master Plan -- at the back of the plan there's a list of all the future land use maps in the series, and we'd like to add the new map that was created for this project to that list. And so when you approve it, we'd like you to approve it with that addition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Anybody have any questions? MS. FALKNER: Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Sue. MS. FALKNER: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, Ray, if you'll call the first speaker. Please come up to either microphone. MR. BELLOWS: First speaker, Gary VanDeWerken. MR. VANDEWERKEN: My name is Gary VanDeWerken, and I'm a long-term resident of Collier County for over 50 years. I have lived on Weber Boulevard South since 1986. I'm opposed to anything being built in this area that's going to generate more traffic to Weber Boulevard. It's not only -- we have over the years of me living there, we have a school, we have a park, we have two other churches down First Avenue South. When school let's out, you have people picking up children as well, and it backs up all down First Avenue South and down two blocks down Weber Boulevard blocking First Avenue. You can't -- it's kind of like if there's an emergency, nobody's getting down that road, and this has been going on for years. May 3, 2018 Page 74 of 86 And just one thing that the county did do was keep people from coming onto Weber off the Boulevard. They blocked that off. That helped the traffic in the mornings flying down Weber, because they would bypass -- people would try to bypass that light, and they were literally doing 70 miles an hour down Weber but -- and it created another problem where they were coming down Pine Ridge crossing 951, going down Weber to bypass 951 traffic, and they're doing 70-plus miles an hour. I had a car flip over in my front yard and this, you know, destroyed fencing and stuff like that. Putting more traffic in this area, I'm just totally opposed to that. That's about all I have to say. Thank you. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Just to put a couple of your points a little more at ease, maybe, in your mind. The traffic that this generates, usually churches generate traffic in off-peak hours. And most people don't -- you talked about septic systems. As often as I've been to church, I don't think I've ever gone to the toilet when I was at church, you know. I don't know how many people do. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Nice piece of info. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah, TMI, too much information, I know. But I don't think you'll get a lot of use out of whatever they have for a septic system. I just can't see it. But, you know, just to put your mind a little more at ease -- MR. VANDEWERKEN: I'm glad you touched base on that, because that was another concern was the 300-seat capacity on a septic system. And being out in that area, that is my drinking water and everybody else's in that area. And when it does rain heavily, we do have changes in our well system. So that is from runoff and leaching. Now, if you put a septic system like that in there, it is going -- and there's -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: If all 300 people -- MR. VANDEWERKEN: Oh, boy, that's quite a bit -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: -- before they went home, they generally don't do that, at least -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Wait till you get a little older. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: -- Catholics don't. You know, I can't talk for other people. I have no idea. MR. VANDEWERKEN: Okay. I appreciate your -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Just ignore what I said. I've taken too much sensitivity training, I think. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Patrick Miller. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way, how many speakers do we have registered? Four. It's now 4:02, so if anybody is here for the Land Development Code amendments, I'll poll the Board real quick. Are you-all thinking we're going to want to go past this hearing to hear LDC amendments, or do you want to put them off to next meeting? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I think we should put them off. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have no problem with it. You guys have been here longer than I have today. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'm married. I'm in no hurry to go home. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you care? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Doesn't matter one way or the other. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I heard someone say that there was not great urgency in addressing this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'm sorry to interrupt, to stop you here, Pat, but is anybody here for the LDC amendments beside county staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. We're going to come back next meeting for the LDC amendments, Jeremy. MR. MILLER: Thank you, Mr. Strain. May 3, 2018 Page 75 of 86 For the record, my name is Patrick Miller. I'm also a 50-year resident of Collier County. I have lived on Weber Boulevard in excess of 25 years, along with my wife. We've built three homes on that street. And, progressively, we've seen this street change. The traffic is getting -- you're talking about off-peak hours. Right now we've got five days a week of 60-mile-an-hour traffic going to the school, taking their kids to school. You ever seen parents when they're late going to school? They don't care what's on the road. They just keep going down the road. We've got the church. Now we've got two churches, we've got the school, everything. As for the traffic, talk about other areas, it used to be when you used to drive on Ridge Road from one end of Ridge Drive to the other end of Ridge Drive in Pine Ridge, the more affluent section, you could drive that just like you could drive Weber Boulevard, which is a two-mile straightaway. Funny, they've got stop signs at almost every other street in Pine Ridge, but we can't seem to get one or two stop signs on a two-mile straight. Okay. Not against God or churches, but it is an Estates area. There's nothing else -- you know, all the rest of the area around it is all single-family homes. All of them are nicely maintained. I would just like to see some things done, especially the lighting. I think there's something called Dark Skies. I want to make sure that they do that and not -- we're out there, we've got dark skies. We want to be able to see the stars at night. I know that's not everybody's choice, but that's why we moved out there 25 years ago, okay, because we didn't want to be in a subdivision and we didn't want to have neighbors two feet across the street from us, okay. So I'd like to see that. And then at the last minute the petitioner throws in -- I was at both of the neighborhood information meetings. They throw in this pastor's, or whatever you want to call it, residence all of a sudden. That was never ever presented to the neighborhood. So how do you come to this after two neighborhood meetings and then all of a sudden start changing the program? So does that open the door for other changes as we go down the road for the conditional use, the Land Development Code, you know, the master plan change? Just ask everybody to consider those things and see if you can help the neighborhood maintain it's Estates. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Pat, one thing that I'm aware of after being on this board for a long number of years, and I know you've been in town probably as long as I have, and I've been in our neighborhood longer than the fellow that stood up before you. So I know that this property has attempted changes on it for a couple different decades. MR. MILLER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know a former land-use attorney, Bruce Anderson, came in with one of them. Another person came in before that. When I was chairing the Master Plan Committee in the year 2000, we had people coming before us trying to change this corner and the corner across the street. Now, I've watched the county grow. I've been part of it on this board, and I've been concerned about how it's going to affect our neighborhood. I've been on this board trying to watch for our neighborhood continuously, but I've also had to have a practical eye because if things are going to change, what's the worst and what's the best? MR. MILLER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if I was looking at a change and I was those poor folks down on Palm and 41 who had a Racetrac pop up in front of their house, something that we never anticipated, I'd be real concerned. If they had a church pop up, maybe they wouldn't be so concerned because that's one of the more passive uses. I understand the traffic issue, but my concern is if we don't find a well-regulated church as an example for this location, what's going to happen when the mood swing changes politically at some point in the future for a six -- two six-lane roads coming together? And that's the piece I'm worried about. And I know you guys have got the Weber Boulevard stuff. I do, too. I have a church issue with that one. We have a church with a school going right next to it. So I've got similar issues. Stop signs would be a great thing for our neighborhoods. And now that it's been brought up, I would hope this board at some point before this finishes, either today or next time, recommends to the Board of County May 3, 2018 Page 76 of 86 Commissioners to seriously allow some stop signs on Weber Boulevard. MR. MILLER: And, as you said, I watched this county. I'm a banker. I've been a banker in this town for 40 years, so I contribute to the development, but I've also watched it grow properly in the areas, and I just like to see things (sic). I just want to make sure if the church goes in there, that -- okay, all of a sudden they're talking about farmers market, and, you know, that's not -- that's not a church. I mean, the other thing is I believe -- and I may be wrong, but I'll have to ask Mr. Hood, have they not had other -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll have to direct your questions to us. We'll deal with them. MR. MILLER: Okay. I'm sorry. I believe the church has had multiple sites in the county that they either sold or lost or whatever. So I'm asking why they keep playing "move the church." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They'll answer that during rebuttal. One thing I wanted to tell you is the reason that they talked about the special events is because I brought it up to them before the meeting because by code the churches -- because they're considered accessory now to churches, quite a few of the churches in the area have all kinds of special events. They're allowed to have I think it's 28 a year. So I suggested to them they look closely at how many they really needed and then sharpen their pencil and then this would now supersede the code, so this would actually be more restrictive than what they would have been allowed by right. MR. MILLER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's why it's here. That's the only reason it came up. Because if it didn't come up, silently, they'd end up with 28 days a year. MR. MILLER: Gotcha. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, sir. Next speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Renate S. Kelly. MS. KELLY: I am an old lady. Renate Kelly is my name. I live on Weber Boulevard South. We bought the home in 1996 moving from Crayton Road because of traffic out to the Estates where we could have wildlife and slower lifestyle. I couldn't -- Crayton Road I couldn't hardly get out of the driveway, and be damned if I can hardly go to the mailbox now without having my rear end chopped off. I mean, it's just getting ridiculous. And I want the church members to know I'm not against churches; against the traffic that's going to create. And they're saying only Sundays. Sundays is when the deer came around. So I don't know how they know, but there was less traffic, the deer came, and now on Sundays the deer can't come anymore. I mean, what the heck is going on? I'm disgusted by it all, really. Nobody takes us under consideration anymore. Thank you. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: The deer only come on Sundays? MS. KELLY: Yeah. Our deer only came on Sundays. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He's asking the question. That's Stan. MS. KELLY: Oh, I forgot, the lighting. I would like to see if lighting has to be done, like Jehovah's Witnesses they are real low. They're not high up. They're real low. They're on First Avenue Southwest, Jehovah's Witnesses, I like those lights, if there have to be lights. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Ma'am? MS. KELLY: Yeah. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Are you any relation to John Kelly? MS. KELLY: Yeah. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: My sympathies. MS. KELLY: Yeah. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, Stan, you lighten the day. Next speaker. May 3, 2018 Page 77 of 86 MR. BELLOWS: The final speaker is John Kelly. MS. KELLY: He's the quiet one. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Hi, John. How have you been? MR. KELLY: Fine, thank you. Good afternoon. John Kelly, for the record. I'm enjoying my day off from the county here so that I can voice my opinion. I've been a resident on Weber Boulevard South for just shy of 25 years. When I first purchased property on the street, it's because it was rural like, agricultural. I had a desire to maybe have horses and have a small ranchette. If taxes keep going up, I may end up being a goat farmer for an agricultural exemption, but don't tell my neighbors, please. But our primary concern is the traffic. So we already have Max Hasse Community Park on the end of First Avenue Southwest; we have Big Cypress Elementary school; Jehovah's Witness worship facility with two worship halls, not just one. They can have simultaneous activities there; and there's a failing church or failed church, Cypress Woods Presbyterian Church and Childcare Center. I believe that church has failed because you see very little activity. And that would have been an optimal location for this church to locate. As it is, the only use that we would really welcome is the pastor's residence. Like I said, it's the traffic caused by a church, not so much a church itself. The petitioner through public records, I have observed, did previously own property on Livingston Road at Learning Lane where they proposed a 500-seat church with a school facility and a pastor's residence. I'm concerned that they might outgrow this site in no time, in which case they'll be back before the Board or purchasing the residence to create a 10-acre parcel which would allow for a mega-church in the area here. And I believe this property is self-limiting due to access issues. So also, should you still be considering allowing a church, I would like to mention that it's somewhat misleading stating that the use of a church is allowable as a conditional use at this location because until such time as you approve an amendment to the Growth Management Plan, it is not. So I would ask that you look at this very carefully in not allowing the use to occur by allowing the Growth Management Plan amendment. And, lastly, I do have to agree if you do consider the church, the Jehovah's Witnesses have created a nice lighting plan, and I would encourage people to look at that. Thank you very much, Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: John, how long have you worked for the Planning Department; probably 25 years? MR. KELLY: I celebrated my 20-year anniversary several months ago. So been with planning for 18 years, code enforcement prior. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Pretty good. You see our point about how churches, generally, the traffic they generate is kind of off-peak hours. Do you not agree with that? MR. KELLY: It is off-peak hours; however, we have enough churches. Two already have our off-peak hours full. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah, you might be right. The thing about churches is just because you have a Catholic church and a Baptist church doesn't mean you have all the churches you need. You know, other religions have the right to -- MR. KELLY: Oh, I'm not -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: -- their churches. MR. KELLY: I'm arguing the traffic. I'm not arguing a church use at all. I was really hoping that I would be here speaking for a model home as a conditional use. Unfortunately, there's something of a much larger scale here. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I've always thought churches are, like Mark said, one of the lesser impactful uses for -- MR. KELLY: Perhaps, but I think some of these people, since this is the only Romanian church in about 150 miles, or so I've heard, some of these people are going to need to use the restroom when they get there, and they have quite a few -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Good point. May 3, 2018 Page 78 of 86 MR. KELLY: -- people that I think will be attending this church. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Thanks, John. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: John, before you leave, I have a couple questions. Since you've been here a long time, do you remember the Jehovah's Witnesses process coming through this board? MR. KELLY: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you remember they lost? MR. KELLY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you remember they got to the Board of County Commissioners, and what happened there? They lost. MR. KELLY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then what happened? They went to court, and what happened there? They won. MR. KELLY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because they won after denials, we couldn't attach stipulations and regulations to them like we can with this church here. So as a result, you've got a situation there where they're leasing out, they're doing things that now are more problematic to the neighborhood than trying to find an agreeable church that would come in and find -- and seek compromise to get to where they want to be. That has been my concern from day one, and I remember it because I participated in that other one that you are so -- that you mentioned right from the get-go. We tried to stop all that and we couldn't. MR. KELLY: I don't entirely disagree, but I believe by allowing the Growth Management Plan amendment to occur opens Pandora's box on that corner and also on the opposite side of Golden Gate Boulevard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you not think that box is going to be opened by the processes we have in front of us in the growth we're experiencing now? Because if you've been here as long as that, then you know the other attempts that have been for this corner, and you know why that house across the street was purchased and you know why it's not kept up to the highest standards possible; because the argument was then, and the argument will be again, well, what do you want as an entrance to your community? That rundown house, or do you want some kind of -- what they tried before was a retail or office center, both of which will give you more peak-hour traffic than the church will, and that's where I'm coming from, so... MR. KELLY: And that may be. And I would also point out that there is a Growth Management Plan amendment in the process, and I would very much like to see that Growth Management Plan reevaluation, excuse me. I would like to see that completed before we allow for -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was -- MR. KELLY: -- this amendment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- attempted by this group as well as two other groups. And unlike the year 2000 through 2002 when we had our other master planning committee, the current master replanning effort would not allow private groups to come into play with their efforts. So this group was turned down. They can't proceed that way. And so as a result they had to come back and do a private amendment, and that's why they're here today, so... MR. KELLY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Any other speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No other speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there anybody here who has not spoken that would like to speak? Go ahead. Everybody's done. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER EBERT: You know, it was funny, because when this came in, the first thing I did was went back to Mike Bosi, because I remember the one on Livingston. MR. HOOD: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER EBERT: What happened to that one? When you told me there isn't any, you had property on Livingston. MR. HOOD: I'm going to actually have Adrian speak to why that property is no longer there. MR. ROMAN: The question was, what happened to the property on Livingston? May 3, 2018 Page 79 of 86 COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah, because it was okayed on Livingston. MR. ROMAN: Yes. The church is a living organism just like we people are. And what happens is we started and got the approvals what is required for a church, just like we're doing now or in a different stage of the church body at the time. At the time when we were ready to build, just like happens. I heard it quite a few times in this county in other places there was a developer next to us that needed a corner, and they came and made us an offer for it. We took their offer, and we thought the initial offer that they had given success enough money to buy a new building here, another church. We were taking that to our board members and to the church and said, look, with this money we can afford to buy a church, and we were going to move forward and only give this offer up only if we go forward and buy a church so we don't have to go through the process of building a church. It's not easy for 100 people -- about 100 people to build a church with very limited financing. We thought at that time we were able to buy a church. There are no churches for sale in Collier County. That's why we're here. In my understanding, there's other petitions that you have from other churches coming in and trying to petition you to give them approval to build a church. I wish the case was for us to go to a church, buy a church, less headache on us, I'm sure less headache on you guys, and not be here at all. Unfortunately, we cannot find anything. We could not find anything. We're still looking, even to this point, as we went through this process to find a church for sale, and we can't. I wish we find one and move on and buy the church, everything's ready, we don't have any other headaches, and that chapter in our church history would be closed, but that's not the case. And I'm sorry. That's why we're here today. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I do remember the other one. Whom did you sell that to? You sold that to? MR. ROMAN: Well, we were on Livingston and Learning Lane -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. MR. ROMAN: -- next door to us, I believe they were -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Camden? MR. ROMAN: No. It's a group of other companies. They didn't tell us exactly what they were going to do, but my understanding through rumors is that they're going to do an ALF. They haven't done anything, developed anything, so don't quote me on that. I may be wrong. But they haven't told us why they need the property. COMMISSIONER EBERT: That's fine. MR. ROMAN: They just use it for their overall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you have anything else? COMMISSIONER EBERT: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane, anybody else have any questions? COMMISSIONER FRYER: No. MR. ROMAN: Just want to add to the record we're a Romanian church. We're about 92 members right now. We're asking for more seats than what we are right now. We're hoping to grow. Yes, there are other churches further away from where we are. But I wish people would drive 100 miles to come to our church or any other church that you talk to. They probably would love to have parishioners come from 100 miles away but, as we all know, that's not the case. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: So the map we saw where your people live, 26, that's families, but 92 people in 26 families? MR. ROMAN: About, roughly, and we have other visitors, but that's -- yeah. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. MR. ROMAN: Yeah, even from Lee County. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Fred, did you have any comments you wanted to make before May 3, 2018 Page 80 of 86 we -- MR. HOOD: Actually -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- discuss this? MR. HOOD: -- just really quickly, if you wouldn't mind, I'd just like to go over the changes that we were proposing so that we have them one more time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, why don't we start with your sheet number one, cleanup issues, so we can understand where we're at so next time we can come to a final decision, because I don't think there's enough clarity yet in what you've written. I need you to -- I think -- I'll start, and if you guys have anything, just jump in if I miss it. The No. 2 where you talk about 24,000 square feet, you did say 24,000 square feet at the NIM. You may want to consider that being inclusive of all structures on the site. So take that into consideration by the time you come back, and we'll discuss it further and see what that could evolve, because it was a good point that the pastor's residence is an additional 3,500 square feet was never mentioned in the NIM. MR. HOOD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under your accessories that are prohibitive, we need some of the outreach language in there. MR. HOOD: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number 5, leasing the church facility or property, I think we all understand what that means now. Number 8, lighting. Could you take a look, because you did say you would try to build to the Dark Sky standards in the NIM. Could you take a look -- we have a separate set of outdoor standards. Would you look at those and be prepared to discuss those against what you're asking for at the next meeting? MR. HOOD: Sure. And what Norm and I just discussed briefly was we would put the stipulation in that we would be Dark Skies compliant. So we're okay with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. I just -- because you didn't do it here, I thought there might be something that you've got a problem with, and I wanted to understand what that problem might be. MR. HOOD: Sure. MR. TREBILCOCK: Thank you. To that, I do lighting as well, so I'm a lighting expert. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You are? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you do the Jehovah's Witnesses at the end of First Street? MR. TREBILCOCK: No, I did not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you go down and look at them before you come back? MR. TREBILCOCK: No. What I can do is affirm for you and -- but I will, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. If they've got a successful lighting pattern, and obviously it works because they got permitted for it, and everything you know you get permitted for is right. So would you -- MR. TREBILCOCK: Yeah. That's no problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a little subtleness. I don't know if anybody got it. But would you mind going and checking that before you come back? Because it may mean we can do away with the 15-foot heights and you can look at bollard lighting. MR. TREBILCOCK: No. But what I would suggest, based on my experience of doing lighting for 28 years here in Collier County, what I was going to suggest is to do the Dark Sky compliant, have the 15-foot mounting height within 50 feet of residential structures, shield from residential. This would a criteria; full cut-off fixtures; and then we'd establish a 0.2 foot candles at the property line as a criteria, because you were saying about establishing lighting. And I also wouldn't preclude and say, you know, LED only, because it's just lighting. You establish standards, and that's it, because I've seen so many old PUDs that say you will have, you know, high-pressure sodium lights, you know, and that's not what we want anymore because they're not as -- so we don't say exactly what kind of light. But if we do these criteria I've just listed, that will meet and it will exceed what is currently out there in the Estates, but I'll also take a look at the other one. But the lighting for parking lots by following this May 3, 2018 Page 81 of 86 criteria will meet the needs of the community as well, based on my experience. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They've got bollard lighting or low-style lighting there, and it's working. I sure think that would be a somewhat reasonable consideration, especially since you've had at least two speakers mention that to you tonight, so... MR. TREBILCOCK: I'll definitely look at that but, again, there's, you know, different ways to skin the cat, obviously, and the criteria and, again, the recommendation to do Dark Sky, we agree with as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yep, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And, Fred, when we get back into the listing, under the palms clustered, you're going to indicate they're to be areca or paurotis? MR. HOOD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's, I think, all the notes I had. Let me make sure. Ned, did you -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes, I had the steeple. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, yeah. The steeple and the seven-foot for the -- I got that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And other appurtenances. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then the -- MR. HOOD: I'm sorry, just a second. On the actual height that is not for the steeple, we'd like to come back. And we want to take a look at it and come back and give you a number for that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. Just a point that you've got to come back for, and I think that's what -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then the parking spaces, you need to indicate those are locked in on what you showed in your plan. And after we get all that back -- we're going to hold off voting, and we'll continue until the next meeting. MR. HOOD: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then we'll make a decision then based on what you've provided to us. Now, in the meantime, I'm going to be talking to some people, let's say, above Mr. Sawyer's level to see if we can get some support for stop signs on Weber, and I'll let you know. I'll certainly bring that up for discussion, and I'll -- Pat, I'll probably call you and let you know what that evolves, so... MR. HOOD: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: You said you're going to go down one floor. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What? COMMISSIONER EBERT: You said you're going to go down one floor. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know where I'm going to go. I just want to make sure we're making every effort to try to -- I think that's -- the parking or the stop signs would be a very good idea and very helpful -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- so we'll see what we can do. And I don't have -- oh, and the controlled entry on Weber for right-in. MR. HOOD: I actually wanted to ask a question about that. So we're -- on that -- on that access we're talking about right-in only here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, pork chop. MR. HOOD: And right-out only there, or are you just saying -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just right-in total. You know, if it discourages people from going down First Avenue -- MR. HOOD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- I don't think that's a bad thing, and they'll figure out ways to get there, and the easiest way will become their routine. So think about that for next time. May 3, 2018 Page 82 of 86 MR. HOOD: Yeah, we'll take a look at it. MR. TREBILCOCK: I think the idea and the issues on Weber with the stop signs -- and I'm not trying to be contraire or anything, but it's an important public-safety issue to talk about stop signs. And what I've posted for you, this is from the Institute of Transportation Engineers. This is the transportation statements that are used Florida-wide regarding stop signs, and I just want to make it understood that, you know, your staff when you talk to them, they weren't trying to be contraire or contrite with you or anything. It's really understood and well -- and I'll provide this to each of you. But it's important to understand that we don't just place stop signs as a method to control folks, because they understood that. Drivers are smart, so I just want that to be clear to us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it's called discouragement. If you're going to drive down 951, six lanes of a straight shot at 50 miles an hour or you've got a choice to go over to Weber and go 50 miles an hour, but all of a sudden you've got two stop signs, you might think twice about going through Weber and taking the chance of getting a ticket or having someone ahead of you who's trying to obey the law and slow you down and stay on 951. MR. TREBILCOCK: You make a good point -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the point. MR. TREBILCOCK: -- that -- you're absolutely right that there needs to be measures put in place, and there are measures that can be put in place. But randomly putting stop signs that aren't warranted is not in the health, safety, welfare interest of the public. That's all. I'm not trying to -- I just want to provide to you that it's not something just from an individual staff member that's upset at you. It is a -- it's just an understood traffic engineering mode. That's all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike's not upset with me. He's shaking his head no. MR. TREBILCOCK: No, I know. But, no. What I mean is -- okay. All right. I'm good. Thank you. I just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you know, if I listened to everything -- well, unfortunately, we have listened to everything traffic engineers said. You know what, we've got Immokalee Road jammed up as the traffic -- as a parking lot from end to end, we've got Pine Ridge Road jammed up as a parking lot from end to end, and I've got a new request coming next week that says you want more traffic on Pine Ridge and it's okay, so -- MR. TREBILCOCK: There's recommendations that have been made that haven't been followed as a policy. But I'm with you. No. Thank you. I just felt it's important to understand that there is a public-interest issue. That's all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. The public interest is slowing the traffic down, and I think it can be -- MR. TREBILCOCK: I agree 110 percent with you. I'm just saying, stop signs aren't the answer. That's all. That there are other good measures. I agree with you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, if you've got any ideas -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: I asked that question about what other traffic-calming devices. I didn't hear anything. MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. In lieu of -- again, you know, a traffic control device that is effective for limiting speeds is a roundabout, and that's something that can have warrants -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, you've got to take property. You've got all kind of stuff to deal with. MR. TREBILCOCK: No. Again -- well, what I'm saying is you asked a device. Of course. No, I know. But I'm just saying that there are devices, that's all. And, you know, that's all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Whoa, don't talk roundabout to me. Go to Old 42 and watch the honking of the horns and people not knowing what's going on, and you can't get a semi through there. Not good. Not good. COMMISSIONER FRYER: If you want to get a fight, I know you've been involved in the City of Naples, but that is a hot point in the City of Naples. May 3, 2018 Page 83 of 86 MR. TREBILCOCK: You asked a question; I answered it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All right. MR. TREBILCOCK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any comments or questions to Fred at this point? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What I'd like to ask is if the Planning Commission would consider making a motion to continue Item PL20160002584 and PL201600025772. Ray? MR. BELLOWS: We were hoping for the June 7th meeting to give us time to reevaluate all the resubmitted packets instead of May 17th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do they lose their BCC date? COMMISSIONER FRYER: They do. MR. HOOD: Yes. MR. SABO: We'll do it on May 17th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's do it May 17th. We'll keep it on May 17th. It will be first up on May 17th. MR. HOOD: I appreciate that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So it would be 9 o'clock in the morning May 17th, first up. So if you-all want to come by and you want to be sure you can be back to work or something, it will be 9 o'clock in the morning, and all these details will be more itemized. Please get the package to James as fast as you can. And if anybody would like to read this before the meeting, James Sabo at the county will have a copy, or John Kelly will certainly have access to a copy. So we'll do our best to make sure we can talk about it then. MR. HOOD: One more thing, just really, really quickly, and I'll let you all go. Adrian just wanted me to just say -- speak to this right turn, the pork chop issue, because what we're talking about here is this access right here, and we're talking about doing a right-in only. We would be coming in right-in only from Golden Gate Boulevard. So are you -- what you're trying to do is preclude the traffic from going south on Weber? Is that what the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. MR. HOOD: I want to understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was more concerned about traffic going north on Weber just to make a left-in when they should go out 951 and make a right-in. At the same time, if they were to make a right-out on Golden Gate Boulevard, nothing's to prevent them from making another right-in on Weber to go south. So that's something -- maybe a pork shop or an island that would limit right-in and right-out on Weber. I'm more concerned about the left-in. That was my concern, because that's the new traffic. MR. HOOD: Coming north. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Exiting traffic is going to go south on Weber whether they get out at Golden Gate Boulevard or Weber, so it might be just as easy to leave it on Weber. That's all I'm -- so take a look at that. That's fine. It's the left-ins that I was concerned -- that takes 50 percent of the traffic coming to that church that would have used Weber and pushes them out on 951 where they belong. MR. HOOD: Yeah. And I think what we would probably suggest when we come back is a right-in, right-out situation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Take a look at it. MR. HOOD: Instead of just the right-out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Get together with Mr. Sawyer, please -- MR. SAWYER: We will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- because we want him to affirm Norm's smoke and mirrors when he comes back. MR. HOOD: Okay. Sounds good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. May 3, 2018 Page 84 of 86 COMMISSIONER FRYER: One more quick thing I'd like to ask. I don't know if it should go to Mike or to Ray, but a status report on us going electronic -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no. Let's finish -- we've got to make a motion. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Oh, I'm sorry. My mistake. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I read off both 9F and G. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Make that motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion? THE COURT REPORTER: One at a time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion to move it to May 17th. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I make the motion to continue. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made and seconded. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. It will be the 17th, first up. Thank you. MR. HOOD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, let me get to the rest of the agenda first. Is this new -- yeah, this is old business. MR. BELLOWS: Mr. Chairman, I think we need a normal continuance of 9H, the LDC amendments to a date certain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, you're right. I'm sorry. I thought -- 9H is a continuance of the LDC amendments. Anybody want to make that motion? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I make the motion to continue it to the May 17th meeting. That will be second one up? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, it will be last. The staff can sit. The public is our primary concern, so it will be the last one up. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. So 9H is continued. That takes us to new business. There's none listed, so we'll go right to old business. And, Ned, you -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: This is in no way to change the way that Diane and others that want to get paper get paper. But for those of us who are going to be out of town, a way of wirelessly getting large quantities of information to us -- and I know this was also a big point of Joe's, something that -- a file transfer protocol of some kind so that we can get that. I'm just looking for a status report. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike probably has it. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. May 3, 2018 Page 85 of 86 We met with Michael Cox, the custodian of the Accela system for the Board of County Commissioners, this past week. We're in the process of establishing that same type of system, agenda management system for the Planning Commission. We're at the very beginning. We will have an update soon, as soon as I get more specifics as to the status. But our first and primary goal is to try to get the agenda and adjacent packets available on the web for any individual member of the public, not just the Planning Commission, but any individual member, and then we're going to start with a review process internally. But we are at the discussion point with the right technical people, and we're -- hopefully by next -- the next Planning Commission I can provide you another update. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, my needs will be met if it's handled the way the County Commission is handled; five or six days beforehand I have access to it. That's all I need. MR. BOSI: That's the intention. We want to provide it to you, and we also want to provide it to all of the public -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Indeed. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER FRYER: So moved. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Make a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Ned, seconded by Diane. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're out of here. May 3, 2018 Page 86 of 86 ******* There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:40 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION _____________________________________ MARK STRAIN, CHAIRMAN ATTEST DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on ____________, as presented _______ or as corrected _______. TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. Coibei -r County SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) FROM: GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT ZONING DIVISION -ZONING SERVICES SECTION HEARING DATE: JUNE 7, 2018 SUBJECT: PETITION PE-PL20170002684, 3106 TAMIAMI TRAIL NORTH PARKING EXEMPTION PROPERTY OWNER/ AGENTS: Applicant Owner: Sandbanks LLC 700 Old Trail Drive Naples, FL 34103 REOUESTED ACTION: Agent: Frederick E Hood, AICP Davidson Engineering, Inc. 4365 Radio Road, Suite 201 Naples, FL 34104 The applicant seeks approval for a Parking Exemption Application (PE) to permit off-site parking for the subject parcel, which is zoned C-4, General Commercial, and allow for parking on an abutting and contiguous parcel directly east of the subject property, which is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single Family. The parking area is referred to as off-site because it is located on abutting residentially zoned parcels. However, the project area is one contiguous site. The requested PE seeks to repeal the previous parking exemption that was approved under Resolution 2009-152 by the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA). The proposed parking exemption would permit additional parking area for a proposed new retail building at 3106 Tamiami Trail North and the existing Mr. Tequila restaurant. Additionally, the applicant has concurrently applied for an Administrative Parking Reduction (APR), APR PL20180000263 related to this site. SUPPLEMENTAL ANALYSIS: The application was continued to the June 7, 2018 hearing from the May 17, 2018, April 5, 2018 and March 1, 2018 CCPC hearings. Page 1 of 8 ver.5.28.18 At the April 5`h hearing, the CCPC requested additional information regarding project details, including information related to the use of the proposed 17,000 square foot building, parking demand, location of parking spaces, emergency access from Rosemary Lane, trash enclosure location, landscape buffers, and site lighting. The Zoning Division compiled a list of the additional information requested by the Planning Commission and provided it to the agent. The response to the information requested at the April 5, 2018 meeting by the CCPC has been provided to the Zoning Division by the agent, including a revised parking calculation and a revised conceptual site plan. The back-up material packet for the May 17, 2018 CCPC public hearing was delivered late and was included as part of the May 17, 2018 CCPC Agenda Packet. Following the continuance of the May 171 CCPC hearing, the agent provided updated (Parking Exemption Area Conditions of Approval) and an updated (Conceptual Site Plan). They are included as Attachment A and B. The back-up CCPC packet materials for the May 17, 2018 hearing contains the following information, which was requested by the CCPC: 1. Revised Conceptual Site Plan 2. North Collier Fire District Dead End Waiver 3. Parking Demand Analysis, Trebilcock Engineering 4. Traffic Evaluation Report, Trebilcock Engineering 5. Revisions required by CCPC at April 5, 2018 meeting 6. Proposed Parking Exemption Conditions of Approval by Applicant 7. Original application form. The information requested by the CCPC at the April 5, 2018 hearing and the applicant response is listed here: 1. A revised narrative to reflect how much of the proposed 17,000 square feet is going to be office as the parking rate calculation is for a shopping center use. Applicant Response: Due to the conceptual nature of the project redevelopment, an approximation of office space square footage, to be provided within the proposed shopping center, cannot be provided Trebilcock Planning and Engineering has been engaged to provide a parking demand analysis and traffic evaluation report based on using the LDC requirements for the "Shopping Center" land use. The parking demand analysis was evaluated to determine parking adequacy using two methods: The Collier County LDC parking criteria and the ITE Manual (, both using Shopping Centers for evaluation purposes. Per the conclusion of the analysis, it is determined that the proposed parking lot layout exceeds the overall maximum peak hour parking demand for the project. The traffic evaluation report was assessed based on the land uses illustrated in the ITE Manual, 10'" Edition, using Land Use Code 820 — Shopping Center. Per the ITE Manual, shopping centers may contain restaurants among other uses and the ITE traffic data includes their effects. Based on the results of this traffic evaluation report, from a traffic stand point, the Page 2 of 8 ver.5.28.18 proposed redevelopment scenario is less intensive when compared to the approved development parameters. Additionally, the US 41 connection closure is in agreement with current FDOT standards and it provides for increased traffic capacity and safe traffic operations. Zoning Division Response. The applicant states they "cannot" provide an approximate calculation for floor area dedicated to office use. A reasonable assumption is that 20 percent or 3,400 square feet of the floor area will be dedicated to office use. 2. A request from the CCPC to retain the staff conditions of approval from the original report, unless there is an objection. Applicant Response: Request is unclear. Please clarify. Zoning Division Response: The applicant presented their proposed conditions of approval at the April 5, 2018 meeting, which differ from staff recommended conditions. At the April 5`s hearing, the CCPC suggested edits to the applicant's proposed conditions. The applicant's revisions are presented here. The Zoning Division staff recommendation is based on the applicant's proposed revised conditions of approval and Zoning Division amendments. 3. Provide an analysis to tie the PE and APR together How did you get to 98 spaces as the bottom line? Applicant Response: Please refer to the Parking Demand Analysis, prepared by Trebilcock Engineering and Planning. Per the conclusion of this analysis, it is determined that the proposed parking lot layout exceeds the overall maximum peak hour parking demand for the project. Zoning Division Response. The Parking Demand Analysis supports a different number for required parking demand The PE number has been modified based on the relocation of the trash enclosure. The total parking demand is based on shopping center use, however, adding office use would alter the parking demand 4. Emergency access for Rosemary Lane? Only a small hedge for fire truck emergency vehicle access they can drive over it? Applicant Response. Per coordination with the North Collier Fire District, the emergency access to the site (off of Rosemary Lane) has been removed Please see the attached Conceptual Site Plan. Zoning Division Response: Acceptable 5. Revise Master Concept Plan document, loading zones and trash enclosures need to be removed from PE. Applicant Response: The Master Concept Plan has been updated to remove the loading zone from the Parking Exemption area. Page 3 of 8 ver.5.28.18 Zoning Division Response: Trash enclosure and loading zone were removed from PE area. 6. Strike #10 and #11 from Davidson revisions... Response: The updated Conditions of Approval reflect the removal of #10 and #11. Zoning Division Response: Removed, acceptable. 7. Dark sky compliant, remove 10 ft light poles and replace with bollards down washing sconces. If light poles are used, place in east asphalt strip facing C-4 and away from houses. Response: Please see the Condition #'s 5 & 6, updated to include language regarding the light poles within, and outside, the Parking Exemption area. Zoning Division Response. Condition 5 has been revised to 42 -inch maximum height, however, location of the proposed light poles is not specified in the east asphalt strip. Not compliant with CCPC request. After speaking with applicant directly, they continue to propose the light poles at the east side of the PE area and directed away from the neighboring residential properties with pedestrian safety as their rationale. For Condition 6, the light poles are proposed in the C- 4 zoned parking area and permitted by LDC. 8. Portray type D buffer on plan and illustrate to show vegetation being used. Response: Renderings to illustrate the project's proposed vegetation will be shown at the CCPC hearing. Identifying LDC required buffer planting standards is redundant when we are not proposing an alternative buffer planting plan. Zoning Division Response: An illustrative rendering at the CCPC hearing is acceptable 9. Neighbors are asking for an 8 ft wall. Response: Please see Condition #7, updated to require an 8 -foot wall. Zoning Division Response: An 8 -foot wall is identified for the entire boundary between the PE area and the adjacent and abutting residentially zoned lots. The proposal is acceptable. 10. Also, the parking calculation before project, for the (approved project), and proposed 1 - story project, and the differences. Information is not required but requested by the chair. Response: Please refer to the Traffic Evaluation Report, analyzing the differences between the approved vs. proposed projects. The Traffic Evaluation Report provided by the applicant indicates that the proposed one-story redevelopment scenario is less intensive than the approved 5 -story office and commercial use that was approved in 2009. The parking calculation table is provided here. Page 4 of 8 ver.5.28.18 Parking Calculations Section 4.05.04(G) Table 17, 4.05.06, and 4.05.07 Shopping Center (SC) 20% Restaurant: < 400,000 sf gross floor area = 21,629 GSFA @ 1 space per 250 sf floor area Proposed Building Area = 17,128 Square Feet 68.5 spaces Restaurant Floor Area = 4,501 Square Feet (20% of SC) 18.0 spaces Shopping Center (SC) More than 20% Restaurant: (Section 4.05.04(G), No more than 20% ofshopping centerjloor area composed of restaurant w/o providing additional parking for area over 20016) Restaurant Floor Area = 876 Square Feet (>20% of SC) 876 sf/60 sf = 14.6 spaces 33 seats/2 = 16.5 spaces 16.5 spaces Loading Spaces: 3 loading spaces required 3 spaces Handicap Accessible Spaces: 4 spaces required 1 4 spaces Total Parking Required 103 spaces Total Parking Provided 100 spaces Transportation Evaluation Review: The project is consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan, which states, "The County Commission shall review all rezone petitions, SRA designation applications, conditional use petitions, and proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) affecting the overall countywide density or intensity of permissible development, with consideration of their impact on the overall County transportation system, and shall not approve any petition or application that would directly access a deficient roadway segment as identified in the current AUIR or if it impacts an adjacent roadway segment that is deficient as identified in the current AUIR, or which significantly impacts a roadway segment or adjacent roadway segment that is currently operating and/or is projected to operate below an adopted Level of Service Standard within the five year AUIR planning period, unless specific mitigating stipulations are Page 5 of 8 ver.5.28.18 also approved. A petition or application has significant impacts if the traffic impact statement reveals that any of the following occur: a. For links (roadway segments) directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; b. For links adjacent to links directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; and c. For all other links the project traffic is considered to be significant up to the point where it is equal to or exceeds 3% of the adopted LOS standard service volume. Mitigating stipulations shall be based upon a mitigation plan prepared by the applicant and submitted as part of the traffic impact statement that addresses the project's significant impacts on all roadways. " The proposed Parking Exemption Request does not normally include the agent submitted Traffic Evaluation Report. Additionally, the GMP provisions above do not specifically cover this type of zoning request, however the policy does include..." or intensity of permissible development" which this request is intended to address. Therefore, staff is providing the following: The proposed Parking Exemption Request will according to the Transportation Evaluation provided generate a projected total of+/- 119 PM peak hour, 2 -way trips for the proposed facility on the adjacent roadway, Tamiami Trail North (US 41). This represents a net reduction of (2) PM peak hour trips when compared to the currently approved facility. There is adequate capacity on US 41 to accommodate the proposed development. Therefore, the subject Parking Exemption Request can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan, and as noted above the adjacent roadway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate this project within the 5 -year planning period. Zoning Review: The applicant has revised their Narrative Statement and it has been included in the back-up materials packet information. Regarding the site changes, the applicant has submitted a revised conceptual site plan. The proposed trash enclosure has been relocated to the southwest portion of the site adjacent to the North Trail (U.S. 41). The loading zone has been relocated near the restaurant entry. It should be noted that the applicant has also amended their Administrative Parking Reduction to seek an overall parking reduction of 3.0% for the proposed shopping plaza use. The previous APR request was 13.67% for the proposed shopping plaza reducing the number from 114 spaces to 98 spaces. The Trebilcock Engineering report provided the basis for the change to the original APR application. As detailed in the original Zoning Division report for the March 1, 2018, the applicant requests to repeal of the Board of Zoning Appeals Resolution 2009-152. The applicant has included their proposed conditions of approval as noted above. The applicant's conditions are included in the back-up materials. Page 6 of 8 ver.5.28.18 The current applicant request is for the CCPC to approve the Parking Exemption application PE PL20170002684 and the Zoning Division approval of the Administrative Parking Reduction application APR P1,20180000263. The Zoning Division staff recommendation has been changed from the original recommendation in the March 1, 2018 Staff Report. The revised recommendation is based on the discussion at the April 5, 2018 CCPC hearing and discussions with the applicant. The recommendation is based partly on the proposed conditions of approval presented by the applicant with strikethrough revisions by Zoning staff. RECOMMENDATION: The Zoning Division recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) forward Petition PE-PL20170002684 to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) with a recommendation of approval subject to: [strike through and underline of the applicant's proposed conditions] Any Administrative Parking Reduction may not reduce the minimum required parking for property shown on the conceptual site plan below 100 spaces; and 2. The Parking Exemption area is limited to lots 14, 53, and 55 of the Rosemary Heights Addition subdivision as shown on the "Sandbanks Redevelopment Conceptual Site Plan" prepared by Davidson Engineering. The plan is conceptual only and utilized for Parking Exemption approval only. Final site design and development plans shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and county laws and regulations; and 3. The Parking Exemption is limited to a maximum of 25 parking spaces and shall be restricted for use by proposed concept building and Mr. Tequila restaurant only; and 4. The Parking Exemption area is limited to improvements shown on the attached Site Plan, attached as Exhibit B to this Resolution and improvements identified on this Exhibit C. This area shall be restricted for use by only the proposed buildings shown on the Site Plan, attached as Exhibit B to this Resolution; and 5. The Parking: within the Parking: Exemption area will be onlv naved surface narking, and 6. The use of the Parking Exemption area for parking will be restricted to normal retail business hours of operation. Signage will be posted restricting the parking exemption spaces to hours of use between 7:00 AM and 10:00 PM; and 7. Parking Exemption Area Lighting — Parkin lot of lighting within the Parking Exemption Area will be restricted to light fixtures having an overall height no greater than 42 inches and shall be restricted to operating in the Parking Exemption Area between the hours of 6:30 AM and 10:30 PM. 8. Pole Lighting (no hieher than 10 feet in heiWit) fiqr4he saif-e- of the dr-i,,,e aisle (within the Par4cine Eiiewintien Area) is vefmioed. Site lieMine shall be Dark Sides �ireEtinE all Page 7 of 8 ver.5.28.18 C-4 Area Lighting (adjacent to Parking Exemption Area) — Lighting provided at the rear of any building and structure and adjacent to the parking exemption area or adjacent to lots 57, 59 and 16 4-8 of the Rosemaa Heights Subdivision (recorded in Plat Books 1 & 2, Pages 78 & 83, respectively of the Public Records of Collier County) shall be in the form of shielded structure mounted wall packs. These shielded fixtures shall be placed no higher than 10 -feet measured from finished floor of the building or structure. 10. C-4 Pole Lighting at the rear of any building or structure and adiacent to the Parking Exemption area (no higher than 10 -feet in height) shall be Dark Skies compliant and installed to protect neighboring properties from directlag re by directing all light sources away from adjacent residential properties. Site lighting shall be provided with full cutoff shielding and not exceeding 0.2 foot-candles at the shared property line(s), and restricted to operating between the hours of 6:30 AM — 10:30 PM, and 11. An 8 -foot precast concrete composite fencing materials concrete masonry, or brick wall shall be provided and located a minimum of 6 feet from the common property line adjacent to lots 57 59 and 16 4-8 of the Rosemary Heights Subdivision (recorded in Plat Books 1 & 2 Pages 78 & 83 respectively of the Public Records of Collier County); within a 15 -foot wide Collier County LDC Type B Landscape Buffer: and 12. There shall be no direct access from the adjacent streets to the parking exemption area. Access to this parking area shall be via the commercially zoned property. PREPARED BY: C. James Sabo, AICP Principal Planner, Zoning Division Growth Management Department ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A. Applicant Parking Exemption Conditions of Approval, dated 5/29/18 Attachment B. Revised Conceptual Site Plan, dated 5/29/18 Page 8 of 8 ver.5.28.18 Attachment A. (Applicant's Conditions of Approval, 5/29/18) PARKING EXEMPTION AREA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The Parking Exemption area is limited to lots 14, 53, and 55 of the Rosemary Heights Addition subdivision as shown on the "Sandbanks Redevelopment Conceptual Site Plan" prepared by Davidson Engineering. The plan is conceptual only and utilized for Parking Exemption approval only. Final site design and development plans shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and county laws and regulations; and 2. The Parking Exemption area is limited to improvements shown on the attached Site Plan attached as Exhibit B to this Resolution and identified on this Exhibit C. This area shall be restricted for use by only the proposed buildings shown on the Site Plan. attached as Exhibit B to this Resolution: and 3. The Parking within the Parking Exemption area will be only paved surface parking; and 4. The use of the Parking Exemption area for parking will be restricted to normal retail business hours of operation Signage will be posted restricting the parking exemption spaces to hours of use between 7:00 AM and 10:00 PM: and 5. Parking Exemption Area Lighting — Parking lot lighting within the Parking Exemption Area will be restricted to light fixtures having an overall height no greater than 42 inches and shall be restricted to operating in the Parking Exemption Area between the hours of 6:30 AM and 10:30 PM Pole Lighting (no higher than 10 -feet in height) for the safe illumination of the drive aisle (within the Parking Exemption Areal is permitted. Site lighting shall be Dark Skies compliant and installed to Protect neighboring properties from direct glare by directing all light sources away from adjacent residential properties Site lighting shall be provided adjacent to the parking spaces and / or drive aisle, with full cutoff shielding and not exceeding 0.2 foot-candles at the shared property line(s) and restricted to operating between the hours of 6:30 AM —10:30 PM: and 6. C-4 Area Lighting (adjacent to Parking Exemption Area) — Lighting provided at the rear of any building and structure and adjacent to the parking exemption area or adjacent to lots 57. 59 and 18 of the Rosemary Heights Subdivision (recorded in Plat Books 1 & 2. Pages 78 & 83, respectively of the Public Records of Collier County) shall be in the form of shielded structure mounted wall packs These shielded fixtures shall be placed no higher than 10 -feet measured from finished floor of the building or structure. Pole Lighting at the rear of any building or structure and adjacent to the Parking Exemption area (no higher than 10 -feet in height) shall be Dark Skies compliant and installed to protect neighboring properties from direct glare by directing all light sources away from adjacent residential properties. Site lighting shall be provided with full cutoff shielding and not exceeding 0.2 foot-candles at the _shared property line(s), and restricted to operating between the hours of 6:30 AM —10:30 PM: and An 8 -foot precast concrete, composite fencing materials, concrete masonry, or brick wall shall be provided and located a minimum of 6 feet from the common property line adjacent to lots 57, 59 and 18 of the Rosemary Heights Subdivision (recorded in Plat Books 1 & 2, Pages 78 & 83, respectively of the Public Records of Collier Countyl: within a 1S -foot wide Collier County LDC Type B Landscape Buffer: and 8. There shall be no direct access from the adjacent streets to the parking exemption area. Access to this parking area shall be via the commercially zoned property. Attachment B NV1d MM Wnld3ONOO _ 43SIM39-G.MAHOVJ VV Ta W m nnraont N - 61�swa m g irv3WdOTdA3p3tl SNNVBDN1s� SIG �.- wqt a I EAST 25' OF 18 i (Ej, c-- -- -- WEST 25' w o U I OF18 - I cz z�WI [z < o " ' F 111 R;I -------------J (AVM-d0-1H0IH Dn3nd) IVAVMHDIH s'n) HiMON INNI IPMnVI ie m Onz 1w'4_ IIVM H. IM U3d3f19 Swrc°G I Z _ 1 3 3dVOSONb 19 3dAl .5 w 0 4 6 I � Z�Z i U J JJJ — iI a r IIVM HlIM iJ3ddf19 ' 9 = OSONVl9 A1.91 I I I 'LL Z. _,i ., � I O INO H O eV 111 R;I -------------J (AVM-d0-1H0IH Dn3nd) IVAVMHDIH s'n) HiMON INNI IPMnVI o i �Zn 0 w N 0 K N 1w'4_ Iw m _ 1 3 I w II 4 6 I I j Z�Z i U J JJJ I ^c r I 2 I a ig o i �Zn 0 w N 0 K N AGENDA ITEM 9-D - _ M[1d n«lenLH ORDINANCE NO. 2018 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2004-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM A RURAL AGRICULTURAL (A) ZONING DISTRICT WITHIN THE ST/W4 OVERLAY TO A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (RPUD) ZONING DISTRICT WITHIN THE ST/W-4 OVERLAY, TO ALLOW FOR DEVELOPMENT OF UP TO 148 SINGLE FAMILY, TWO FAMILY AND/OR MULTI -FAMILY DWELLING UNITS FOR A PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS 951 VILLAS RPUD; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY CONSISTING OF 37.5 ACRES IS LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF COLLIER BOULEVARD APPROXIMATELY Vz MILE NORTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD AND COLLIER BOULEVARD, IN SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. [PL201700035351 WHEREAS, Naples Jewish Community Fund, Inc., represented by Alexis Crespo, AICP of Waldrop Engineering, petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to change the zoning classification of the herein described real property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SECTION ONE: The zoning classification of the herein described real property located in Section 35, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, is changed from a Rural Agricultural (A) Zoning District within the ST/W4 Overlay to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) Zoning District within the ST/W-4 Overlay to allow for development of up to 148 single family, two family and/or multi -family dwelling units to be known as 951Villas RPUD, in accordance with Exhibits A through F attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. The appropriate zoning atlas map or maps, as described in Ordinance Number 200441, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, is/are hereby amended accordingly. [ 17 -CPS -01738/1391325/1133 Naples Vilim/PL20170003535 1/29/18 Page 1 of 2 SECTION TWO: This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super -majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this day of 2018. ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK M Deputy Clerk Approved as to form and legality: Heidi Ashton-Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney Exhibit A: Permitted Uses Exhibit B: Development Standards Exhibit C: Master Plan Exhibit D: Legal Description Exhibit E: Requested Deviations from LDC Exhibit F: Developer Commitments (17 -CPS -01738/1391325/1133 Naples Villas/PL20170003535 129/18 Page 2 of 2 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: ANDY SOLIS, Chairman EXHIBIT "A" LIST OF PERMITTED USES 951 VILLAS RPUD Regulations for development of this PUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this document and all applicable sections of the Growth Management Plan (GMD), the Land Development Code (LDC), and the Administrative Code in effect at the time of approval of the first Site Development Plan (SDP) or plat. Where the PUD ordinance does not provide development standards, then the provision of the specific sections of the LDC that are otherwise applicable shall apply. A maximum of 148 dwelling units shall be permitted in this PUD. No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or in part, for other than the following: RESIDENTIAL TRACTS A. Principal Uses: 1. Single-family detached dwelling units. 2. Two-family dwelling units. 3. Townhouses. 4. Multi -family dwelling units. B. Accessory Uses: Accessory uses customarily associated with Permitted Principal Uses, including but not limited to: 1. Customary accessory uses and structures including carports, garages, and utility buildings. 2. Temporary sales trailers and model units. 3. Essential services, including interim and permanent utility and maintenance facilities. 4. Water management facilities. 5. Walls, berms and signs. 6. Passive open space uses and structures, including, but not limited to landscaped areas, gazebos, park benches, and walking trails. Any other accessory use and related use that is determined to be comparable to the foregoing by the Board of Zoning Appeals, or Hearing Examiner, pursuant to the process outlined in the Land Development Code (LDC). II. RECREATION TRACT A. Principal Uses and Structures: Recreational uses and facilities including swimming pools, tennis courts, volleyball courts, fishing docks, walking paths, picnic areas, recreation buildings, and basketball/shuffle board courts. 951 Villas RPUD - RUDZ-PL20170003535 Last Revised: April 2, 2018 Page 1 of 10 2. Passive open space uses and structures, including, but not limited to landscaped areas, gazebos, park benches, and walking trails. B. Accessory Uses and Structures: Accessory uses customarily associated with Permitted Principal Uses, and any other accessory use and related use that is determined to be comparable to customary accessory uses by the Board of Zoning Appeals or Hearing Examiner pursuant to the process outlined in the Land Development Code (LDC). III. PRESERVE TRACT A. Principal Use: Preserves. B. Accessory Uses: Allowable uses only as allowed by LDC section "Allowable uses within County required preserves". 951 Milos RPUD — PUDZ-PL20170003535 Last Revised: April 2, 201 B Page 2 of 10 EXHIBIT 'B' DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 951 VILLAS RPUD The standards for land uses within the development shall be as stated in these development standard tables. Standards not specifically set forth herein shall be those specified in applicable sections of the LDC in effect as of the date of approval of the SDP or subdivision plat. Guardhouses, gatehouses, access control structures, clock towers, columns, decorative hordscaping or architectural embellishments associated with the project's entrance are permitted and shall have no required setbacks; however, such structures cannot be located where they create sight distance issues for motorists and pedestrians, and cannot exceed 35 feet in actual height. TABLE I RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS PERMITTED USES Single -Family Two -Family Townhouse Multi -Family Clubhouse/ AND STANDARDS Detached Recreation Buildings Min. Lot Area 3,500 SF 2,500 SF 2,000 SF N/A N/A Min. Lot Width 35' 25' 20' N/A N/A Min. Lot Depth 100' 100' 100' N/A N/A SETBACKS Front Yord0i 15'm131 15'm131 151R1 151(2) 15'(2) Side Yard 5' 075' 075' 10' 10' Rear Yard 7.5' 7.5' 7.5' 10' 10' (Principal)(') Rear Yard 5' S' S' S' S' (Accessory) 0t Preserve 25' 25' 25' 25' 25' (Principal) Preserve 10' 10' 10' 10' 10' (Accessory) Min. Distance Between Principal 10' 10' 10' 15' 10' Structures Maximum Height Actual 45' 45' 45' 45' S5' Zoned 35' 35' 35' 35' 45' (i) Front setback is measured from the edge of pavement or back of curb. (2) Front-loading/front-entry garages shall be setback a minimum of 23' from the back of sidewalk. (3) Corner lots shall provide one (1) front yard setback within the yard that contains the driveway/vehicular access to the dwelling unit. The secondary front yard that does not contain the driveway/vehicular access to the dwelling unit shall provide a minimum 10' setback to the edge of pavement or back of curb. (4) 0' principal and accessory setbacks are permitted from lake maintenance easements and landscape buffer easements, which shall be separate platted tracts or tracts on the PPL/SDP. 951 Villas RPUD - PUDZ-PL20170003535 Last Revised: April 2, 2018 Page 3 of 10 GENERAL: Except as provided for herein, all criteria set forth below shall be understood to be in relation to individual parcel or lot boundary lines, or between structures. Condominium, and/or homeowners' association boundaries shall not be utilized for determining development standards. Landscape buffers and lake maintenance easements shall be platted as separate tracts at time of subdivision plat approval. Note: Nothing in this PUD document shall be deemed to approve a deviation from the LDC unless it is expressly stated in a list of deviations. 951 MiIlas RPUD - PUDZ-PL20170003535 Last Revised: April 2, 2010 Page 4 of 10 Exhibit C FLU: URBAN RESIDENTIAL SUB -DISTRICT ZONING: PUD EXISTING LAND USE: TOWNHOUSE (BRISTOL PINES) MARKER 0'r...y�.. VEHICULAR SIGN u� FLU: URBAN RESIDENTIAL TEMPORARY I RESIDENTIAL ZONING: PUD — — CONSTRUCTION ZONING: PUD P ACCESS/ I I USE:MULTI-FAMILY PERMANENT BICYCLE/ l p PEDESTRIAN 'r CONNECTION I It IXPnnlvGwly 11? W I m_ I0,IIzI� Iw� Ic�iII�IU Im3_ �I III I v Iii R It &L5 Lu I ILII Al PEDA CEIAN,SS I U II I E0 I I � I PERMANENTS I / 0'r...y�.. VEHICULAR ACCESS u� FLU: URBAN RESIDENTIAL FLU: URBAN SUB -DISTRICT RESIDENTIAL ZONING: PUD SUB -DISTRICT tl ZONING: PUD P EXISTING LAND- MULTI -FAMILY USE:MULTI-FAMILY (VANDERBILT COUNTRY (SUMMIT PLACE) p MARKER SIGN OPTIONAL IV R —„a NORTH SCALE: V-300 10.0' FPL EASEMENT j (OR 884 PG 87), FLU: URBAN RESIDENTIAL SUB-0ISTRICT ZONING: PUD EXISTING LAND USE: PRESERVE AND TOWNHOUSE (BRISTOL PINES) FLU: URBAN RESIDENTIAL SUB -DISTRICT ZONING: PUD EXISTING LAND USE: GOLF COURSE (VANDERBILT COUNTRY CLUB) LEGEND XPReSE u� FLU: URBAN RESIDENTIAL R SUB -DISTRICT RECD ZONING: PUD - W3AWI - .. EXISTING LAND USE: p .. RIGHT-OF-WAY AND MULTI -FAMILY ..,. ..: (VANDERBILT COUNTRY _ CLUB) FLU: URBAN RESIDENTIAL SUB -DISTRICT ZONING: PUD EXISTING LAND USE: GOLF COURSE (VANDERBILT COUNTRY CLUB) I PLAN REVISIONS REV00--M 1 17 '® a �Q oYgEHB REVISED PER COUNTY COMMENTS 951 VILLAS RPUD ENGINEERING i ® 04107HS REVISED PER COUNTY COMMENTS CLIENT: TOLL FL XIII UNITED PARTNERSHIP I PUD MASTER PLAN NOTES LEGEND ® u� R RECD p R I PLAN REVISIONS REV00--M 1 17 '® a �Q oYgEHB REVISED PER COUNTY COMMENTS 951 VILLAS RPUD ENGINEERING i ® 04107HS REVISED PER COUNTY COMMENTS CLIENT: TOLL FL XIII UNITED PARTNERSHIP I PUD MASTER PLAN NOTES LAND USE SUMMARY ACREAGE ACREAGE PERCENT OF TOTAL ACREAGE RESIDENTIAL 13.4 35% RIGHT -OF -WAV 4.1 11% RECREATION 1.5 ♦% LAKE 4.0 10% PRESERVE 7.3 20% SUFFERS 0.9 34 RESIDENTIAL-OPEN SPACE 8.3 17% TOTALAREA 37.5 100% OPEN SPACE SUMMARY ACREAGE PERCENT OF TOTAL ACREAGE OPEN SPACE REQUIRED 22.5 60% RECREATION/ RIGHT -OF -WAV 10 10% LAKE 4.0 10% PRESERVE 7.3 20% BUFFERS 0.9 3% RESIDENTIAL - OPEN SPACE 6.3 17% OPEN SPACE PROVIDED 22.5 60% I GENERAL NOTES l 1. 7.3 ACRES OF REQUIRED PRESERVE WILL BE PROVIDED ONSITE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LDC SEC. 3.05.07129.1 AC • 25%= 7.3 AC). 2. A MAXIMUM OF 1/6 DU. GROSS DENSITY OF 4 DUTACRE IS PERMITTED 3. LME - LAKE MAINTENANCE EASEMENT I. PRESERVES MAY BE USED TO SATISFY THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER REQUIREMENTS AFTER EXOTIC VEGETATION REMOVAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH LDC SECTIONS 4.06.02 AND 4.06.06.E.1. SUPPLEMENTAL PLANTINGS WITH NATIVE PLANT MATERIALS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LDC SECTION 3.05.07. 5. FENCES AND WALLS ARE PERMITTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LDC SECTION 3.05.07.H 02/05/16REVISED PER COUNTY COMMENTS 951 VILLAS RPUD 0!/02/10 REVISED PER COUNTY COMMENTS CLIENT TOLL FL XIII LIMITED PARTNERSHIP PUD MASTER PLAN NOTES EXHIBIT "D" LEGAL DESCRIPTION 951 VILLAS RPUD DESCRIPTION PARCEL ONE (OR 3935 PG 1717) THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; LESS AND EXCEPT THE WEST 100 FEET THEREOF. DESCRIPTION PARCEL TWO (OR 3936 PG 0123) THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; LESS THE WEST 100 FEET THEREOF; AND THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. DESCRIPTION PARCEL THREE (OR 3936 PG 0084) THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 AND THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 AND THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH; RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. DESCRIPTION PARCEL FOUR (OR 3936 PG 0033) THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; A/K/A THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE WEST 1/2 OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE SW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; LESS AND EXCEPTING COLLIER BLVD. RIGHT OF WAY 951 Villas RPUD — PUDZ-PL20170003535 Last Revised: April 2, 2018 Page 7 of 10 EXHIBIT 'E' LIST OF REQUESTED DEVIATIONS FROM LDC 951 VILLAS RPUD Deviation 1: Deviation from LDC Section 4.05.04.G, which allows parking spaces for recreation facilities for multi -family dwelling units to be computed at 25 percent of the normal requirements where a majority of the dwelling units are within 300 feet of the recreation facilities, to allow the parking spaces for the recreation facilities for multi -family dwelling units to be computed at 25 percent where the majority of dwelling units are within 1,000 feet of the recreation facilifies. Deviation 2: Deviation from LDC Section 4.06.02.C, which requires a 15 -foot wide Type "B' buffer between single-family and multi -family dwelling units and amenity centers, to allow for a 7.5 -foot - wide Type "B" buffer between internal dwelling units and the amenity center. The buffer will contain 3 -gallon muhly grass, planted 3 -feet off center on the residential side of the buffer, in addition to all required Type '13' plant materials. Deviation 3: Deviation from LDC Section 5.03.02.C.2, which permits a maximum fence/wall height of 6 feet in residential zoning districts, to allow for a maximum fence/wall/berm height of 12 feet along Collier Boulevard/CR 951, and 10 feet along the northern PUD perimeter boundary Deviation 4: Deviation from LDC Section 5.04.06.A.3.e which allows temporary signs on residentially zoned properties up to 4 square feet in area or 3 feet in height, to allow temporary signs or banners up to a maximum of 32 square feet in combined sign area and a maximum of 8 feet in height, subject to approval under temporary sign permit procedures in the LDC. This deviation will remain valid for a period of four (4) years from the date of issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for a model home within the community. At such time, the deviation will be void. Deviation 5: Deviation from LDC Section 5.06.02.B.6.b, which permits two (2) ground or wall signs per entrance to the development with a combined sign area of 64 square feet and 8 feet in height, to allow for two (2) ground or wall signs at the project entrance with a combined sign area of 80 square feet and 10 feet in height. Deviation 6: Deviation from LDC Section 5.06.02.8.14, which permits one (1) boundary marker sign or monument structure at each property corner with a maximum height of 8 feet, to allow for three (3) boundary marker signs as shown on the PUD master plan, and a maximum height of 16 feet. Deviation 7: Deviation from LDC Section 6.06.01.4 which prohibits dead-end streets, to allow two (2) dead-end streets within the RPUD. Deviation 8: Deviation from LDC Section 6.06.02.A.1, which requires 5 -foot wide sidewalks to be provided on local roads/internal accessways adjacent to the site, to omit sidewalks on the southern- most entry road/bridge providing the permanent vehicular access to the PUD. Deviation 9: Deviation from LDC Section 6.06.02.A.2, which requires 5 -foot wide sidewalks to be provided on local roads/internal accessways within the site, to omit the requirement for sidewalks on single -loaded roadways within the PUD. Safety crossing -markings will be provided at the ends of each sidewalk (terminal ends) on single loaded streets. Deviation 10: Deviation from LDC Section 6.06.01.N, which requires a minimum right-of-way width of 60 feet, to allow for a minimum right-of-way width of 50 feet for private internal roadways. 951 Villas RPUD - PUDZ.PL20170003535 Last Revised: April 2, 2018 Page 8 of 10 EXHIBIT'F" DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS 951 VILLAS RPUD 1. GENERAL A. One entity (hereinafter the Managing Entity) shall be responsible for PUD monitoring until close-out of the PUD, and this entity shall also be responsible for satisfying all PUD commitments until close-out of the PUD. At the time of this PUD approval, the Managing Entity is the Toll FL XIII Limited Partnership. Should the Managing Entity desire to transfer the monitoring and commitments to a successor entity, then it must provide a copy of a legally binding document that needs to be approved for legal sufficiency by the County Attorney. After such approval, the Managing Entity will be released of its obligations upon written approval of the transfer by County staff, and the successor entity shall become the Managing Entity. As Owner and Developer sell off tracts, the Managing Entity shall provide written notice to County that includes an acknowledgement of the commitments required by the PUD by the new owner and the new owner's agreement to comply with the Commitments through the Managing Entity, but the Managing Entity shall not be relieved of its responsibility under this Section. When the PUD is closed -out, then the Managing Entity is no longer responsible for the monitoring and fulfillment of PUD commitments. B. Pursuant to Section 125.022(5) F.S., issuance of a development permit by a county does not in any way create any rights on the part of the applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the county for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law. C. All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the development. 2. TRANSPORTATION A. The development shall be limited to a maximum of 148 two-way unadjusted PM Peak Hour Trips. B. The owner, or their successors or assigns, shall provide a bicycle/pedestrian connection to Collier Boulevard along the northem-most bridge crossing the CR -951 Canal, as shown on Exhibit C, the PUD Master Plan. C. Construction access via the existing northem-most bridge will be permitted for a period of 4 years from the date of SDP/PPL approval, with a one-time, one-year extension. Upon termination of the construction access, the northern -most bridge will be utilized for bicycle and pedestrian access. 3. ENVIRONMENTAL A. The subject site contains approximately 29.1 acres of native vegetation, of which 25% (7.3 acres) is required to be preserve. The native vegetation preservation requirement will be satisfied on-site in accordance with the Land Development Code. Any replanting of native vegetation to meet preserve standards shall comply with all requirements set forth in LDC Section 3.05.07.H. 951 villas RPUD — PUDZ.PL20170003535 Last Revised: April 2, 2018 Page 9 of 10 B. Preserves may be used to satisfy the landscape buffer requirements after exotic vegetation removal in accordance with LDC Sections 4.06.02 and 4.06.05.E.1. Supplemental plantings with native plant materials shall be in accordance with LDC Section 3.05.07. C. A Black Bear Management Plan shall be submitted at the time of PPUSDP. 951 Villas RPUD - PUDZ•PL20170003535 Last Revised: April 2, 2018 Page 10 of 10 Aaamment is moi. [firer 4Z�o-r i-p.ty GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT ZONING DIVISION CONSISTENCY REVIEW MEMORANDUM To: Timothy Finn, Principal Planner, Zoning Services Section From: Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner, Comprehensive Planning Section Date: January 18, 2018 Subject: Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Consistency Review of Naples Villas Planned Unit Development Rezone (15' memo) PETITION NUMBER: PUDZ-PL20170003535 [REV: 1] PETITION NAME: Naples Villas Planned Unit Development (PUD) Rezone REQUEST: This petition seeks an A, Rural Agricultural to Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) rezone to develop the Naples Villas RPUD project of up to 148 dwellings. LOCATION: The subject site, consisting of ±37.5 acres, is located on the east side of Collier Boulevard, and ±0.6 mile north of Vanderbilt Beach Road (CR 862), in Section 35, Township 48 South, Range 26 East. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS: The subject property is currently designated Urban -Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict, as identified on Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Relevant to this petition, the Urban Residential Subdistrict provisions allows a maximum density of 4 dwelling units per acre. Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Policy 5.6 requires new developments to be compatible with the surrounding land area. Comprehensive Planning leaves this determination to the Zoning Services staff as part of their review of the petition in its entirety. However, staff notes that in reviewing the appropriateness of the requested uses/intensities on the subject site, the compatibility analysis is to be comprehensive and include a review of both the subject property and surrounding or nearby properties with regard to allowed use intensities and densities, development standards (building heights, setbacks, landscape buffers, etc.), building mass, building location and orientation, architectural features, amount and type of open space and location, traffic generation/attraction, etc. The County recognizes Smart Growth policies and practices in its consideration of future land use arrangements and choice -making options. FLUE Objective 7 and Policies 7.1 through 7.4 promote Smart Growth policies for new development and redevelopment projects pertaining to access, interconnections, open space, and walkable communities. Each Policy is followed by staff analysis din bold italicized text]. Objective 7: Promote smart growth policies, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and adhere to the existing development character of Collier County, where applicable, and as follows: Policy 7_1: The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their properties to fronting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code. (The subject site fronts the main drainage canal running along the east side of Collier Boulevard (CR 951). Two existing bridges provide access from - 1 - this property across the canal to Collier Boulevard. Exhibit C, PUD Master Plan, depicts a single bridge to be improved/upgraded for providing vehicular access from this project to Collier Boulevard, classified as a major arterial road in the Transportation Element. The second bridge is depicted as providing temporary construction access, and permanent pedestrian access to/from the site.] Policy 7.2: The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic signals. (Exhibit C, PUD Master Plan, depicts an internal loop street which provides the internal circulation and access to all development - except for the presence of two stubbed dead-end streets - which are not intended to provide immediate or future interconnection with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments. The application's List of Requested Deviations from[the] LDC explains this deviation from LDC s/s 6.06.01.J as justified "at the terminus of two (2) private, local streets... to efficiently utilize the property's developable area".] Policy 7.3: All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and/or interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type. The interconnection of local streets between developments is also addressed in Policy 9.3 of the Transportation Element. [The site abuts a road along only one side - Collier Boulevard to the west This project does not propose connection with/to the local streets and/or interconnection points in adjoining neighborhoods or other developments, as no opportunities are present to do so.] Policy 7.4: The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities with a blend of densities, common open spaces, civic facilities and a range of housing prices and types. [With respect to providing walkability, this policy promotes projects that make it safe and convenient to walk and encourages pedestrian activity. Exhibit C, PUD Master Plan illustrates an arrangement of individual lots for residences. The project requests deviation from the LDC to allow for single -sided sidewalks on single - loaded streets. In -lieu of sidewalks on the bridge to be improved/upgraded for providing vehicular access to/from this project from/to Collier Boulevard, pedestrian -only access to/from the site will be provided by the other bridge. With respect to providing a blend of densities, this policy promotes projects that offer a range of housing prices and types. Exhibit A, List of Permitted Uses provides for single-family residences, two- family residences, townhouses and multi -family residences. Open space will be provided as required per the LDC, and includes landscaped areas, gazebos and walking trails. No civic facilities are provided for.] CONCLUSION: Based upon the above analysis, the proposed PUD may be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan. PETITION ON CITYVIEW cc: Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager, Zoning Services Section David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Manager, Comprehensive Planning Section Michael Bos;4 AICP, Director, Zoning Division G: Comp\Consistency Reviews\2018 GAMES Planning Services\Consistency R"ews\201 STUMPUM-PI-2011-3535 Naples Villas R1 drft.docx I'a Attachment C ENGINEERING aLaw'avG Crni ENaMFEAING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE Memorandum To: Timothy Finn, AICP SPRINGS Tampa Orlando Sarasota 2610060 Gfmde 0r. Sur 30$. 50.b 5Ww9% F134135 p 1239)405.7777 f 12391405.7699 From: Lindsay F. Robin cc: Jim Hepler, Chad Peterson, Komi Corbett, Norm Trebilcock & Alexis Crespo Date: February 16, 2018 Subject 951 Villas RPUD (FKA "Naples Villas") - PL20170003535 Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) Synopsis Waldrop Engineering, P.A., on behalf of Toll FL XIII Limited Partnership and Collier County Staff, conducted a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) on Monday, February 12, 2018. The meeting was held at 5:30 p.m. at the Greater Naples Fire Rescue at 14575 Collier Boulevard. The sign -in sheet is attached as Exhibit "A", and demonstrates fourteen (14) residents were in attendance, not including the consultant team, Applicants and Staff. A handout was distributed providing the project overview, proposed uses, and development regulations. The handout is attached as Exhibit "B". Alexis Crespo (Agent) conducted the meeting with introductions of the consultant team and Staff, and an overview of the proposed RPUD rezoning application, including the requested residential uses, maximum allowable height, location of preserve areas, and access. She also outlined the rezoning process and opportunities to provide input at public hearings. Following the Consultant's presentation, the meeting was opened up to attendees to make comments and ask the consultant team questions regarding the proposed development. The following is a summarized list of the questions asked and responses given. Question/Comment 1: Will you be blasting or digging for the lake? Response: Both. Blasting will be limited to central portions of the lake and will comply with LDC blasting requirements in terms of distance of blasting from existing structures. Question/Comment 2: What portion of this (site) is abutting Vanderbilt Country Club? Response: (Demonstrates abutting property lines on the PUD Master Plan). The areas shown as preserve along the southern and eastern boundary. Page 1 of 8 Question/Comment 3: How wide is the narrowest portion of the preserve (abutting Vanderbilt)? Response: Approximately 120 feet (pointing to the southern boundary). Question/Comment 4: Why is the fence optional? A fence built along the preserve would defeat the object of connecting (habitat). Response: The fencing is for security purposes. The preserve is connected from a habitat standpoint. Question/Comment 5 and 6: 1 spotted a bald eagle that lives here (pointing near project site). His name is Eddie. All of this preserve space is adjacent to existing (preserve), but why isn't more preserve located adjacent to the existing preserve (near Bristol Pines)? Response: We looked at where the highest quality vegetation was, and other site design elements as far as buffering along Collier Blvd., etc. This site plan worked best with the county regulations (for native preserve) and what the Applicant is requesting. Question/Comment 7: You noted It was a 25% preserve requirement by the county, how much are you preserving? Response: 25% of existing native vegetation is provided. Question/Comment 8: What are these notches occurring (pointing to roadways on PUD Master Plan)? Response: Those are streets to units, providing access to future homes. Question/Comment 9: You said you were considering multiple story building types, where would the different types of dwelling types be located? Response: They can be located on any of the "R" residential tracts. Question/Comment 10: What is the highest the homes will be? Response: 35 feet. Question/Comment 11: How many stories is that? Response: That could be a maximum of 3 stories, or more likely 2. Question/Comment 12: Are those homes behind the roads? Response: Yes, those will be dwelling units along the roadways. Question/Comment 13: How many homes? Response: 148. Question/Comment 14: [148] individual buildings? Response: 148 units. Page 2 of 8 Question/Comment 15: [pointing to preserve area on map] This will be 120 feet? Response: Correct. Certain areas will be different dimensions. We can get you the additional dimensions. Question/Comment 16: You are going to convert the construction access to the north to a pedestrian access after construction, correct? Response: That is correct. Question/Comment 17: Are there any other investments that will be made around the bikepath? Lighting? Trash cans? Anything? Response: There aren't any planned as part of this application. Question/Comment 18: Will you be doing anything to enhance the pedestrian access so that it can be used? Response: We will have to get right-of-way permits, so we will work with the county on any required updates to (pavement) markings. Question/Comment 19: Will you be adding any street lights to the south bridge where you plan on having your main access? Response: There is a street light there now. The county does require lighting at the entrance. Question/Comment 20: Are there any construction time limits? Not before gam? Etc.? Response: Collier County limits that. I don't have the code in front of me, but I believe It is 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Monday through Saturday, with no work permitted on Sunday. Question/Comment 21: Do you have a date when you plan on getting started with the construction? Response: We do not yet. We have not submitted the construction plans yet. Typically, (the county has a) 6 to 8 month permitting window. Question/Comment 22: When do you expect the zoning to be completed? Response: We submitted the application to the county, we have received one round of comments back and we resubmitted. We still have to go back and work with staff on any other questions, and then (public hearings before the) Collier County Planning Commission and then the Board of County Commissioners, who are the ultimate decision makers. If you got a notice for this meeting, you will be noticed for those meetings as well. Question/Comment 23: When are you thinking you are going to start breaking ground? Response: We don't have a date set yet. We are working toward county approvals, and the goal would be to start construction by the end of the year. Page 3 of 8 Question/Comment 24: Is it going to be single-family homes? Apartments? Or? Response: Similar to Vanderbilt and Bristol Pines, we are asking for a full range of dwelling types. Single-family detached, single-family attached, a villa product, townhome and multi -family. Question/Comment 25: And the price points? Response: We don't establish price points through the zoning process. This is not an affordable housing project, so it will be market rate pricing. Question/Comment 26: Will there be any ownership? Or can an Investor come and buy half a dozen sites and rent them out? Like an Air BNB. Response: (By Jim Hepler at Toll Brothers) We sell to owners, that is our business intent. Question/Comment 27: You must have a price point? Response: We are still evaluating what kind of product to use. We are running all kinds of scenarios. Question/Comment 28: If it was a single-family home, what would the price be? Response: It's tough to say at this point, it Is based on the market. Question/Comment 29: Is it a set 148 homes? Is that a fixed number? Response: It is a maximum of 148 homes. Question/Comment 30: Is that the number of doorways when you say units? Response: Yes. That Is a good way to explain it. Question/Comment 31: Does the county require any environmental studies? Endangered species? Is it normal to change zoning from Agricultural? Response: Yes, at every stage of the process we have to provide environmental reports to the county on wetlands, vegetation, "bugs and bunnies", what kind of species live on the site. We submitted that as part of our application. We also have to get an environmental permit through the South Florida Water Management District. And lastly, when we submit for construction plans, we will have to submit an updated protected species report. No eagles were found on the site, but if at any point an eagle decides to make this site Its home, we will have to make the county aware and provide for any protections. Question/Comment 32: Is it typical to rezone a property from Agricultural to Residential? Response: Yes. When most of the county was zoned originally, it was all mostly Agricultural, especially in areas east of Collier Blvd. Vanderbilt (Country Club) was probably Agricultural and had to be rezoned to allow that community to be developed. Page 4 of 8 Question/Comment 33: Are traffic studies required? Response: Yes. Question/Comment 34: What else is planned in there? Club? Playground? Response: There's a central lake area, we are locating an optional recreational amenity at the front of the site. The rest would be houses and open space. Question/Comment 35: Does the water treatment plant need to expand to accommodate this? Response: We have to get tetters of availability for potable water and sanitary sewer, which we get from Collier County Utilities. They have capacity to service the project, and we will tie Into existing pipes along the roadway. Question/Comment 36: Is there a wall between the proposed residential and the existing residential to the north? Response: We have proposed an optional wall, but it is not required by the code. We are showing It as a development option along all property lines. Question/Comment 37: Is there a wall proposed along any other boundary? Response: We are also proposing an optional wall along CR 951. Toll Brothers typically does a nice entry with a nice hardscape and landscape plan in their communities, and that could include a wall. Question/Comment 38: Is there a berm where the residential area is separated from the preserve area? Response: There will be a water management berm built in to the residential tracts, so there will be no impacts to the preserve. Question/Comment 39: Is there berm anywhere else? Response: Along the northern property line. Question/Comment 40: Will your conservation zone (preserve area) be subject to South Florida Water Management District? Response: No, it is not a jurisdictional wetland. Question/Comment 41: The conservation land In Vanderbilt adjacent to the preserve on your plan is subject to the South Florida Water Management District. Response: We walked it with the district, and we have a letter saying we do not have any jurisdictional wetlands. Question/Comment 42: The road to the south, will that be a right out and a right In if there Is no traffic light? Response: We are not proposing any modifications to how the traffic flows there. There will be no light. There will be a right in, and right out. Page 5 of 8 Question/Comment 43: Is it just one entrance? Response: There's a secondary entrance for construction (pointing to the northern access bridge) that will be converted to a pedestrian access after construction is completed. Question/Comment 44: Will it be gated? Response: The Intent is to gate. Question/Comment 45: When you say optional fence or wall, what does that mean? Response: If it is not required, we label it as optional at our discretion as we move through the process. Question/Comment 46: Will you be removing dead trees from the preserve that were left by the hurricane? Response: We are required to remove exotic vegetation to make it a true preserve. Certain areas will require replanting to meet county minimum preserve requirements. Question/Comment 47: Our concern from Vanderbilt is that we will see the housing. Response: Understood. You have an intervening roadway, and buffer, and once you get into our property you have expansive preserve areas. Our units can be no taller than yours. Question/Comment 46: Other than filling In the bald spots, do you have any other plans to replant? Response: We do have to comply with a general tree count. Question/Comment 49: Not necessarily where you are taking them out? Response: No, those areas will be developed with homes (pointing to residential tracts). The homes will have trees on the lots, and in open space areas there will be additional general trees requirements. Question/Comment 50: Is the plan to clear cut the entire lot and drop in 1 -year old saplings? Or build around the existing mature trees? Response: The site has to be filled to meet floodplain requirements. To save trees you have to be at a zero elevation, so it is almost impossible to save trees in development areas. We do replace trees per the county requirements. We put them in buffers, around the lakes, common areas. More than likely it will be clear cut to get to the elevation. We will be sensitive to the plantings. We cannot just put in a baby sapling, they would have to be planted to the county requirements. Question/Comment 51: Will your fill be extracted from the lake, or will you be bringing It in? Response: Both. Page 6 of 8 Question/Comment 52: Where is that coming from? Response: A number of sources, which are driven by the market. Could be from Collier or Lee Counties. Question/Comment 53: What will be the base elevation? Response: Approximately 15.5 feet based on our current research. Question/Comment 54: Did the environmentalist find any Big Cypress Fox Squirrels on the site? Response: No. Question/Comment 55: How long ago was the Environmental Report prepared? Response: We submitted the application in December 2017. Dex Bender started conducting site visits in 2nd quarter 2017 through 4m quarter 2017. Question/Comment 56: Was it done pre -Irma, or post -Irma? A lot of critters may not have been home. Response: We do not have the report tonight, we will send it to you, so I don't want to mis-quote the date of the report. Offen after zoning there can be a 5 -year gap before the site is constructed. When the construction plans go in, they will have to do another environmental report that will be updated. Question/Comment 57: Will you be using the same company for every environmental report? Response: Yes, as long as they continue to do a good job. Question/Comment 58: Toll Brothers is the developer and the owner? Response: Yes, they are the developer. They do not own the property yet, but that is the intent. Question/Comment 59: How long for construction? How long will construction of the units take? Response: It Is all market drive. We typically do not build until they sell Question/Comment 60: What If you sell them all in a single day, then how long? Response: Typical build time for a single-family house is 6-8 months, multi -family a little quicker at 5-7 months. Best case scenario, would be 4 years to build out the entire community. Question/Comment 61: Where will the mulff-family housing be located? Response: Not sure at this point. Question/Comment 62: When will you know? Response: Approximately 3 to 4 months. Until we get further along in this process, it Is hard to say. If we don't get through the zoning process, all bets are off. Page 7 of 8 Question/Comment 63: Is there any possibility that something could happen to stop this project? Response: Yes, a lot of things could happen. Question/Comment 64: Is a 6 a.m. start time necessary? That is early. Response: I have found the requirement in the county code. The code says (construction can occur) 6:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday, no work on Sundays or holidays. It will be stipulated on our permit. Question/Comment 65: That is early. Can you consider working between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m.? Response: We understand your concern and will document it in the summary. There were no further questions or comments. Ms. Crespo thanked the attendees for coming and noted that their contact information is available for those who wished to reach out with any further questions. The meeting concluded at approximately 6:15 p.m. The meeting was recorded per the audio file attached as Exhibit "C". Page 8 of 8 EXHIBIT A NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING 951 Villas RPUD (FKA Naples Villas RPUD) PL20170003535 February 12, 2017 @ 5:30 p.m. PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY ••'please be adt/Ised••• The information on this sheet is to contact you regarding this project and future public meetings. Under Florida law, a -mail addresses, phone numbers and certain home addresses are public records once received by a government agency. If you do not want your e-mail address, phone number or home address released if the county receives a public records request, you can refrain from including such information on this sheet. You have the option of checking with the county staff on your own to obtain updates on the project as well as checking the county Web site for additional information. Name 11 Address hvf2. il„l !k zoz City, ST Zip E -Mail Address 4DACIAIfr ri-sh ( r%' Alai, S f RN a 4, i, t'ir' /� �-,% AL. o �%I , '` c , r , ,- i .. ..-.� � � NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING 951 Villas RPUD (FKA Naples Villas RPUD) PL20170003535 February 12, 2017 @ 5:30 p.m. PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY 'PLease be advsed•*• The information on this sheet is to contact you regarding this project and future public meetings. Under Florida law, e-mail addresses, phone numbers and certain home addresses are public records once received by a government agency. If you do not want your e-mail address, phone number or home address released if the county receives a public records request, you can refrain from including such information on this sheet. You have the option of checking with the county staff on your own to obtain updates on the project as well as checking the county Web site for additional information. Name Address City, ST Zip E -Mail Address 190J/NP/ otod2� '" TQ d y/za 3 V t zd c gif / t�C1tLt ✓e =°t'C rets ol/rtl`B eet'ta Irea✓: T lS� i� 3 Z rl'b t20 ie'� c� /}v` CO(�.g�, 'j�ji=Z LL GNJifLG 3 -yoAvivt KI 60 r%D equ LZ FfE l fR/t �l. i`fl a ,T /9ravE a /o t • IFAI PLANNING CKIL ENGINEERING EXHIBIT B LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE T=po Odoodo SwaSola ......„.,.,. „„wY U.. Sur 305. Sone 5p+p,. 113,oW P 12391405.7 1 (2391 <05.2899 951 Villas RPUD (FKA Naples Villas RPUD) - PL-PL20170003535 Neighborhood Information Meeting Monday, February 12, 2018 5:30 p.m. PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET Project Size: 37.5+/- Acres Future Land Use: Urban Residential Subdistrict Current Zoning: Rural Agricultural Proposed Zoning: Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) Approved Density/Uses: Currently Vacant Proposed Density/Uses: A maximum of 148 dwelling units, recreational amenities, and supportive infrastructure. 951 Villas RPUD (FKA Naples Villas RPUD) - PL-PL20170003535 PROPOSED USES RESIDENTIAL TRACTS A. Principal Uses: 1. Single-family detached dwelling units. 2. Two-family dwelling units. 3. Townhouses. 4. Multi -family dwelling units. B. Accessory Uses: Accessory uses customarily associated with Permitted Principal Uses, including but not limited to: 1. Customary accessory uses and structures including carports, garages, and utility buildings. 2. Temporary sales trailers and model units. 3. Essential services, including interim and permanent utility and maintenance facilities. 4. Water management facilities. 5. Walls, berms and signs. 6. Passive open space uses and structures, including, but not limited to landscaped areas, gazebos, park benches, and walking trails. Any other accessory use and related use that is determined to be comparable to the foregoing by the Board of Zoning Appeals, or Hearing Examiner, pursuant to the process outlined in the Land Development Code (LDC). II. RECREATION TRACT A. Principal Uses and Structures: 1. Recreational uses and facilities including swimming pools, tennis courts, volleyball courts, fishing docks, walking paths, picnic areas, recreation buildings, and basketball/shuffle board courts. 2. Passive open space uses and structures, including, but not limited to landscaped areas, gazebos, park benches, and walking trails. B. Accessory Uses and Structures: Accessory uses customarily associated with Permitted Principal Uses, and any other accessory use and related use that is determined to be comparable to customary accessory uses by the Board of Zoning Appeals or Hearing Examiner pursuant to the process outlined in the Land Development Code (LDC). III. PRESERVE TRACT A. Principal Use: Preserves. B. Accessory Uses: Allowable uses only as allowed by LDC section "Allowable uses within County required preserves". 951 Villas RPUD (FKA Naples Villas RPUD) - PL-PL20170003535 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS PERMITTED USES Single- Two -Family Townhouse Multi -Family Clubhouse AND STANDARDS Family / Detached Recreation Buildings Min. Lot Area 3,500 SF 2,500 SF 2,000 SF N/A N/A Min. Lot Width 35' 25' 20' N/A N/A Min. Lot Depth 100' 100' 100' N/A N/A SETBACKS Front Yardie) 15'(2 (3 15' z 3 15'(2) 15'(2) 15'(2) Side Yard 5' 0'/5' 0'/5' 10' 10' Rear Yard 7.5' 7.5' 7.5' 10' 10' (Principal)(4) Rear Yard 5' S' S' 5' S' (Accessory) 4) Preserve 25' 25' 25' 25' 25' (Principal) Preserve 10' 10' 10' 10' 10' (Accessory) Min. Distance Between Principal 10 10' 10' 15' 10' Structures Maximum Height Actual 45' 45' 45' 45' 55' Zoned 35' 35' 35' 35' 45' (1) Front setback is measured from the edge of pavement or back of curb. (2) Front-loading/front-entry garages shall be setback a minimum of 23' from the back of sidewalk. (3) Corner lots shall provide one (1) front yard setback within the yard that contains the driveway/vehicular access to the dwelling unit. The secondary front yard that does not contain the driveway/vehicular access to the dwelling unit shall provide a minimum 10' setback to the edge of pavement or back of curb. (4) 0' principal and accessory setbacks are permitted from lake maintenance easements and landscape buffer easements, which shall be separate platted tracts or tracts on the PPL/SDP. GENERAL: Except as provided for herein, all criteria set forth below shall be understood to be in relation to individual parcel or lot boundary lines, or between structures. Condominium, and/or homeowners' association boundaries shall not be utilized for determining development standards. Landscape buffers and lake maintenance easements shall be platted as separate tracts at time of subdivision plat approval. Note: Nothing in this PUD document shall be deemed to approve a deviation from the LDC unless it is expressly stated in a list of deviations. AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE I hereby certify that pursuant to Ordinance 200441, of the Collier County Land Development Code, I did cause the attached newspaper advertisement to appear and I did give notice by mail to the following property owners and/or condominium and civic associations whose members may be affected by the proposed land use changes of an application request for a rezoning, PUD amendment, or conditional use, at least 15 days prior to the scheduled Neighborhood Information Meeting. For the purposes of this requirement, the names and addresses of property owners shall be deemed those appearing on the latest tax rolls of Collier County and any other persons or entities who have made a formal request of the county to be notified. The said notice contained the laymen's description of the site property of proposed change and the date, time, and place of a Neighborhood Information Meeting. Per the attached letters, property hereby made a part of this Affida, State of Florida County of Collier list, and copy of newspaper advertisement which are The foregoing Affidavit of compliance was acknowledged before me this 13 day of 2010by AWY 5 t.,►sPID who •personall nown tom or who has produced as identification. — (Tm4w�-� (SiWttie of Notary Public) IL, Linn Printed Name of Notary G:W IM Pm edums/AtTdavit Of Compliance - NIM W2010.Doc A $9, XJESSICAK UNN = MY COMMISSICN/FF 113421 •,• Si EXPIRES: Apra IS, 2079 $,q(,.�°i'; 6mJa]RruP iA IMUiiM,lp,nry ON w Rln c E«awa wneCBne�Wc* January 22, 2018 RE: Naples Villas RPUD PL20170003535 Dear Property Owner: Tm" odwdo s�wb � D S.a 105. Bonn*i it U135 P 12"1405 M7 1 @M) I05-78" Please be advised that Waldrop Engineering, P.A. on behalf of Toll Brothers, Inc. has filed a formal application to Collier County seeking approval to rezone the property from Rural Agricultural (A) to Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) to allow for the development of a maximum of 148 dwelling units and accessory uses. The maximum requested residential density is 4 dwelling units per acre. The subject property totals 37.5+/- acres and is located at 14720 Collier Boulevard, to the east of Collier Boulevard and approximately one (1) mile south of Immokalee Road in Section 35, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. In compliance with the Land Development Code requirements, a Neighborhood Information Meeting will be held to provide you an opportunity to hear a presentation about this application and ask questions. The Neighborhood Information Meeting will be held on Monday February 12, 2018 at 5:30 p.m. at Greater Naples Fire Rescue Headquarters, 14575 Collier Boulevard, Naples, FL 34119. Should you have questions prior to the meeting, please contact me directly at (239) 405-7777 ext. 207, or alexis.crespo@waldropenaineerina.com. Sincerely, WALDROP ENGINEERING, P.A. Alexis V. Crespo, AICP, LEED AP Vice President of Planning *Please note that Collier County/Greater Naples Fire Rescue does not sponsor or endorse this program. GABEL, MICHAELS & KAYE L 8458 RADCLIFFE TER APT 102 NAPLES, FL 34120-0650 PATLAKH,VAL 7697 BRISTOL CIR NAPLES, FL 34120-0000 RAMEAU, GREGORY & ROMI 14986 SUMMIT PUKE CIH UNIT 9 NAPLES, FL 34119-4104 B DAVID DELOURY JR TRUST 8467 RADCLIFFE TER #202 NAPLES, FL 34120-0649 MIGLIORE, JAMES 1 & GISELA K 3 ROUNDTOP RD YONKERS, NY 10710--2327 TE & BP KW IATKOWSKI LIV TRUST N1596 COUNTRYSIDE LN LAKE GENEVA, WI 53147---4009 DALY, GENE W & BARBARA A 8490 DANBURY BLVD APT 204 NAPLES, FL 34120-0630 CONNOLLY, KATHRYN A CATHERINE P CONNOLLY 8535 DANBURY BLVD # 102 NAPLES, FL 34120-0000 SHKURTI, PANDUSH 14996 SUMMIT PLACE CIR NAPLES, FL 34119---4104 SUN, WEIYONG QIUYAN KONG 7.10 STOKES FARM RD FRANKLIN LAKES, NJ 07417—ODOO STAPLES I 091,9/09199 A1ow 09Ae BIQ14edwoo ww L9 x ww gZ lewlol Bp ollenbig 0919/09 L99 AoAV 411m BI411edwoo ,g/g Z K.L GZIB loge) THOMAS JR, PAUL H&CATHERINE RESI SFR SUB LLC 8457 RADCLIFFE TER APT 103 402 STRAND ST NAPLES, FL 34120-0660 FREDERIKSTED CAMPBELLVILLE, ON VIRGIN ISLANDS 00840 MARTHA 1 GLASS REV TRUST PING, JOHNNY A 3495 REGANS WAY 4402 TMARING WAY ZANESVILLE,OH 43701-0000 NAPLES, FL 34119-0000 SERATE, TERESA NIAN FINANCING CORP 7495 BRISTOL CIR 2055 TRADE CENTER WAY NAPLES, FL 34120---0695 NAPLES, FL 34109--6244 .S3�dd1S HERNANDEZ FMLY IRREV TRUST BRISTOL PINES COMMUNITY 7334 BRISTOL CIR ASSOCIATION INC NAPLES, FL 34120--0001) % KW PROP MGMT AND CONSULTING 3358 WOODS EDGE CIR STE 102 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134-3323 BASSO, PAUL R WEBER, SHARON & DOUGLAS SANDRA DE MONTMORENCY 4232 N 630 W 190 MC LAREN ROAD LAPORTE, IN 46350-8225 CAMPBELLVILLE, ON CANADA LDP 180 PHYLLIS L LOPARDO TRUST KENDRICK III, JOHN W & SALLY W 1661 BYRON DR 4020 ORCHARD HILL DR MAYFIELD HEIGHTS, OH 44124---3101 BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48304--3246 SMITH, ROBERT E & SHARON A THOMPSON, JEFFREY A 19308 BRUSHWOOD W CHARLOTTE A THOMPSON TINLEY PARK, IL 60487---7036 8440 DANBURY BLVD #104 NAPLES, FL 34120 ---DODO VANDEREECKEN, KENNETH LYNCH, MARY M BRANDI LOSTRACCO 1600 ADAMS AVE 6641 EDGECUMBE DR DUNMORE, PA 18509---0000 NAPLES, FL 34119---0000 H ERNANDEZ FAMILY LLC LEARY, PATRICIA A 14765 COWER BLVD 915 PLEASANT ST UNIT 7 NAPLES, FL 34119---9592 EAST WEYMOUTH, MA 02189--2467 B & S FINANCING LLC FORMENTIN, JOHN A & DEBORAH G 2055 TRADE CENTER WAY 8457 RADCLIFFE TER #205 NAPLES, FL 34109-0000 NAPLES, FL 34120---0000 label size 1" x 2 5/8" compatible with Avery'�'5160/8160 Etiquette de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery X5160/8160 POMMERENKE TR, SUESANN M 8520 DANBURY BLVD APT 203 NAPLES, FL 34120-0621 CAPPUZZO, VICTOR SALVATORE CAPPUZZO 51 WOODLOT LANE SOUTHBURY, CT 06488--0000 OLIVA, GUILLERMO & ARLENE 7422 BRISTOL CIRCLE NAPLES, FL 34120-0000 TORR, ROBERT J & PATRICIA M 213 S SWARTHMORE AVENUE SWARTHMORE, PA 19081---0000 HART, CLARENCE R & DORIS K 9450 DANBURY BLVD APT 101 NAPLES, FL 34120-0637 DEYL, VLADIMIR IRENA DEYLOVA NA PISKACH 17 1600 PRAHA 6 OCIVICE RECH REPUBLIC POLIAK, VLADIMIR MICHAL POLIAK NA RADKU 4 ?RECLAV CZECH REPUBLIC 690000 9ARBOSA, SILVIO R & MARIA LENI 15006 SUMMIT PLACE CIR NAPLES, FL 34119---4119 THOMAS SR, THOMAS R 431 E COURT AVE JEFFERSONVILLE, IN 47130-3413 RITMAN, WILLIAM ROxANA FRANCO 7427 BRISTOL CIR NAPLES, FL 3412G---0695 S7APCES- 0918/0915., tiaAV Dane alggedwo3 ww 79 x WILL ge 1ew01 ap allaRbll� 0918/0919a tieAV g6M a glledwoo .8/g z x„ 1 azls loge) EDWARD R KRAICIR REV TRUST COW LEY, PAUL) & GAIL 7389 BRISTOL CIR 9 KANE AVE NAPLES, FL 34120--0696 SKANEATELES, NY 13152-1401 JASTRZAB, DENNIS L & PAULA A CASERINVERSIONES LLC 8510 DANBURY BLVD APT 201 14978 SUMMIT PLACE OR NAPLES, FL 34120-0624 NAPLES, FL 34119---0000 FRANCIS J PEOTROWSKI JR TRUST SALAZAR, EDDY R & VERONICA M 8535 DANBURY BLVD #202 7373 BRISTOL CIR NAPLES, FL 34120-0619 NAPLES, FL 34110-0000 BRISTOL WATERWAYS LLC STANBACH, LYNDA L 4949 SW 75TH AVE WILUAM R STANBACH JR MIAMI, FL 33155-4464 2220 WEST ANENUE BEACH HAVEN, NI 08008-0000 ANDERSON, DAVID E & JEAN T SEEMILLER, RAYMOND A & MONICA 15530 CHORUS LANE a5DO DANBURY BLVD APT 201 EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55347--0000 NAPLES, FL 34120-0623 M A SELKY 2007 REV TRUST FITZ, WILLIAM H & CATHERINE W 9477 RADCLIFFE TER 4104 8510 DANBURY BLVD #304 NAPLES, FL 34120-0642 NAPLES, FL 34120-0000 ZITTEL, MARTIN & VIRGINIA SANZ, LUIS T MARIN 8535 DANBURY BLVD APT 204 7627 BRISTOL CIA NAPLES, FL 34120--0619 NAPLES, FL 34120-0690 BRACAMONTE, GUSTAVO JARAMILLO, R081N & CECELIA 15275 COLLIER BLVD #201-269 5500 SW 87TH ST NAPLES, FL 34119---0000 MIAMI, FL 33143--8313 S3�dd1S DONDERO, JEROME S & NANCY S HELMIG, THOMAS F & PATRICIA 18 DONCASTER RD 10 SPRINGTON POINTE DR MALVERNE, NY 11565--1015 NEWTOWN SQUARE, PA 19073--3930 RAYNOLDS TR, RANDALL WEST, JAMES N & DORIS G LYNN E RAYNOLDS TR 8525 DANBURY BLVD APT 103 UTD 8/8/00 NAPLES, FL 34120-0620 RAYNOLDS REVOCABLE TRUST 118 DORAL OR SPRINGFIELD, IL 62704--3136 label size 1" x 2 5/8" compatible with Avery 05160/6160 etiquette de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery 05160/8160 090091 So tianV 0040 BlgpedU103 wUl /g x ww SZ Iew101 Bp Bp8BOp� 090/09t go AJOAV 411M alg0edwo0 „B/S Z x.l ozIs loge) AGREDO, GERSAIN DEFRANCESCO #2 LLC FARLEY, MAX A & GEORGIANNE 7318 BRISTOL CIR 8490 DANBURY BLVD APT 203 8440 DANBURY BLVD APT 204 NAPLES, FL 34120-0000 NAPLES, FL 3412D---0630 NAPLES, FL 34120-0636 GREGORY W FURLONG REV TRUST MILLER, KATHERINE FAIR, WILLETTT 850 BUCKEYE CT 3350 BRIDLE PATH LN 8458 RADCLIFFE TER #101 TIPP CITY, OH 45371---0000 WESTON, FL 33331-3508 NAPLES, FL 34120--0000 QUINT TR, DANIEL W LETOURNEAU, MARIO VICTORIN SOMAR 1939 LLC DIANE M QUINT TR CLARA ERICA LETOURNEAU 193945TH ST SW 8430 RADCLIFFE TER APT 101 1024 DEERWOOD DR NAPLES, FL 34116--0000 NAPLES, FL 34120---0663 THUNDER BAY, ON SUMMIT PLACE COMMUNITY CANADA P7J1H7 WILDING, DAVID A & TERESA L & L INV ESTMENT CO PARRINELLO, ROBERT & JOANNE MCENANY TR, SHARON A 41 E LONG RIDGE RD 25 GATES AVE SHARON A MCENANY REV TRUST TERRE HAUTE, IN 47802--4743 MALVERNE, NY 11565-1911 DATED 07/28/00 NAPLES, FL 34104--3396 10 WHITETAIL CT CARTER, RACHEL 8 & BRANDON W COOKE, ANNE H JACKSON, MI 49203- -5174 W IEDHOLZ TR, JAMES F (ONES, RANDY E & KARLA B FRANCO & ZEGADO LLC W IEDHOLZ TR, MARY L 6630 TANTALLON SQ 2055 TRADE CENTER WAY REV TRUST UTO 6/18/90 DUBLIN, OH 43016---0000 NAPLES, FL 34109---0000 438 PRESWICK LN NAPLES FL 34120-1659 LAKE TASHMOO LLC TESTA, MATTHEW A & ANDREA M VELANDER, DIANNA 140 MONUMENT ST 7646 BRISTOL CIR 8457 RADCLIFFE TER APT 104 CONCORD, MA 01742--1807 NAPLES, FL 34120-0000 NAPLES, FL 34120--0660 WARD, THOMAS F & VIVIAN M GAUTHIER, MARC CICHON, RICHARD 1 & PAMELA A 11 COLLINS AVE 1135 AVE DES ERABLE5 7678 BRISTOL CIR READING, MA 01867--1018 QUEBEC, QC NAPLES, FL 34120--0000 CANADA G1R2N3 SUMMIT PLACE COMMUNITY SUBR.AMANIAN, MARX B WILDING, DAVID A & TERESA ASSSOCITATION INC JAGATHA RAAMAKRISHNAN 3 MCCARTNEY GATE C/O SUNBURST MANAGEMENT 13713 BRAMBOROUGH RD MIDHURST, ON 4306 ARNOLD AVE HUNTERSVILLE, NC 28078---0000 CANADA LOL-1X0 NAPLES, FL 34104--3396 CARTER, RACHEL 8 & BRANDON W COOKE, ANNE H JAMES W BERNTHAL REV TRUST 15013 SUMMIT PLACE CIR 8472 RADCLIFFE TER APT 204 6211 MUIRHEAD DRIVE NAPLES, FL 34119--4105 NAPLES, FL 34120--0647 BAY CITY, MI 48706--0000 MONAHAN, WILUAM & ELIZABETH VASALLO, MELISSA COLLIER COUNTY 8530 DANBURY BLVD APT 104 7626 BRISTOL CIR 3301 TAMIAMI TRL E NAPLES, FL 34120--0622 NAPLES, FL 34120-0697 NAPLES, FL 34112--0000 label size 1" x 2 5/8" compatible with Avery 05160/8160 " Etiquette de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery 05160/8160 S3�dV1S 0949/0919m AJaAV Dene alq!LedwoD Luw L9 x Will 9Z lewlol ap aganbg� 09 W/091ge tiantl ql!M olggedulo3 „g/g Z x „ t azls lagel SUTTER, LSUE & CHRISTEL R RABORN, JEFFREY 0 &JOAN M HAMEL, RONALD L & IRENE A 7607 BRISTOL CIR KRISTEL D RABORN 9490 DANBURY BLVD #201 NAPLES, FL 34120-0690 7499 BRISTOL CIR NAPLES, FL 34120-0000 NAPLES, FL 34120---0695 BARAKETT, RONALD BOJADZIC, ESAD TOWNSEND, ADRIANNA M D 483 PRESWICK LN EMIN BOJADZIC 7404 BRISTOL CIR NAPLES, FL 34120-1660 15 WAKEFIELD RD NAPLES, FL 34120--0693 NAPLES, FL 34109--0000 HAMPTON BAYS, NY 11946-0000 NAPLES, FL 34120--0000 MEISTER, DAVID & JUDITH W J & H R OBRIEN 1T UV TRUST TAPIA, ARBEN & DIANA 458 PRESWICK LN 8545 DANBURY BLVD #101 7362 BRISTOL CIR NAPLES, FL 34120--1659 NAPLES, FL 34120-0618 NAPLES, FL 34120---0694 CANOPY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOC INC VANDERBILT CMMTY ASSOC INC ESPINOSA, DARIANA MRTINEZ % SANDCASTLE MANAGEMENT 8250 DANBURY BLVD RICARDO REY GOMEZ 9150 GALLERIA COURT STE 201 NAPLES, FL 34120-1631 7393 BRISTOL CIRCLE NAPLES, FL 34109--0000 NAPLES, FL 34120--0000 LUKASIAK, WILLIAM S RADONCIC, AGARD & ELDINA KELLY, DARRIN M AUDREY A LUKASIAK 888 MAIN ST #647 MARY AUCE KOZIOL 8699 GENOVA COURT NEWYORK,NY 10044---0000 7448 BRISTOL CIR i4APLES, FL 34114-0000 NAPLES, FL 34119--0000 NAPLES, FL 34120--0693 BOZANO, JULIA MERCEDES AFFIRMATION PROPERTIES LLC GORDON, DONALD HAROLD 14917 SUMMIT PLACE CIR 4415 TURNSERRY CIR MARJORIE ANN GORDON NAPLES, FL 34119-0000 DURHAM, NC 27712-0000 123 BELLE VISTA TRAIL ALUSTON, ON CANADA LEIR 2E2 NUNEZ, KEOTA & PORFIRIO FRANKLIN, SIMON 8 PRUITT, JOAN R 7491 BRISTOL CIR 8490 DANBURY BLVD #205 13210 MOSCATO ST NAPLES, FL 34120-0000 NAPLES, FL 34120--0000 FISHERS, IN 46037-0000 SEGUIN, DAVID G HULBUPT, PETER K & KATHLEEN M SAVINO, JOSEPH A & DIANE M CONSORCIA G SPERRAZZA 8530 DANBURY BLVD 4203 8530 DANBURY BLVD APT 205 6370 WALNUT CREEK DR NAPLES, FL 34120-0000 NAPLES, FL 34120-0622 LASTAMHERST, NY 14051-1555 MARY FRANCES SARTEMES MCKENZIE, KYLE PARIKH, ZANKHANA REVOCABLE TRUST AIMEE SNIDER 1459 SONOMA Cr 8545 DANBURY BLVD #205 14999 SUMMIT PLACE CIR TOMS RIVER, NJ D9753-2983 NAPLES, FL 34120-0618 NAPLES, FL 34119--0000 KONICA, GENT & GENTJANA C K CARUCCI 2002 DEC OF TRUST BORGER TR, YVETTE L 14920 SUMMIT PLACE CIR 41 LAKE RD YVETTE L BORGER TRUST NAPLES, FL 34119-4102 RYE, NY 10580---0000 DATED 07/30/98 8470 DANBURY BLVD APT 102 NAPLES, FL 34120--4638 label size 1" x 2 5/8" compatible with Avery F5160/8160 ® Etiquette de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery `5160/8160 S3�dt11S 0919/09 L9e /deAV Dene eg1tidwoo ww L9 x ww SZ lew 0j. op 81190113 0919/091Ss keAV 41!m elggedwoo ,9/S Z x L az!s lagel VERINI, NICHOLAS L & CYNTHIA G BAILEY, PHILIP 1 & MONICA A D G & B S GEISER REV TRUST 75 MYSTIC CIR 8510 DANBURY BLVD #202 123 E HAMPTON RD SAY SHORE, NY 11706-7144 NAPLES, FL 34120-0624 BINGHAMTON, NY 13903- -3112 KAMINSKI, ARTUR RICHMAN, JOHN A &JANE C HOEVEL, MORRIS A & BARBARA 5076 GLOUCESTER LANE 40 SURREY LN 3891 HIGHWOOD PLACE MARTINEZ, CA 94553-0000 ROCKVILLE CENTRE, NY 11570-1856 OKEMOS, MI 48864--0000 ZHAO, YING DELGADO, MARCOS E & FLOR Y MARTINDALE, PETAL 7346 BRISTOL CIR 14625 SUTHERLAND AVE RUTHVEN RODNEY MARTINDALE NAPLES, FL 34120-0000 NAPLES, FL 34119--4116 7701 BRISTOL CIR NAPLES, FL 34120-OWO 462 PRFSWII IN NAPLES, FL 34120-0000 HARDMEYER, GABE & ANITA CONROY, MICHAEL l & JANICE S FUENTES, JAVIER 14921 SUMMIT PLACE CIR 102 LAKEBRIDGE DRIVE NORTH 14982 SUMMIT PLACE QR NAPLES, FL 34119-0000 KINGS PARK, NY 11754--0000 NAPLES, FL 34119--4104 MARINEL.G. MARY ANN ARCE, MICHAEL 0 MOORE, DARREN & NLRISSA 8468 RADCLIFFE TER APT 104 7569 BRISTOL CIR 7444 BRISTOL CIR NAPLES, FL 34120-0654 NAPLES, FL 34120-0000 NAPLES, FL 34 12 0-0000 MARK B FOX TRUST WORTMAN, DONALD H & ROYAL M B & S FINANCE LLC 8458 RADCLIFFE TER 4104 8478 RADCLIFFE TER #101 2057 TRADE CENTER WAY NAPLES, FL 34120-0650 NAPLES, FIL 34120-0640 NAPLES, FL 34109-6244 JOSEPH DILLON FAMILY TRUST WOLFE TR, JAMES R & LINDA E DING'LLO, MICHAEL DONNA J HUSSEY REV TRUST WOLFE FAMILY REV TRUST 8450 DANBURY BLVD #203 9530 DANBURY BLVD #102 LRD 03/18/09 NAPLES, FL 34120-0637 NAPLES, FL 34120-OWO 462 PRFSWII IN NAPLES, FL 34103-0000 NAPLES, FL 34120-1659 JOHNSON FAMILY TRUST ESPINOZA, EDUARDO SHERMAN PROPERTIES LLC 8448 RADCLIFFE TER #103 7650 BRI.STOLCIR PO BOX 258 NAPLES, FL 34120-OODD NAPLES, FL ?4120-0697 TIONESTA, PA 16353--0000 NAPLES JEWISH COMM FUND INC HEBERT, IOCELYNE JOHNSON, KEITH H&JUDITH A C/O BRUCE SHERMAN 105 GRAVEL 8458 RADCLIFFE TER #203 4101 GULF SHORE BLVD N REPENTIGNY, QC NAPLES, FL 34120--0650 PH4 CANADA J5Y 1M7 NAPLES, FL 34103-0000 SANCHEZ, USBETTE E FRANKLIN ET A4 GILLIAN MURPHY, KEVIN F & JACQUELINE M 7301 BRISTOL CIR 8490 DANBURY BLVD #202 2381 HIDDEN TARE CT 14 NAPLES, FL 341204000 NAPLES, FL 34120-0000 NAPLES, FL 34112--0000 ® label size 1" x 2 5/8" compatible with Avery /15160/8160 hiquefte de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery 95160/8160 .S33dtl1S FACCONE, GINA M 7639 BRISTOL CIR NAPLES, FL 34120-0690 KURTZ, MARK 5 & MASEL C 1572512TH RD 9EECHHURST, NY 11357--1946 EIFRID, ALAN A & RITA 5 3516 STONEGATE CT WIXOM, MI 48393-1663 PARISI, STEPHEN A ANDREA E JOHNSON 14916 SUMMIT PLACE CIRCLE NAPLES, FL 34119-0000 CKGHOMES LLC 9457 GREENLEIGH CT NAPLES, FL 34120--0000 C'AZIN, JOCELYNE 8447 RADCLIFFE TERRACE UNIT 104 NAPLES, FL 34120-0000 SAYER, THOMAS H & ANN G &'J80 DANBURY BLVD APT 105 NAPLES, FL 34120-0626 ROLLINS, SALLY LOUISE 8472 RADCLIFFE TERRACE 9201 NAPLES, FL 34120-0000 GONZALEZ, LAURA CECILIA 7737 BRISTOL OR NAPLES, FL 34120--0000 SMITH, ROBERT M &JUDITH J 9310 DANBURY BLVD APT 105 NAPLES, FL 34120--0624 STAPCES 09 L8/09L9a AJany Dane a!gpeduun ww L9 x WILL 9Z 1euuD1 op euanb05 09 L8/09 L9®tie^tl ql!M elggedwos "8/9 Z x „ L azls !aqe! BAKER, NORMAN R & JANICE M GARITO, MICHAEL 6702 TREERIDGE DR YADIRA JEREZ CINCINNATI, OH 45244--3583 7693 BRISTOL CIRCLE NAPLES, FL 34120--0000 PATEL,TARABEN K DINGUS, TERRY L & CYNTHIA C KISHOREKUMAR R PATEL 12458 SKYE OR 7741 BRISTOL CIR LOVES PARK, IL 61111--0000 NAPLES, FL 34120-0000 CALVIN A PERSOHN TRUST DESROCHERS, THOMAS P 9490 DANBURY BLVD APT 105 8472 RADCLIFFE TER APT 102 NAPLES, FL 34120-0629 NAPLES, FL 34120-0647 RULLO, MADELINE F DUNIGAN, JAMES P & BARBARA J 429 CORNERSTONE OR 1919 MARKET ST UNIT 2311 NEWTOWN SO, PA 19073-0000 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-D" J H & CA FERGUSON 1T R TRUST CATTERMOLE, DAVID & JUNE 1696 ARBOR WAY 21125TH ST NW ZIONSVILLE, IN 46077--0000 NAPLES, FL 34120--1935 NIEDERMEIER EST, ANNE MULCAHY. WILLIAM E & GAIL A JO ANN NIEDERMEIER 9450 DANBURY BLVD APT 201 8535 DANBURY BLVD APT 104 NAPLES, FL 34120-0637 NAPLES, FL 34120.-0619 .S3�dtl1S GREGG, JO ANN L VENDITTO, ROSEMARIE PO BOX 452 313 SAUNAS DR VALLEY FORGE, PA 19481---0452 PALM BCH GARDENS, FL 33410-0000 YANZE R, KRISTEN INGRAM, IAN & JULIA 14944 SUMMIT PLACE CIR 8 SEAFORD COURT NAPLES, FL 34119---0000 ESPLANADE ROCHESTER KENT UNITED KINGDOM MEI ICA KEANE, JOYCE M VANDEN BOSCH, HAROLDJ 8448 RADCLIFFE TER #204 LINDA L VANDEN BOSCH NAPLES, FL 34120-0664 G945 OLD OWL DR FENNVILLE, MI 49408-7614 CLARK, BARBAPA HALL GAYLE E YOUNGMAN TRUST 9430 RADCLIFFE TER APT 103 101 HERITAGE HILL RD NAPLES, FL 34120--0663 HOLDERNESS, NH 03245-5109 label size 1" x 2 5/8" compatible with Avery 115160/8160 etiquette de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery 115160/8160 ALVARANGA, EVAN A & EILEEN E 7831 SW 197TH TER CUTLER BAY, FL 33189-2157 MORGAN DOUGLAS ENTERPRISES LLC 78200 OLD 41 RD STE 208 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34135-0000 JULIE A ANDRY LIVING TRUST 7698 BRISTOL CIR NAPLES, FL 34120-0000 CAMUTO, VINCENT & JOANNE 36 KLINE RD HILLSBOROUGH, NJ 08844-0000 D;NNY, NANCY TRWILLO MYRNA 5 TRUJILLO 14990 SUMMIT PLACE CIR NAPLES, Fl 34119-0000 CAPE ACQUISITION RENTAL HLDNG 10951 BONITA BEACH RD SE BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34135--9011 DORIVAI, BAYARD & TOPHENA 7396 BRISTOL CIR UAPLES, FL 34120 -DOW GABBA LLC 2055 TRADE CENTER WAY NAPLES, FL 341D9 -00W SHATNAGAR, SUMITC PUJA VIRMANI 7709 BRISTOL CIRCLE NAPLES, FL 34120-OWB VENNARD, CHARLES T BARBARA A VENNARD 8500 DANBURY BLVD #103 NAPLES, FL 34120 -WW STAPCES'� 09 LB/09L9®ti8AV gene elgpedwoo ww Lg x ww 9Z lewJoL ap allantiq 09L8/09L9®fij9nV qm 9lgpedwoo „8/9 Z x.L Bzls logef DACK HOLDINGS LLC MACDONALD REALTY TRUST 562 BLUEBERRY PLACE 13 LOIS LN FRANKLIN LAKES, NJ 07417--0000 NORFOLK, MA 02056-0000 MULVEY, ALEXIS DURAND, STEPHEN 847A RADCLIFFE TER UNIT 103 7369 BRISTOLCIR NAPLES, FL 34120--0000 NAPLES, FL 34120-0000 DUNGAN, MARCIA N KEENAN, MICHAEL & SUSAN 1 3637 SUNSET BLUFF DR 8490 DANBURY BLVD AFT 101 BEAVERCREEK, OH 45430-0000 NAPLES, FL 34120--0629 ATANASSOV, EMIL O'SULLIVAN, KEVIN 7381 BRISTOL CIR ARDEN 23 VICTORIA RD NAPLES, FL 34120-0696 LENZIE PROVIDENCE, RI 02903-0000 SCOTLAND G66 SAN S3 -301S WATERWAYS JV HOLDINGS LP GALLAGHER, PAUL &SUSAN B 4949 SW 75TH AVE 302 SUNNY BROOK LN MIAMI, FL 33155--4464 NEWTOWN SQUARE, PA 19073-40000 CAROLYN A MATTISON REV TRUST COLGAN, MARK & SUSAN MARSHALL RAUCCI IR 2008 TRUST 5721 ENGLISH OAKS LN 100 FOUNTAIN ST 848 NAPLES, FL 34119--0000 PROVIDENCE, RI 02903-0000 BMP INV LLC LEONA FAUSTINI TRUST 2055 TRADE CENTER WAY 14901 SUMMR PLACE CIRCLE NAPLES, FL 34109--ODW NAPLES, FL 34119--0000 CRABS, STEPHEN C & LINDA F LAWRENCE, JILL 6215 GLENDORA AVE 3805 DOVER RD DALLAS, TX 7523(L-5120 RICHMOND, VA 23221-00110 RODRIGUEZ, DANIA DOROTHEA SUF SIEVERT TRUST PIEDRA, MARCO-& DANIA 8487 RADCLIFFE TER #105 14936 SUMMIT PUKE CIR NAPLES, FL 34120-0639 NAPLES, FL 34119-0000 TATOOLES, LAMES KEANE, STEVEN J & BROOKE R WILMA MERKEL 13 QUINTREE LN 1098 S MILWAUKEE AVE #100 MELVILLE, NY 11747-1811 WHEELING, IL 60090--0000 label size 1" x 2 5/8" compatible with Avery /15160/8160 Etiquette de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery 05160/8160 HUBER, DONALD G 0918/09 L9® ,Jany Dane 91012111,1100 ww L9 x ww 9Z 18w101 ap allenbp; CAMPOS, ALLAN 0919/0919® AJBAV g11m alglledwoa ,019 Z x ,L ezis facial ELVIN PURISIC BROOKE, LAURA M WAHL, JAMES C & COLLEEN H BARAHONA, JOSUE ENOC 7306 BRISTOL CIRCLE 8488 RADCUFF TERRACE #108 MAYRA ELIZABETH SORTO NAPLES, FL 34120-0000 NAPLES, FL 34120--0000 7985 BRISTOLCIR PAUL 0 HAUGHOM SR LIV TRUST RAFFIA PRESERVE MASTER ASSN IN NAPLES, Fl 34120---0000 MARUCA, TIM P & RENEE M LORMIL, MAX 8 STOCKMANN, JOHN T & SUZANNE L PO BOX 212 190 MANOR BLVD APT 1011 8448 RADCLIFFE TER #203 FORBES ROAD, PA 15633---0212 NAPLES, FL 34104 --- 11 11 NAPLES, FL 34120---0000 HUBER, DONALD G PURISIC, SAFET CAMPOS, ALLAN CATHERINE H ZIELINSKI ELVIN PURISIC 699102 AVE N GRLG F HUBER 149 BRIGHTON 11TH ST NAPLES, FL 34108-0000 380 W 12TH ST APT 4B UNIT 2 E CANADA NON1130000 NEW YORK, NY 10014---7213 BROOKLYN, NY 11235--0000 PAUL 0 HAUGHOM SR LIV TRUST RAFFIA PRESERVE MASTER ASSN IN OFFENBACH, RICHARD P CAROL G COLUNS, RICHARD E & STASIA M 24301 WALDEN CENTER RD 8520 DANBURY BLVD #205 15001W HILL RD BONITASPRINGS, FL 34134--0000 NAPLES, FL 34120--0000 COCKEYSVILLE, MD 21,030-1418 FONCHI INVESTMENTS LLC CARICATO, PAUL S BAIRD, ERIN EUZABETH 2055 TRADE CENTER WAY RITA LARKIN 194 PADDOCK GREEN CIR NAPLES, FL 34109--0000 7742 BRISTOL CIR CORUNNA,ON NAPLES, FL 34210-0000 CANADA NON1130000 BOLING.IR, WILLIAM C PETERS, KIRK & LINDIE PAUL 0 HAUGHOM SR LIV TRUST 8458 C LENEAGLE WAY 7745 BRISTOL CIR 8437 RADCLIFFE TER APT 102 NAPLES, FL 34120--1665 NAPLES, FL 34120--0000 NAPLES, FL 34120--0662 C091CHKOV, NIKOLAY RUBINO, GUY 1 & NANCY L W HYTE TR, UAM 7377 BRISTOL CIRCLE 58 RIVER LOCKS RD 8467 RADCLIFFE TER #105 N'IPLES, FL 34120-0000 KENNEBUNK, MF. 04043--0000 NAPLES, FL 34120-0649 CUSSMANN, MONIKA GUIFFREDA, FREDRICK W &JANET PETERSON, REGINALD F. 8480 DANBURY BLVD#203 8520 DANBURY BLVD APT 104 7507 BRISTOL CIR NAPLES, FL 34120--0000 NAPLES, FL 34120-0621 NAPLES, FL 34120--70&1 ''?UERI BROTHERS LLC WILSON, CHAPPELL R & JANE E EMPSON, JOE M & JANE S 2055 TRADE CENTER WAY 8450 DANBURY BLVD #202 8468 RADCLIFFE TER #201 NAPLES, FL 34109-0000 NAPLES, FL 34120-0637 NAPLES, FL 34120--0654 SPRATKE TR, KENNETH 1 GO, EMMA GHIRARDI. THOMAS A & LAURA A KENNETH 1 SPRATKE LIV TRUST 14924 SUMMIT PLACE CIR 115 SOUTH BAY AVENUE DATED 05/10/01 NAPLES, FL 34119-0000 ISLIP, NY 11751--0000 47507 ARBOR TRL FIORTHVILLE, MI 48168-8501 label size 1"x 2 5/8" compatible with Avery 05160/8160 Nquette de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery 05160/8160 label size 1"x 2 5/8" compatible with Avery 05160/8160 tfiquette de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery 05160/8160 09L9/09L94o tient' OBAR el(illedwoo ww Lg X UJw 93 IKWO; SP ellenbq 09L9/09L9® AenV YAM alglledwoo Wq Z x,; ezls lagvl GARCIA, LEONARDO R BARBARA COX DONNELLY DEC TRUST POREBSKI, JAMES 1 7657 BRISTOL CIR MICHAEL R BURLEY 2230 SE 7TH ST NAPLES, FL 34120-0690 8510 DANBURY BLVD APT 205 POMPANO BEACH, FL 33062-6404 NAPLES, FL 34120---0624 KU KAJ, ANA SPAGNOU, )OHN R COLETTI, JANET M ERMAL HODO 3 BRIDLE LN 4 BECKFORD CT 14966 SUMMIT PLACE CIR HUNTINGTN STA, NY 11746--4401 WILLIAMSVILLE, NY 14221--0000 NAPLES, FL 34119-0000 DEL MAURO, PATRICK KENDRICK, GARY SGUEGLIA, ANTHONY & GERALDINE 8480 DANBURY BLVD APT 104 LINDA LEMARR KENDRICK 294 CAPTAINS WAY NAPLES, FL 34120--0626 8530 DANBURY BLVD X 14-202 BAY SHORE, NY 11706--8106 NAPLES, FL 34120-0622 D A & E F FLYNN REV TRUST HARGIE, ROBERTS GOLD, MORRIS B 8535 DANBURY BLVD UNIT 205 DENISE E SNIDER HARGIE MARY SOLOMON HALES, FL 34120--0000 7392 BRISTOL CIR 3 COLONIAL ACRES NAPLES, FL 34120--0000 WYOMING, PA 18644---0000 NIADORE, JAMES R&PAMELA WILLIAMS, THOMAS O&SANDRA I WICKMAN, GORDON & JACQUELINE 7,530 DANBURY BLVD APT 204 273 SHADYWOOD DRIVE 7325 BRISTOL CIRCLE NAPLES, FL 34120---0622 DAYTON, OH 45415--0000 NAPLES, FL 34120 --DODO BRYAN, GERALD D FLYNN PETERSON LLC WOODLAWN PROPERTY LLC 492 BRIGHTS LANE 222 2ND 5T SE APT 901 4733 S WOODLAW N AVE PENLLYN, PA 19422--0000 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55414---5140 CHICAGO, IL 60615--1917 7URRL, CARMELO & JULIE HARRIS, TIMOTHY S & AMI L PANQUEVA, ALBERTO & ILEANA MARK TORRE 14613 SUTHERLAND AVE 14978 SUMMIT PLACE CIR 7549 BRISTOL CIR NAPLES; FL 34119---0116 NAPLES, FL 34119--4104 NAPLES, FL 34120--0692 DILARD, MARK SHAH, BINDESH K GOW IN, AL8ERT C & ANNE P 7577 BRISTOL CIR PRAJESH SHAH 8470 DANBURY BLVD APT 104 NAPLES, FL 34120-0692 67 ROLLING BROOK DR NAPLES, FL 34120-0638 EDISON, NJ 08820--4431 PEREZ, GEORGINA CHILY BRAVO INVESTMENT LLC ROSALES, HARVY E BARRIOS 7357 BRISTOL CIR 3800 19TH AVE SW N MERCEDES AGUILERA DE BARRIOS NAPLES, FL 34120---0000 NAPLES, FL 34117--0000 7029 AMBROSIA LN APT 606 NAPLES, FL 34119--0000 SCHLIEF, ROBERT D & KRISTA B MORENO, CARLOSA TRUDDEN, ROSEMARY 7611 BRISTOL CIR CLAUDIA MONTOYA WILLIAM LAW NAPLES, FL 34120--0690 7431 BRISTOL CIR 140 HILLSIDE ROAD NAPLES, FL 34120--0695 FARMINGDALE, NY 11783--0000 label size 1"x 2 5/8" compatible with Avery 05160/8160 tfiquette de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery 05160/8160 COHEN, NEIL R & MURIEL BARBARA ERICKSON REV TRUST MARIANNE MCFALL REV TRUST 8480 DANBURY BLVD APT 201 8470 DANBURY BLVD 8101 1021 RUBICON RD NAPLES, FIL 34120-0627 NAPLES, FL 34120--0000 DAYTON, OH 45409-2506 O'DONNELI, MERLA M BORCHARD, DOUGLAS C & MARLENE BROICH, LARRY D & BARBARA B 8437 RADCLIFFE TER APT 204 8437 RADCUFFE TER APT 202 8450 DANBURY BLVD APT 105 NAPLES, FL 34120--0662 NAPLES, FL 34120-0662 NAPLES, FL 34120•-0637 'M PROPERTY HOLDING ULC BARBARA H KAUPER DEC OF TRUST VANDERUNDE FAMILY TRUST 7333 BRISTOL CIR 5861 LENGWOOD DR 8488 RADCLIFFE TER #104 NAPLES, FL 3412&-0000 CINCINNATI, OH 45244-0000 NAPLES, FL 34120--0641 DELPESCE, MARIE 091.8/09LS® tiantl sane Blgiyedwoo ww L9 x ww SZ lelulol Bp B11Bnbiq MARETTI TR, RICHARD D 0918/09 LSD tiaAV UllM a1411edwoo ,8/9 Z x . L arts IBgeI NIAN FINANGNG CORP PRADO, ANA SCARLETT LECHLER, PETER B CHAFFEE JR TR, JOHN C 8001 BRISTOL CIRCLE PAMELA A JIMENE2 JOHN C CHAFFEE 1R TRUST NAPLES, FL 34120-0000 7635 BRISTOL CIRCLE DATED 10/20/98 8440 DANBURY BLVDAPT 102 NAPLES, FL 34120--0000 17895 CUFFSIDE DR NAPLES, FL 34120-0636 HAND, ANCA STRONGSVILLE. OH 44136-4231 VEGA, DIGNA A BRIDGET LARUE JUSTICE TRUST BADER TR, KENNETH L & LINDA M KELLY 5 VEGA PO BOX 21994 KENNETH L BADER REV TRUST 7581 BRISTOL CIRCLE LEXINGTON, KY 40522-0000 LINDA M BADER REV TRUST NAPLES, FL 34120-0000 FLEER, HEIDI L UTD 02/18/91 UTD 02718/91 HAYES, EDMUND J & SUSAN A 641 WEBER BLVD N 15902 PICARDY CREST CT 8530 DANBURY BLVD APT 105 NAPLES, FL 34120-0000 CHESTERFIELD, MO 63017--0000 BATES, BETSY A GRACA, SADET & MUAMERA FORSTHOFFER, MARLEE 8530 DANBURY BLVD APT 201 18 W ARGONNE RD 7692 BRISTOL CIR NAPLES, FL 34120-0622 HAMPTON BAYS, NY 11948--0000 NAPLES, FL 34120--0000 COHEN, NEIL R & MURIEL BARBARA ERICKSON REV TRUST MARIANNE MCFALL REV TRUST 8480 DANBURY BLVD APT 201 8470 DANBURY BLVD 8101 1021 RUBICON RD NAPLES, FIL 34120-0627 NAPLES, FL 34120--0000 DAYTON, OH 45409-2506 O'DONNELI, MERLA M BORCHARD, DOUGLAS C & MARLENE BROICH, LARRY D & BARBARA B 8437 RADCLIFFE TER APT 204 8437 RADCUFFE TER APT 202 8450 DANBURY BLVD APT 105 NAPLES, FL 34120--0662 NAPLES, FL 34120-0662 NAPLES, FL 34120•-0637 'M PROPERTY HOLDING ULC BARBARA H KAUPER DEC OF TRUST VANDERUNDE FAMILY TRUST 7333 BRISTOL CIR 5861 LENGWOOD DR 8488 RADCLIFFE TER #104 NAPLES, FL 3412&-0000 CINCINNATI, OH 45244-0000 NAPLES, FL 34120--0641 DELPESCE, MARIE KARSENI, ARNAUD MARETTI TR, RICHARD D 7717 BRISTOL CIR NIAN FINANGNG CORP SHIRLEY K MARETTI TR NAPLES, FL 34120-0000 2055 TRADE CENTER WAY R D & S K MARETTI IT REV TRUST NAPLES, FL 34109-0000 DATED 12/16/02 8440 DANBURY BLVDAPT 102 NAPLES, FL 34120-0636 HAND, ANCA AGNEW TRUST RENAHAN, BESSIE E & RICHARD H IEROAL SULIMAN 20040 VALHALLA 50 8535 DANBURY BLVD APT 201 7664 BRISTOL CIRCLE ASHBURN, VA 20147---4145 NAPLES, FL 34120--0619 NAPLES, FL 34120--0000 FLEER, HEIDI L LISIECKI, URSZUTA E HAYES, EDMUND J & SUSAN A 641 WEBER BLVD N 1420 WEST OAKTON ST 8530 DANBURY BLVD APT 105 NAPLES, FL 34120-0000 PARK RIDGE, IL 60068-0000 NAPLES, FL 34120--0622 LODS, DENNIS D & JOAN DEVEAU DIE2, MOIRA P VACA PING, JULIAN A 1124 LAURELWOOD 7337 BRISTOL CIR 7484 BRISTOL CIR CARMEL, IN 46032--8747 NAPLES, FL 34120-0696 NAPLES, FL 34126-0693 ® label size 1" x 2 5/8" compatible with Avery `°5160/8160 biquolte de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery 05160/8160 I.S37d`d1S 0919/09158ti9nV sane alglledwoo ww L9 x Will 92leullol ap ellantIq 09 L8/09 L9®tienV gllm elgpedwoo „8/9 Z x „L ezls loge) CHITTURI, SRIHARI NIELSTEN, GERALD & ANNE BARNES, RAYMONDJ & DEBRA M P O BOX 51063 106 GLEN ROCK RD 118 SHERBROOKE RD FT MYERS, FL 33994-0000 CEDAR GROVE, NJ 07009-0000 LINDENHURST, NY 11757--0000 JOHN F MANNING JR TRUST TECrA FLORIDA LLC ARRA20LA, JUAN CARLOS MARGARET H MANNING TRUST 191111 COLUNS AVE 8911 MELISSA. ARRAZOLA 2117 21ST ROAD N SUNNY ISLES BEAC, FL 33160 -MM 7317 BRISTOL CIR ARLINGTON, VA 22201--0000 MELVILLE, NY 11747---S293 NAPLES, FL 34120-0000 FERNS, FRANCIS E & CATHY J KELLEY, JAMES A & CATHERINE V BIRO SOUTH LLC 8545 DANBURY BLVD 8103 180 REVERE DR 138 TREETOP LANE NAPLES, FL 34120-0001) SAYVILLE, NY 11782--0000 EGG HARBOR TWNSH, NJ 08234--0000 WALSH, DAVID M & USA H LEANDROS INVESTMENTS INC RUZ20, STEVEN A & MARGARET A 4325 VINEWOOD LN N 2644 FISHTAIL PALM CT 24 TOM HARVEY RD PLYMOUTH, MN 55442--2629 NAPLES, FL 34120---0000 WESTERLY, RI 02891-0000 POZYCKI, JOSEPH W SKILLING, THOMAS G & MARY WATT SOMAR PROPERTIES UNLIMITED LLC 200 CHURCH LN 8535 DANBURY BLVD APT 203 193945TH ST SW SEWICKLEY, PA 15143-1012 NAPLES, FL 34120---0619 - NAPLES, FL 34119-0000 FIORILLO, DOMINIC & LAURI MIHAI I TUDOSIE REV TRUSF EST DOUCETTE, KART A 8458 RADCLIFFE TERRACE 8103 1411 RADFORD ST NE 7631 BRISTOL CIR NAPLES, FL 34120-0000 NORTH CANTON, OH 44720-7858 NAPLES, FL 34120 -0690 CROW LEY, STEPHEN A & SHIRLEY VIGUOTTI, DOMINICK PATRICIA A KLIMEK R/LTRUST 14900SUMMIT PLACE CIR CATHERINE A VIGUOTTI 8477 RADCLIFFE TER 8105 NAPLES, FL 34119- -4102 1154 SAVOY DR NAPLES, FL 34120-0642 MELVILLE, NY 11747---S293 GACON, LESZEK & EWA DONOHUE, WILLIAM F OLSON, PHYLLIS T 14609 SUTHERLAND AVE JENNIFER R DONOHUE 446 PRESWICK LN NAPLES, FL 34119--411E 7313 BRISTOL CIR NAPLES, FL 34120-1659 NAPLES, FL 34113-0000 CASTILLO, MARIO F & MARIA D ANNE TSHARKEY LIV TRUST BAUER, DANIEL M 7342 BRISTOL CIR 75 HUNTERS RIDGE ROAD DIANE E ANDERSON NAPLES, FL 34120-0694 SOUTHBURY, Cr 06488--0000 32 WOODLAND HILLS SOUTHBURY, CT 06488--0000 MORTON, JAMES K & CATHERINE L MCKAY, DAVID W & GAIL NINA MARIE FUEHRER REV TRUST 9470 DANBURY BLVD UNIT 204 8450 DANBURY BLVD APT 205 8478 RADCLIFFE TER APT 201 NAPLES, FL 34120-0000 NAPLES, FL 34120-0637 NAPLES, FL 34120--0640 ®label size 1" x 2 5/8" compatible with Avery 115160/8160 etiquette de formal 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery 05160/8160 ADRIANA INV 2.0 LLC 2055 TRADE CENTER WAY NAPLES, FL 34109--0000 MARTORANO, RICHARD I& NANCY 1703 DURHAM DR INVERNESS, IL 60067--0000 ATHANASOPOULOS, JOHN PAUTAATHANASOPOULOS 7346 ACORN WAY NAPLES, FL 34119-0000 ALDERMAN & VIOLET R DIXON REVOCABLE TRUST 13218TH ST NE NAPLES, FL 34126--7462 ;OF REAL ESTATE LLC 7680 HUNT COUNTRY PL ZIONSVILLE, IN 46077--9375 FUSARO TR, JOSEPH & JANET P FUSARO LIVING TRUST UTD 09/13/04 8430 RADCLIFFE TER APT 201 NAPLES, FL 34120-0663 CIANGO, KATHLEEN A 133 COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE r•XFORD,CT 06478--OOD0 BACHARACH, STEPHEN 7591 BRISTOL OR NAPLES, FL 34126-11000 SLAYTON TR, NAIDAJ 15007 SILVER FIR DR HOLLAND, MI 49424--1693 SEGALOFF, VIRGINIA 7713 BRISTOL CIR NAPLES, FL 34126-0000 STAPLES 09 t910919® ABAV DBAB slQltedwoo ww L9 X ww Sd 1B0u01 Bp Bllenb113 09t9/0919®AJBAV q4m Blglledwoo,N Ix,t ezls IagEl OUALIDI, YOUSSEF & FAIRUZ BRISTOL PINES LLC 7642 BRISTOL CIRCLE 2385 NW EXECUTIVE CENTER OR NAPLES, FL 34120-0000 STE 440 BOCA RATON, FL 33431-0000 CAROL R TANNENBAUM 2005 TRUST VANDERBILT COMMTY ASSOC INC 8458 RADCLIFFE TER APT 202 8250 DANBURY BLVD NAPLES, FL 34120--0650 NAPLES, FL 34120-1631 RESTREPO, GIOVANNI & MARIA L CATTERMOLE, KRISTA 7653 BRISTOL CIR 21125TH ST NW NAPLES, FL 34126-0000 NAPLES, FL 34120-0000 MORTON, GARY RASMUSSEN, CHARLES & DEBORAH 104 WALNUT RIDGE DR 7368 BRISTOL CIR PITTSBURGH, PA 15238-0000 NAPLES, FL 34120-0694 WELCH TR, SUSAN K WEISS FAMILY TRUST 6908 CLOVER CT 4501 HIGHLAND GREEN CT DARIEN, IL 60561-3680 ALEXANDRIA, VA 22312-0000 KOSTECKI, DANIELIOHN CLUB 54 INC DOREEN C KOSTECKI 16 CENTRAL ST REAR 9447 RADCLIFFE TERRACE #204 LEOMINSTER, MA 01453-0000 NAPLES, FL 34120-0000 SB RENTALS LLC NOVA,-LBEUSA 4560 STH AVE SW 7440 BRISTOL CIR NAPLES, FIL 34119-2915 NAPLES, FL 34126-0693 DEAN, MARGARET LASALA, JOSEPH 7766 BRISTOL CIR 59 ASCOT COURT NAPLES, FL 34126-0000 MANHASSET, NY 11030-0000 WALSH, MICHAEL A & JULIE V ABREU, FRANCINA 8470 DANBURY BLVD #103 7411 BRISTOL CIR NAPLES, FL 34126-0000 NAPLES, FL 34120-0695 LASALLE, TANUL M PEREZ-LOPEZ, GUILLERMO & LINDA 14991 SUMMIT PLACE OR 5222 HAWKESBURY WAY NAPLES, FL 34119-4103 NAPLES, FL 34119-9581 label size 1" x 2 5/8" compatible with Avery 05160/8160 etiquette de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery 85160/8160 S3�d'd1S TUDOR, EMILIA 09L9/09L9® NBAy Dene elq!ledwoD ww L9 x ww 9Z tenol ep euenbq;i RASMUSSEN, SONYA 09 L9/09 i.qg tieAtl g11M elq!ledwoo .8/9 Z x , L 9219 Iagel KATHLEEN WAHLIOHNSON FICALORA TR, SALVATORE POPOWICH, ROBERT M & JANET B GREATER NAPLES FIRE ROSE ANN FICALORA TR 8478 RADCLIFFE TER APT 203 RESCUE DISTRICT SALVATORE FICALORA LIV TRUST NAPLES, FL 34120---0640 11145 COLLIER BLVD DATED 04/20/93 760 SUGARBUSH DRIVE NAPLES, FL 34119---0000 8470 DANBURY BLVD APT 201 ZIONSVILLE, IN 46077--1914 NAPLES, FL 34120-0000 NAPLES, FL 34120-0638 O DONOGHUE, MICHAEL G DEBORTOU, AURELIO MEDY, KENDY 8480 DANBURY BLVD APT 204 SARA FERNANDES CAMPOS BORTOU 7365 BRISTOL CIRCLE NAPLES, FL 34120-0627 14995 SUMMIT PLACE CIR NAPLES, FL 34120-0000 RUTH CASTRO NAPLES, FL 34119--0000 14932 SUMMIT PLACE CIR SMITH, KERINE CORDES. WILLIAM R& KATHY LOIS W FAWCETT TRUST 15014 SUMMIT PLACE CIR 8477 RADCLIFFE TER APT 103 8448 RADCUFFE TERRACE #104 NAPLES, FL 34119---4119 NAPLES, FL 34120-0642 NAPLES, FL 34120---0000 TUDOR, EMILIA JOHNSON, KENNETH W RASMUSSEN, SONYA 1327. CARIBOU LANE KATHLEEN WAHLIOHNSON 7397 BRISTOL CIR H^FFMAN ESTATES, IL 60192--0000 10034 INDIGO DR NAPLES, FL 34120--0696 EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55347--1206 PATRICIA J BLAKLEY LIV TRUST AGUILAR, MADEUN A MACK TR, MARY LOU 760 SUGARBUSH DRIVE 7519 BRISTOL CIR UTO 3/95 ZIONSVILLE, IN 46077--1914 NAPLES, FL 34120-0000 FFF MARY L MACK DECLARATION 3101 IRONHILL DR SPRINGFIELD, IL 62711--4035 FORDON, WILLIAM F & NATALIE J WHITE, ANNABELLA TABORGA, ARMANDO 8450 DANBURY BLVD APT 104 JESSE WAYNE WHITE RUTH CASTRO NAPLES, FL 34120--0637 14932 SUMMIT PLACE CIR 14928 SUMMIT PLACE CIR#21 NAPLES, FL 34119--0000 NAPLES, FL 34119 --DODO MCKINNEY, LEE CHAPMAN, MALCOLM 5 NICHOLLS TR, EDWARD A WILLIAM EDWARD MCKINNEY 8440 DANBURY BLVD APT 101 STACIE 8 NICHOLLS TR WM EDWIN 1=& ELLEN MCKINNEY NAPLES, FL 34120-0636 8 COTTON TAIL LN 136 TORINGTON WAY BROOKFIELD, CT 06&A--1037 NEWARK, DE 19702---2676 EDWARDS, JOHN & LYNDA ALVAREZ, ANOLDO & CLARA M SANDRA G KREII'jEL FAM TRUST 1904 COTTON PT 121 MILDRED TER 4850 KNOLL LT LEACHVILLE, AR 7243&-9079 CLARK, NJ 07066--7937 WATERVUET, MI 49098--8347 CORONT, MICHAEL E & JANE L RHODEN, YVONNE MARIA GARUTTI, JOHN & JUDITH 8510 DANBURY BLVD #203 RANTHONY RHODEN 8470 DANBURY BLVD UNIT 21-203 NAPLES, FL 34120--0000 7353 BRISTOL CIR NAPLES, FL 34120--0638 NAPLES, FL 34120-0696 BIJONPANE, ANTHONY D & OEBRA A MILLER, RANDALLA & MARY JO STONE, LARRY A & JANET L 1;018 SUMMIT PLACE OR 1201 SPEAR ST 10 E LEE STAPT 901 NAPLES, FL 34119-4119 SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403--7022 BALTIMORE, MD 21202---6030 label size 1"x 2 5/8" compatible with Avery 65160/8160 Etiquette de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery 65160/8160 S3�dd1S FIDANU, GIAN & MARIE C 1285 aARRIGONA Cr NAPLES, FL 34119-3340 GOLDEN,FRANK PO BOX 234 GRAFTON, MA 01519--0000 HOPKINS LIVING TRUST 14 WINCHESTER OR MONROE, NY 10950---3911 PRENO, DEBORAH 8520 DANBURY BLVD APT 105 NAPLES, FL 34120--0621 RALPH R MIANO REV TRUST 8477 RADCLIFFE TER #201 NAPLES, FL 34120---0642 CRISTALL, PETER & MYRA B P477 RADCLIFFE TER APT 203 NAPLES, FL 34120--0642 COONEY, PATRICK 1 8478 RADCLIFFE TERRACE #204 NAPLES, FI. 34120-0000 TROTTER, ERVA C & KAREN K 14970 SUMMIT PLACE OR NAPLES, FL 34119-0000 WINKLEPLECK, JOHN G & NANCY G 9448 RADCLIFFE TERRACE UNIT 102 NAPLES, FL 34120-0000 UECRISTOFARO, CLEMENT FABIOLA E LENT] 15002 SUMMIT PLACE OR NAPLES, FL 34119-4U9 STAPM5 0918/091ga JDaAV oane alg0edwoo Will /9 x ww 9Z 1ew101 Op opanbiq 0918/0919® A1BAV 41!m olglledwoo „8/9 Z x „� ezls lagel BARONE, THOMAS A & JANET L KESSLER, JENNIFER 3485 REGANS WAY MARTIN MALTZ ZANESVILLE, OH 43701--1392 BARBARA KESSLER-MALTZ NAPLES, FL 34120-0000 7993 BRISTOL CIRCLE NAPLES, FL 34120-0000 NIEMIEC, MIECZYSLAW DELORES a MATTELL TRUST JADW IGA-ANNA.NIEMIEC 7834 CLASSICS DR 7321 BRISTOL CIR NAPLES, FL 34113-3043 NAPLES, FL 34120-0696 SCHUSTER, MICHAEL R DOLAN, MICHAEL A & PATRICIA E KATHLEEN M SCHUSTER 46 AVALON LN 24 FAXON DR MATAWAN, NJ 07747--1218 STOW, MA 01775-0000 BRIAN R F WOTTAND ASTRID K ELWELL, JOSEPH PATRICK ELLIOT LIVING TRUST JESSICA A ELWELL 8437 RADCLIFFE TER #105 7705 BRISTOL CIR NAPLES, FL 34120-0000 NAPLES, FL 34110-0000 K R TANNASSEE SR FMLY TRUST OSTLER, JOHN & THERESA 7643 BRISTOL CIR 1206 ABBEY ROAD NAPI ES, FL 34120-0690 PICKEKING, ON NAPLES, FL 34120-0000 CANADA LIX 1V9 SS�dtl1S MILLER, ROBERTS HOOGERWERF, RICHARD L & ELAINE 3350 BRIDLE PATH LN 30015 WHITE HALL DR WESTON, FL 33331--3508 FARM.NGTON HILLS, MI 48331--1995 WHITE, RONALD M & VALERIE H RINALDI, PASQUALE L & JEAN F 5512 SANDY FOLLY CT 4238 HERITAGE VILLAGE FAIRFAX STATION, VA 22039-1032 SOUTHBURY, C] 06488-0000 MEDIA, MANUEL A GONZALES TATE, ROBERT F & PAMELA A FRANCIA M FOJANO 8510 DANBURY BLVD AFT 204 1487.0 TRIANGLE BAY DR #1105 NAPLES, FL 34120--0624 NAPLES, FL 34119-0000 POMPONIO, ROBERT CARL J HILT LrV TRUST RYAN POMPON:O ELEANORJ HILT LIV TRUST 7553 BRISTOL CIRCLE 13296 JUNEBERRY LANE NAPLES, FL 34120-0000 HUNTLEY, IL 60142---0800 GOEDE, KRISTA & JOHN LARSEN, PATRICK H & KAREN C 5971 BUR OAKS LN 108 CARTEE ST NAPLES, FL 34119-1313 COUDERSPORT, PA 16915-1442 label size i" x 2 5/8" compatible with Avery 115160/8160 Etiquette de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery 05160/8160 0918/0919® tient' aene Blglledwoo wIu L9 x LJJW 9Z 1¢11110181) Bgenbp� 09 L8/09 L9® tieAV qqM 81gp8dLu0o „97S Z K . L e218legel SKAFISH, PETER & LINDA JUDITH A PALKA UV TRUST GLASS, ROBERT F & MARTHA J 18418 OUNECREST DR, UNIT 7 9623 GARDEN WALK 3495 REGANS WAY NEW BUFFALO, MI 49117-0000 CLARENCE CENTER, NY 14032-0000 ZANESVILLE, OH 43701-1392 BRIENZI, MARK & KIMBERLY SONNENBERG, EARL GREENLAW, DOUGLAS C 106 WATERFORD WAY DAWN SONNENBERG 8458 RADCLIFFE TER APT 204 FAIRPORT, NY 14450--0000 1281 BRINDLESTONE DRIVE NAPLES, FL 34120--0650 VANDAUA, ON 45377-0000 NAPLES, FL 34120-0000 GONZALEZ, RAFAELA MILAGROS MAU TR, BARRY E C & J MARTIN FAMILY TRUST 14958 SUMMIT PLACE CIR SHIRLEY A MAU TR 17 COACH ROAD NAPLES, FL 34119-4104 BARRY E MAU REV TRUST 5/30/94 WALPOLE, MA 02081--2102 452 HOLLY UY N OAKDALE, MN S5128-7035 STUDLEY, ALAN & JANET BYERS, DANIELLE D WRATIEN, THOMAS F & JULIA A 5 SHIPYARD LN CHESTER M BYERS III 8525 DANBURY BLVD APT 101 SETAUKET, NY 11733-3038 14974 SUMMIT PLACE CIR NAPLES, FL 34120--0620 NAPLES, FL 34119--4104 NESBITT, CLAUDE H JAMES AJACKSON REV TRUST ANDERSON, JOAN M BEATRIZ STOUT-NESBITT CORINE M JACKSON REV TRUST 8510 DANBURY BLVD APT 101 7725 BRISTOL CIRCLE 8448 RADCLIFFE TER #202 NAPLES, FL 34120-0624 NAPLES, FL 34120---0000 NAPLES, FL 34120--0000 KULDA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP LA MARTINA INVESTMENTS LLC GIESBRECHT, KEN & CHRISTINE 8430 RADCLIFFE TER APT 204 7432 BRISTOL CIR 51 WATERBURY DR NAPLES, FL 34120-0663 NAPLES, FL 34120 -OM WINNNIPEG, MB CANADA R3P LR7 RODRIGUEZ, WILLIAM JOSE ANGOLA VERA, FRANCOI ROBIN50N, MARY W 7733 BRISTOL CIR MIUSSE YAMILETH SERA 710 TALAMORE OR NAPLES, FL 34120-0000 7341 BRISTOL CIR AMBIER, PA 19002--1864 NAPLES, FL 34120--0696 MONTGOMERY, DAVID B & ANN H URTZ, KENNETH P & PAMELA JO NORMAN, DONNA 8520 DANBURY BLVD #101 7721 BRISTOLCIR 7630 BRISTOL CIRCLE NAPLES, FL 34120000 NAPLES, FL 34120-0000 NAPLES, FL 34120-0000 BARIL, RICHARD P & BRENDA R RAWSON III, WALTER B BALOH, WILLIAM E 8440 DANBURY BLVD #203 7649 BRISTOL CIR RICHARD C BAIOH NAPLES, FL 34120--0000 NAPLES, FL 34120-0690 8545 DANBURY BLVD #104 NAPLES, FL 34120-0000 BONFE ET AL, ROGER A JENSEN, THOMAS A & DIANE L TAYLOR JR, MAICOLM P & RITA N 5508 DUNLAP AVE N 1923 S BAY CURVE 3012 SOUTH FREEMAN ROAD SHOREVIEW, MN 55126 -WW EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55347-0000 WILLIAMSBURG. VA 23185-0000 label size V x 2 5/8" compatible with Avery 65160/8160 biquette de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery 85160/8160 S3�dtl1S 09 L9/0919®FJaAV 09AE 9lggedwoo ww 29 x uJw 9? lewol 9p aAanbiq 0919/09 L9® NeAV 411m alglledwo0 „979 Z x „L ezls lagel KERR, JEFFREY L VOGEL, KENNETH R & DOROTHY A HIGGINS, ROY L & LINDA L 8500 DANBURY BLVD APT 204 136 BELLIS ROAD 8467 RADCLIFFE TER APT 103 NAPLES, FL 34120-0623 MILFORD, NJ 08848 ---0000 NAPLES, FL 34120--0649 HAMEL TR, RONALD L & IRENE A -RENE A HAMEL TRUST 117 WINDHAM DR E LONGMEADOW, MA 01028-2671 INGLESE, ANTHONY & MANDY 14908 SUMMIT PLACE CIR NAPLES, FL 34119--0000 ESTEFANO, DANYARA 7354 BRISTOL CIR NAPLES, FL 34120--0000 JOSEPH C VICERE REV TRUST MARIE L VICERE REV TRUST 8459 GLENEAGLE WAY NAPLES, FL 34120 ---DODO KENNEDY, ARTHUR) 8440 DANBURY BLVD APT 103 NAPLES, FL 34120-0636: LITTLE, JANE 5 8450 DANBURY BLVD APT 102 NAPLES, FL 34120-0637 MORGAN, RONALD C & DIANE 8488 RADCUFFE TERRACE UNIT 204 NAPLES, FL 34120--0000 label size 1"x 2 5/8" compatible with Avery "5160/8160 Etiquette de formal 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery "5160/8160 .S3�d`diS Napties Batdij News NaplesNews.com Published Daily Naples, FL 34110 Affidavit of Publication State of Florida Counties of Collier and Lee Before the undersigned they serve as the authority, personally. appeared Natalie Zollar who on oath says that she serves as Inside Sales Manager of the Naples Daily News, a daily newspaper published at Naples, in Collier County, Florida; distributed in Collier and Lee counties of Florida; that the attached copy of the advertising was published in said newspaper on dates listed. Affiant further says that the said Naples Daily News is a newspaper published at Na- ples, in said Collier County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Collier County, Florida; distributed in Collier and Lee counties of Florida, each day and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Naples, in said Collier County, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. Customer Ad Number Copy ine WALDROP ENGINEERING, P.A. 1897827 Naples Villas Pub Dates January 24, 2018 (Sig Lure of affiant) ;i• IGbLF NiNGlS Munlfutlk-Sme Ailwid, Sworn to and subscribed before me Cam.WIonFGG �D61M� This January 24, 2018�`t`o :'�'COAYA'Ffp1w°�ra10'F }� 1, w�wwxanr 1 ail 'l,yQ f, t I QI hC { Q (Signature of affiant) 1 P.O.# .A F WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 2a. 201B a NONfpMLYMLWL Florida voters will be asked to restore felon voting rights If approved, 1.5 rniWon ex -felons could vote Erarr I Farrington AdersomeDYsess TALLAHASSEE - Fomrer felons oWtl hevetheo Florida soo ftdglne m - gored under a pmpased eonrtiNtional amendmenthanded towtmsinNovem- Iser. A measure that caWd lure a eVmA- rant Impart an a u. known for We. roman{ cline electfar es, Flung rte for a Fair Democracy has doure Phan 799.000 certified Petition sigo,um, of Snow 33.00 more then the group needed in get the measure on theballot Tha rmpaetimmesalmuf15 million ex -felons would here their wr- ing rights colored ifwtersapprme The ineaadearoodeaoperea.—umapprw- W for peso v Deamond Meade, the group's chatr- nun. istur those glen whoa mer - whelming support fat the petition, put the measure on the Idiot. 'Voters took marees In their own hullsbensurethatthe i fdlowPlortdl- fnalay members, end friends who're made peat mistakes, served mein lime altercold teed debtsm society re given 1 second chance and the to wits., ityMe b eves hack Wdt ¢beeryio vote, -Meade said. Democrsts end wore rights t on of haw long gfigI for the renonnan of Felon wring Bleb¢. Florida's bon Bt whng - Wong with r wring pure lint purge ism took some non-felons rwent mfluid, - ely d0N then-Vlo president Al Gare the Geor prea W, auto election that from, George st tush won use. b that yam. and thus the White House. by aef wilt to an election ober took flet weeks to .on And And without the ban, Florida's preel- tlentiel election weed Mve bed a differ ant immune lartyear. President DeaWd Trump entered Fhahla giro fewer than SO ferment or the wta, beating HIWuy Northam Clinton 49 penin no 47B per- cent. Before the 2000 elemlco then-Sec- rmery of state leatherbe Hmda hired a company to puree relons from the state's wrong lista. But the proses was flawed and on, eligible voters were,¢ - moved from mile because of Tougher, idenuty'- others were Crowded of mb- demeenors end not febnlea Florin(. wroom prowu for in., ing wring rights to felons who here completed t hem semences lea slow one. It "Uhmia meeting. And appifonb an, often denied. If wirers approve the amendment, felons would have their wtingdghb eem ned one they've con- cluded thou eYmemna. Felons onwtt- ed of murder m sex a rte nese wouldn't he eligible. Shortly efts[ to" oWce b 2007 then-Republiern Dov. Crarle, Com eon- Ybod two of the SAW'S these Cabinet embers to approve mires l hin mmi d al - low the Wrote wmmibion m testma wting rights for non -Valent felons Without a hearing, Within a year mom than 100,000 ex -felons were aneroid wring rights. But Gov Rick Seen and the Cabinet ended automatic res rebon of wtina rights AS one of Soft'. fire, nen upon taking of ies in 2011 The gore rno, has been Clem that the most Mportant thing to him Is that As- rvm show their thq ran lead o IN, freeofedmeand beeereuntebletatheir victims and our w u idea: Sinn spokeswoman Neter Wyland sold in An ema0 Crls1, now a Demwxatic U.S. of, sentnlive, We. Joyful when cold that the IWumiW wee be on the ballot. 'The". great! Thele wondcdWC he told The Asses imed Press uta phone ins terview. .:.. ILUERCUlaf11' H \eW Facts About Your Feet & Ankles elood.Sureei-I eAwslon..Num('ell yhrrvim Fin An, 1n41r mW Fua/ PoN. Oiler poo Fns mmnma a m, ee sear, ©cwt's, meh may the a:, or �va0 afgY9 imidMdmeaaa ©FW wnph mlM balker WwIM: 0s rw.n As viNMb Wp cmbeanmrelumor. Meella+: we agar flvnht ©aaJu,ewAedtuel,Ywo.mta la OQNMJYMf Imin allardbngnaR MJ elope miFlp ulNa¢,aR u6 MW. tlVlpealad OWtlNe., nlecOwu wn more peoplellvn OTmperebra WurwassmelelWelam baral.anso NDS idsgwbc. Ridge hart.14a a.,. n elesseenow. pubic 19 Invlled to afte1M a nelghlJONpod Infpm . meel ng held Bop Frglnaaerng. PA on bMef of Tit &[mag. Inc. M n4 hapoosIng it bcallan: Montle,, February 12, 2016, at 5:30 P.M. Gmater Naples Flne Raecua Haad0uarbne 14575 Coffee IsmemaN, Naples. FL 34119 e Subject property tools 37.5./- acres and is Ionone m 14720 Collier �u nnud. to m0 Bain of Collier Sousa ned and appmallrretety one (1) min Sodium Immokales Road In Secure. 35, T.hip 48 South. Pena 26 East. Collier runty, Florida. The Property Ownara have flkd a narrating applicetlon wlm qu t,imap imIMn wNapkaMiWRPUD. s tioazwbmepopaty Rural Agricultural A to �M Planned Unll DarYapmenl (RPUD) to for the doebpment of a maximum of 146 dwelling units And acdasaory TM maximum neauemed residential dente, Is 4 clip d ones per acne. WE VALUE YOUR INPIPr Bosinosa all popery ownpe all residents am wmcome to enol the presentation all dN01ms the pmlect will the ownersrepreeanbt1we and Colla County staff. f you are unable to an" thumlmbtq, but save 0uestwn5 or comments, they dart be directed lo: Waldrop rmglowerng. PA Vo Aber Crespi, 26100 9ortlb Grant, or., Suite 305, Bonda Songs, FL 34135 (236)4pbi . ext. 207 OR alexis.cno ooOwal ropenglars ing.wm e that Collier Courtly/Greater Naples Fre Rescue does rare pmgrarrl. Agenda #9E COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS 2018 In-House GMP AMENDMENTS AFFORDABLE HOUSING DENSITY BONUS (TRANSMITTAL HEARING) Petition: PL20180001205/CPSP-2018-4 CCP * June 07, 2018 BCC: July 1052018 Clerks Office TABLE OF CONTENTS CCPC— 2018 In-House GMP Amendments [Transmittal Hearing] CCPC June 07, 2018 1) TAB: Staff Report DOCUMENT: Transmittal Staff Report: P L20180001205/C P S P-2018-4 2) TAB: Resolution DOCUMENT: Transmittal Resolution with Exhibit "A"text(and/or maps): P L20180001205/C PS P-2018-4 3) TAB: Legal Advertisements DOCUMENT: CCPC Advertisement Agenda Item 9.E Co ,r Cort-P.ty STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, ZONING DIVISION, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION HEARING DATE: JUNE 7, 2018 SUBJECT: PETITION PL20180001205/CPSP-2018-4, STAFF-PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT, GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN, HOUSING ELEMENT, AND IMMOKALEE AREA MASTER PLAN OF THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN [TRANSMITTAL HEARING] REQUESTED ACTION and STAFF ANALYSIS: This proposal consists of several individual staff-initiated amendments to four Elements of the Growth Management Plan (GMP) providing for changes to Affordable Housing Density Bonuses available by the Density Rating System as authorized or directed by the Board of County Commissioners, as well as modification to the term "affordable housing". These amendments were directed by the Board following consideration of the housing report from the Housing Stakeholder Group and Cormac Giblin, AICP, Housing and Grant Development Manager, with their recommendations reflected by the amendments proposed. Each amendment, or the nature of similar amendments, is identified below, followed by a brief explanation/analysis. The proposed amendments themselves make up the individual Exhibit "A"s accompanying the Transmittal Resolution. Future Land Use Element (FLUE): Revise throughout Urban Mixed Use District Subdistrict provisions, as needed, to remove the "Workforce"from the term Affordable-Workforce Housing; increase the density bonus from 8 to 12 units per acre, and revise a specific percentage figure associated with the overall changes being made to the Affordable Housing program; remove specific references to other source documents, i.e. Florida Statutes, and the County Land Development Code (LDC). General formatting changes, and housekeeping revisions, as have been directed previously by the Board continue to be made. Most of these are "housecleaning" amendments intended to add clarity, correct text errors or omissions, and provide harmony and internal consistency among components of the GMP. A number of these Board-directed changes are not substantive but are predominately corrective in nature and follow direction provided by the adopted 2011 Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR). -1 - CPSP-2018-4/ PL20180001205 Growth Management Plan Amendments providing for changes related to the Density Rating System Agenda Item 9.E Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP): Revise throughout Urban Mixed-Use District and Urban Commercial District provisions, as needed, to remove the "Workforce" from the term Affordable-Workforce Housing; increase the density bonus from 8 to 12 units per acre, and revise a specific percentage figure associated with the overall changes being made to the Affordable Housing program; remove specific references to other source documents, i.e. Florida Statutes, and the County Land Development Code (LDC). Housing Element (HE): Revise Introduction, and throughout Goals Objectives and Policies, as needed, to remove the "Workforce" from the term Affordable-Workforce Housing; Immokalee Area Master Plan (TAMP): Revise throughout Goals Objectives and Policies, and Urban Mixed-Use District provisions, as needed, to remove the "Workforce" from the term Affordable-Workforce Housing; increase the density bonus from 8 to 12 units per acre, and revise a specific percentage figure associated with the overall changes being made to the Affordable Housing program; remove specific references to another source document, i.e., the County Land Development Code (LDC). ADDITIONAL STAFF ACTION and ANALYSES: Amendments to the Plan have several changes in common —within and between Elements. Approval of these amendments also confers the Board's consent to make similar and related changes to the Land Development Code (LDC). Environmental Impacts: Due to the nature of these amendments, there are no new environmental impacts being created. Public Facilities Impacts: Due to the nature of these amendments, there are no new public facilities impacts being created. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: A copy of this Staff Report was provided to the Office of the County Attorney and has been approved as to form and legality. The criteria for land use plan amendments are found in Sections 163.3177(1)(f) and 163.3177(6)(a)2, Florida Statutes. This Staff Report was reviewed by the County Attorney's Office on May 18, 2018. [HFAC] STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: That the Planning Commission forward Petition CPSP-2018-4 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation to Transmit to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. —2 — CPSP-2018-4/ PL20180001205 Growth Management Plan Amendments providing for changes related to the Density Rating System Agenda Item 9.E PREPARED BY: DATE: 2_7_ AAri 18 CORBY SCHMIDT, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION, ZONING DIVISION R VIEWED B : 1 � _, s- z2- -/g DATE: DAVID WEEKS, AICP, GROWTH MANAGEMENT MANAGER COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION, ZONING DIVISION REVIEWED BY: DATE: tri MIKE BOSI, AICP, DIRECTOR, ZONING DIVISION APPROVED BY: DATE: — 2 Z —/ JAMES FRENCH, DEPUTY DEPARTMENT HEAD GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT PETITION NO. PL20180001205 / CPSP-2018-4 Staff Report for the June 7, 2018, CCPC Meeting. NOTE: This petition has been scheduled for the July 10, 2018 BCC Meeting. G:ICDES Planning Services\Comprehensive\Comp Planning GMP DATAIComp Plan Amendments12018 GMPAs Outside of Cycles\CPSP-18-4 Density Rating SystemtOther Working Docs\CPSP•18-4 CCPC stff rprt_1205_FNLdoex — 3 — CPSP-2018-4/PL20180001205 Growth Management Plan Amendments providing for changes related to the Density Rating System RESOLUTION NO. 18- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PROPOSING AMENDMENTS TO THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN, ORDINANCE 89-05, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING TO REVISE THE DENSITY RATING SYSTEM TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM AFFORDABLE HOUSING BONUS FROM 8 TO 12 UNITS PER ACRE AND REVISE TERMINOLOGY AND SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT; THE GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN ELEMENT; THE IMMOKALEE AREA MASTER PLAN ELEMENT; AND THE HOUSING ELEMENT; AND FURTHERMORE RECOMMENDING TRANSMITTAL OF THE AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY. [PL20180001205] WHEREAS, Collier County, pursuant to Section 163.3161, et. seq., Florida Statutes, the Florida Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act of 1985, was required to prepare and adopt a comprehensive plan; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners adopted the Collier County Growth Management Plan on January 10, 1989; and WHEREAS, the Community Planning Act of 2011 provides authority for local governments to amend their respective comprehensive plans and outlines certain procedures to amend adopted comprehensive plans; and WHEREAS, Collier County staff has prepared amendments relating to Affordable Housing to the following elements of its Growth Management Plan: Future Land Use Element; Golden Gate Area Master Plan Element; Immokalee Area Master Plan Element; Housing Element; and WHEREAS, on , the Collier County Planning Commission considered the proposed amendment to the Growth Management Plan pursuant to the authority granted to it by Section 163.3174,F.S., and has recommended approval of said amendment to the Board of County Commissioners; and [18-CMP-01010/1413267/1]31 Affordable Housing GMPA Words underlined are additions;Words struckough are deletions. PL20180001205 *** *** *** ***are a break in text 5/15/18 WHEREAS, on , the Board of County Commissioners at a public hearing approved the transmittal of the proposed amendment to the state land planning agency in accordance with Section 163.3184, F.S.; and WHEREAS, upon receipt of Collier County's proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment, various State agencies and the Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) have thirty (30) days to review the proposed amendments and DEO must transmit, in writing, to Collier County its comments within said thirty(30) days pursuant to Section 163.3184,F.S.; and WHEREAS, Collier County, upon receipt of the written comments from DEO must adopt, adopt with changes or not adopt the proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment within one hundred and eighty(180)days of such receipt pursuant to Section 163.3184, F.S.; and WHEREAS, the DEO, within five (5) days of receipt of Collier County's adopted Growth Management Plan Amendment, must notify the County of any deficiencies of the Plan Amendment pursuant to Section 163.3184(3), F.S. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: The Board of County Commissioners hereby approves the proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by reference herein, for the purpose of transmittal to the Department of Economic Opportunity and other reviewing agencies thereby initiating the required State evaluation of the Growth Management Plan Amendment prior to final adoption. THIS RESOLUTION ADOPTED after motion, second and majority vote this day of , 2018. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E. BROCK,CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: Deputy Clerk ANDY SOLIS, Chairman Approved as to form and legality: tw Heidi Ashton-Cicko �' 7a Managing Assistant County Attorney Attachment: Exhibit"A"—Text amendments [18-CMP-01010/1413267/1131 Affordable Housing GMPA Words underlined are additions; Words stfuel gh are deletions. PL20180001205 *** *** *** ***are a break in text 5/15/18 in PL20180001205 CPSP-2018-4 Exhibit A FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT (Adopted October 1997, amended through December 12, 2017 by Ordinance no. 2017-48) FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION DESCRIPTION SECTION *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** I. URBAN DESIGNATION *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** A. Urban Mixed Use District [pg.27] *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** xxx *** 2. Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict [pg. 28] The purpose of this Subdistrict is to provide transitional densities between the Urban Designated Area and the Agricultural/Rural Area and comprises approximately 5,500 acres and 5% of the Urban Mixed Use District. Residential land uses may be allowed at a maximum base density of 1.5 units per gross acre, plus any density bonus that may be achieved via COME Policy 6.2.5 (6) b.1., and either"a" or°b" below. Within the Urban Residential Fringe, rezone requests are not subject to the density rating system, except as specifically provided below for the Affordable Workforce Housing Density Bonus. All rezones are encouraged to be in the form of a planned unit development. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** [pg. 29] b. In the case of properties specifically identified below, a density bonus of up to six (61,9 additional units per gross acre may be requested for projects providing affordable- workforce housing (home ownership only) for low and moderate income residents of Collier County, pursuant to Section 2.06.00 of the Land Development Code, or its successor ordinance, except as provided for below: *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 3. Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict [pg. 30] The purpose of this Subdistrict is to provide transitional densities between the Conservation designated area (primarily located to the south of the Subdistrict) and the remainder of the Urban designated area (primarily located to the north of the Subdistrict). The Subdistrict comprises those Urban areas south of US 41, generally east of the City of Naples, and generally west of the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Neutral Lands, but excludes Section 13, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, and comprises approximately 11,354 acres and 10% of the Urban Mixed Use District. The entire Subdistrict is located seaward of the Coastal High Hazard Area Boundary. In order to facilitate hurricane evacuation and to protect the adjacent environmentally sensitive Conservation designated area, residential densities within the Subdistrict shall not exceed a maximum of four (41 dwelling units per acre, except as allowed in the Density Rating System to exceed four (4). units per acre through provision of Affordable Housing and Transfers of Development Rights, and except as allowed by certain FLUE Policies under Objective 5, and — 1— Words underlined are added; words struck through are deleted. Row of asterisks(**** **** ****)denotes break in text. Page. of PL20180001205 CPSP-2018-4 except as provided in the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay. New rezones to permit mobile home development within this Subdistrict are prohibited. Rezones are recommended to be in the form of a Planned Unit Development. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 10. Henderson Creek Mixed Use Subdistrict [pg. 37] The Henderson Creek Mixed Use Subdistrict consists of approximately 81 acres and is located east of Collier Boulevard (SR 951) and south of US 41 (Tamiami Trail, East). The intent of the Subdistrict is primarily to provide for a mixture of regional commercial uses and residential development; the regional commercial uses are intended to serve the South Naples and Royal Fakapalm Planning Communities, and the Marco Island area. Conversely, the primary intent of the Subdistrict is not to provide for community and neighborhood commercial uses. The focus of the residential component of the Subdistrict shall be the provision of affordable_workforce housing to support the commercial uses within the Subdistrict, as well as in the South Naples and Royal Fakapalm Planning Communities, and the Marco Island area. The entire Subdistrict shall be developed under a unified plan; this unified plan must be in the form of a Planned Unit Development. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** [pg. 38] I. Residential development shall be limited to a maximum of 360 dwelling units, subject to the Density Rating System. However, a minimum of 200 affordable workforce housing units shall be provided. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 11. Research and Technology Park Subdistrict [pg. 38] a. Research and Technology Parks shall be permitted to include up to 20% of the total acreage for non-target industry uses of the type identified in paragraph"d"below; and, up to 20% of the total acreage for affordable workforce housing, except as provided in paragraph j below. Similarly, up to 20% of the total building square footage, exclusive of square footage for residential development, may contain non-target industry uses of the type identified in Paragraph d below. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** [pg. 39] j. Research and Technology Parks shall only be allowed on land abutting residentially zoned property if the Park provides affordable-workfefse housing. When abutting residentially zoned land, up to 40% of the Park's total acreage may be devoted to affordable workforcc housing; all, or a portion, of the affordable-workforce housing is encouraged to be located proximate to such abutting land where feasible. k. Whenever affordable-workfefse housing is provided, it shall be fully integrated with other compatible uses in the park through mixed use buildings and/or through pedestrian and vehicular interconnections. I. Whenever affordable workforce housing is provided, it is allowed at a density consistent with the Density Rating System. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** —2— Words underlined are added; words struck-through are deleted. Row of asterisks(**** **** ****) denotes break in text. Page of PL20180001205 CPSP-2018-4 13. Commercial Mixed Use Subdistrict: [pg.41] ** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ** *** 3. Residential density is calculated based upon the gross commercial project acreage. For property in the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict, density shall be as limited by that Subdistrict. For property not within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict, but within the Coastal High Hazard Area, density shall be limited to four (4) dwelling units per acre; density in excess of three (3) dwelling units per acre must be comprised of affordable- workforcc housing in accordance with Section 2.06.00 of the Land Development Code, Ordinance No. 04-41, as amended. For property not within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict and not within the Coastal High Hazard Area, density shall be limited to sixteen (16) dwelling units per acre; density in excess of three (3) dwelling units per acre and up to eleven (11) dwelling units per acre must be comprised of affordable-workforce housing in accordance with Section 2.06.00 of the Land Development Code, Ordinance No. 04- 41, as amended. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 16. Collier Boulevard Community Facility Subdistrict [pg. 44] The Collier Boulevard Community Facility Subdistrict comprises approximately 69 acres and is located on the east side of Collier Boulevard, approximately one-half mile north of the Collier Boulevard/Rattlesnake Hammock Road intersection. The purpose of this Subdistrict is to provide community facility uses, primarily institutional uses and other non-commercial uses generally serving the public at large, and residential uses, both affordable workforce and market rate housing—all in a setting to be compatible with surrounding land uses. The Subdistrict is intended to contain a mix of uses and services in a self-sufficient environment,which lessens traffic impacts upon the external transportation network and public services, while serving the needs of the community at large. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** [pg. 45] f. One hundred forty-seven of the 296 affordable workforce and market rate housing units, as they become available, will be offered first to persons involved in providing essential services in Collier County, as defined in the County's Local Housing Assistance Plan. g. To achieve the density of approximately 4.28 dwelling units per acre, and to allow development of the 192 non-church-related, non-base density dwelling units, the project shall comply with one or more of the following: 1) The Affordable Housing Density Bonus provisions of the Collier County Land Development Code, Ordinance Number 04-41 in effect as of the date of adoption of this Subdistrict; or, 2) be designated as a Community Workforce Housing Innovation Program (CWHIP) Project by the State of Florida and comply with all requirements and limitations of that designation, and provide a minimum of eighty (80) essential services personnel dwelling units — comprised of a minimum of ten (10) dwelling units for those earning less than 80% of the median income of Collier County, and a minimum of seventy(70) dwelling units for those earning between 80% and 140% of the median income of Collier County; or, —3— Words underlined are added; words struck through are deleted. Row of asterisks (**** **** ****)denotes break in text. Page Pa e of °=' PL20180001205 CPSP-2018-4 3) enter into an agreement with Collier County assuring that no fewer than 147 affordable and market rate housing units are constructed and, as they become available, will be offered first to persons involved in providing essential services in Collier County, such agreement being in effect for not less than fifteen (15) years, including a minimum of thirty-five (35) dwelling units for those earning no more than 150 140% of the median income of Collier County, and a minimum of twenty-five (25) dwelling units for those earning no more than 80% of the median income. h. No more than 57 market rate dwelling units shall be constructed prior to the construction of all affordable workforce housing dwelling units. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** B. DENSITY RATING SYSTEM: [pg.48] 420.9071, F.S. To encourage the provision of affordable-war-War-se housing within certain Districts and Subdistricts in the Urban Designated Area, a maximum of up to eight(8)twelve(12) residential units per gross acre may be added to the base density if the project meets the requirements of the Affordable Workforce Housing Density Bonus Ordinance (Section 2.06.00 of the Land Development Code, Ordinance No. 04-41, as amended, adopted June 22, 2004 and 2004), and if the affordable workforce housing units are targeted for families earning no greater than 458 140% of the median income for Collier County. In the Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict, projects utilizing the Affordable-workfefse Housing Density Bonus must provide appropriate mitigation consistent with Objective 12.1 and subsequent policies, as applicable, of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element. Also, for those specific properties identified within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict, this density bonus is allowed but only to a maximum of six (61 residential units per gross acre. Additionally, the Affordable- workforce Housing Density Bonus may be utilized within the Agricultural/Rural designation, as provided for in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay, subject to the aforementioned Section 2.06.00 of the Land Development Code. 1. The Density Rating System is applied in the following manner: *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** [pg. 48] b. Within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict, the Density Rating System is applicable for the Affordable Workforce Housing Density Bonus only, as specifically provided for in that Subdistrict. c. Within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay(RLSA), the Density Rating System is applicable for the Affordable Workforce Housing Density Bonus only, as specifically provided for in the RLSA for Stewardship Receiving Areas. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2. Density Bonuses [pg.49] *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** c. Affordable Workforce Housing Bonus: [pg.49] Chapter 420.9071, F.S. To encourage the provision of affordable-workforsce housing —4— Words underlined are added; words struck through are deleted. Row of asterisks (**** **** ****) denotes break in text. Page 11 of I`_) PL20180001205 CPSP-2018-4 within certain Districts and Subdistricts in the Urban Designated Area, a maximum of up to eight (8)twelve (12) residential units per gross acre may be added to the base density if the project meets the requirements of the Affordable Workforce Housing Density Bonus Ordinance(Section 2.06.00 of the Land Development Code, Ordinance No. 04-41, as amended, adopted June 22, 2001 and effective October 18, 2004), and if the affordable-workforce housing units are targeted for families earning no greater than 150 140% of the median income for Collier County. In the Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict, projects utilizing the Affordable-workforce Housing Density Bonus must provide appropriate mitigation consistent with Objective 12.1 and subsequent policies, as applicable, of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element. Also, for those specific properties identified within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict, this density bonus is allowed but only to a maximum of six (6), residential units per gross acre. Additionally, the Affordable-workfecee Housing Density Bonus may be utilized within the Agricultural/Rural designation, as provided for in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay, subject to the aforementioned Section 2.06.00 of the Land Development Code. C. Urban Commercial District [pg. 54] *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 1. Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** [pg. 55] For residential-only development, if a project is located within the boundaries of a Mixed Use Activity Center which is not within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict or Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict, up to sixteen (161 residential units per gross acre may be permitted. If such a project is located within the boundaries of a Mixed Use Activity Center which is within the Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict, the eligible density shall be limited to four (4) dwelling units per acre, except as allowed by the density rating system Density Rating System and the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay. If such a project is located within the boundaries of a Mixed Use Activity Center which is within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict, eligible density shall be as allowed by that Subdistrict. For a residential-only project located partially within and partially outside of an Activity Center, the density accumulated from the Activity Center portion of the project may be distributed throughout the project. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** II. AGRICULTURAL/RURAL DESIGNATION *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** B. Rural Fringe Mixed Use District *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 3. Rural Villages: *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** —5— Words underlined are added; words struck through are deleted. Row of asterisks (**** **** ****)denotes break in text. Page of I_. PL20180001205 CPSP-2018-4 C) Rural Village Sizes and Density: *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 3. Density shall be achieved as follows: [pg. 86] *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** c) Additional density between the minimum and maximum amounts established herein may be achieved through any of the following, either individually or in combination: *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 3) A one-half (0.51 unit bonus for each LI unit that is provided for lower low income residents and : -- - - - _ _ _- buyers. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** G) As part of the development of Rural Village provisions, ...the following shall be addressed: *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** [pg. 89] 2 Specific allocations for land uses including residential, commercial and other non-residential uses within Rural Villages, shall include, but are not limited to: • A mixture of housing types, including single-family attached and detached, as well as multi-family. Projects providing affordable-workforce housing as required in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use Overlay contained in the Collier County Land Development Code shall receive a credit of one-half (0.51 units for each unit constructed. Collier County shall develop, as part of the Rural Village Overlay, a methodology for determining the rental and fee- simple market rates that will qualify for such a credit, and a system for tracking such credits. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** V. OVERLAYS AND SPECIAL FEATURES *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** D. Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Group 1 [Policies]— Genera! purpose and structure of the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Policy 1.15: [pg. 119] Land becomes designated as an SRA upon the adoption of a resolution by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) approving the petition by the property owner seeking such designation. Any change in the residential density or non-residential intensity of land use on a parcel of land located within a SRA shall be specified in the resolution reflecting the total number of transferable Credits assigned to the parcel of land. —6— Words underlined are added; words struck through are deleted. Row of asterisks (**** **** ****)denotes break in text. 4- 'age oi'_� _ PL20180001205 CPSP-2018-4 Density and intensity within the RLSA or within an SRA shall not be increased beyond the Baseline Standards except through the provisions of the Stewardship Credit System, the Affordable Workforce Housing Density Bonus as referenced in the Density Rating System of the FLUE, and the density and intensity blending provision of the Immokalee Area Master Plan. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Group 4—Policies to enable conversion of rural lands to other uses in appropriate locations,while discouraging urban sprawl, and encouraging development that utilizes creative land use planning techniques by the establishment of Stewardship Receiving Areas. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Policy 4.7: [pg. 127] There are four specific forms of SRA permitted within the Overlay. These are Towns, Villages, Hamlets, and Compact Rural Development (CRD). The Characteristics of Towns, Villages, Hamlets, and CRD are set forth in Attachment C and are generally described in Policies 4.7.1, 4.7.2, 4.7.3 and 4.7.4. Collier County shall establish more specific regulations, guidelines and standards within the LDC Stewardship District to guide the design and development of SRAs to include innovative planning and development strategies as set forth in Section 163.3168(2), Florida Statutes. The size and base density of each form shall be consistent with the standards set forth on Attachment C. The maximum base residential density as set forth in Attachment C may only be exceeded through the density blending process as set forth in density and intensity blending -- provision of the Immokalee Area Master Plan or through the affordable-workforce housing density bonus as referenced in the Density Rating System of the Future Land Use Element. The base residential density is calculated by dividing the total number of residential units in a SRA by the overall area therein. The base residential density does not restrict net residential density of parcels within a SRA. The location, size and density of each SRA will be determined on an individual basis during the SRA designation review and approval process. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Policy 4.18: [pg. 132] The SRA will be planned and designed to be fiscally neutral or positive to Collier County at the horizon year based on a public facilities impact assessment, as identified in LDC 4.08.07.x. The BCC may grant exceptions to this Policy to accommodate affordable- werkfo a housing, as it deems appropriate. Techniques that may promote fiscal neutrality such as Community Development Districts, and other special districts, shall be encouraged. At a minimum, the assessment shall consider the following public facilities and services: transportation, potable water, wastewater, irrigation water, stormwater management, solid waste, parks, law enforcement, and schools. Development phasing, developer contributions and mitigation, and other public/private partnerships shall address any potential adverse impacts to adopted levels of service standards. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** .... — 7— Words underlined are added; words strueli-tiaceugih are deleted. Row of asterisks (**** **** ****)denotes break in text. ii 'Page 0f PL20180001205 CPSP-2018-4 F. Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay The Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment ...provisions and restrictions apply to this Overlay: *** *** ** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** [pg. 141] 10. Only the affordable-workforce housing density bonus, as provided in the Density Rating System, is allowed in addition to the eligible density provided herein. For all propertiesthe maximum density allowed is that specified under Density Conditions in the Density Rating System. (End of Exhibit for the Future Land Use Element) —8— Words underlined are added;words strums are deleted. Row of asterisks (**** **** ****)denotes break in text. t"' Page of i ■ PL20180001205 CPSP-2018-4 Exhibit A GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN (Adopted October 1997, amended through June 13, 2017 by Ordinance no. 2017-23) LAND USE DESIGNATION DESCRIPTION SECTION 1. URBAN DESIGNATION: URBAN MIXED USE DISTRICT AND URBAN COMMERCIAL DISTRICT *** *** *** *** *** *** A. Urban-Mixed Use District [pg. 14] 1. Urban Residential Subdistrict *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** DENSITY RATING SYSTEM: *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** b. DENSITY BONUSES *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** iii. Affordable-we-04orce Housing Bonus [pg. 14] in Chapter 420.9071, F.S. To encourage the provision of affordable-fie housing within certain Districts and Subdistricts in the Urban Designated Area, a maximum of up to g twelve (12) residential units per gross acre may be added to the base density if the project meets the requirements of the Affordable-workforce Housing Density Bonus Ordinance (Section 2.06.00 of the Land Development Code, Ordinance# No. 04-41, as amended, -.-. -. . . •- , !e, - -•-- . - October 18, 2004), and if the affordable-waFkfarse housing units are targeted for families earning no greater than 150 140%of the median income for Collier County. (End of Exhibit for the Golden Gate Area Master Plan) —9— Words underlined are added;words etruck through are deleted. Row of asterisks (**** **** ****)denotes break in text. Page 9 �t t5 PL20180001205 CPSP-2018-4 Exhibit A IMMOKALEE AREA MASTER PLAN (Adopted October 1997, amended through March 10, 2015 by Ordinance no, 2015-22) GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** GOAL 2: *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** OBJECTIVE 2.2: [pg. 4] Collier County has collected and will use the data resulting from the Immokalee Housing Initiative Program Survey to identify the current housing stock in order to address the affordable-workforce housing needs of the area. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Policy 2.2.2: [pg. 5] The County shall continue to research initiatives such as land banking of foreclosed upon land due to County held liens, land grants from County and other public holdings, and tax incentives for private owners who commit to developing affordable-workforce housing. OBJECTIVE 2.3: The County will continue to explore and provide innovative programs and regulatory reforms that reduce the costs of development and maintenance of safe and sanitary affordable-workforce housing for Immokalee residents. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Policy 2.3.2: [pg. 5] The County Operations Support and Housing Department will continue to promote public/private partnerships that address the availability of affordable-we-Fkforee housing by improving existing processes and implementing new processes of networking resources among private developers, contractors, County officials, and Immokalee residents seeking housing. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Policy 2.3.4: [pg. 5] The Community Development and Environmental Services Division will research and develop strategies to replace and/or provide affordable-workforce housing through non-profit providers throughout the Immokalee Community Redevelopment Area. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Policy 2.4.1: [pg. 5] The County Operations Support and Housing Department will meet with representatives of the Rural Economic Development Administration to improve the County's ability to attract government grants and loans to develop affordable-workforce housing. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** — 10— Words underlined are added;words struck through are deleted. Row of asterisks (**** **** ****)denotes break in text. 119fs Page of:. PL20180001205 CPSP-2018-4 LAND USE DESIGNATION DESCRIPTION SECTION *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** A. Urban — Mixed Use District [pg. 9] *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Density Rating System [pg. 12] The Density Rating System is only applicable to areas designated Urban, Mixed Use District, as identified on the Immokalee Future Land Use Map. The Density Rating System is applicable to the Low Residential Subdistrict to the extent that the residential density cap of 4 dwelling units per acre is not exceeded, except for the density bonus provisions for affordable- werlkfarce housing. Except as provided below, the final determination of permitted density via implementation of this Density Rating System is made by the Board of County Commissioners through an advertised public hearing process(rezone). Density achieved by right shall not be combined with density achieved through the rezone public hearing process. 1. The Density Rating System is applied in the following manner: *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** [pg. 12] d. Within the applicable areas of the Mixed Use District, all properties zoned A, Rural Agricultural, and/or E, Estates, and/or RSF-1, 2, 3, Residential Single Family,for which an affordable-workforce housing project is proposed and approved, in accordance with Section 2.06.00 of the Land Development Code (Ordinance 04-41, as amended; adopted June 22, 2001 and effective October 18, 2001), shall be permitted the base density of four(4)dwelling units per gross acre by right;that is, a rezone public hearing shall not be required. Such a project must comprise a minimum of ten acres. Density achieved by right shall not be combined with density achieved through the rezone public hearing process. 2. Density Bonuses *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** b. Affordable-workforce Housing Bonus, By Pubic Hearing [pg. 13] To encourage the provision of affordable workforce housing within certain Subdistricts in the Urban Designated Area, a maximum of up to eight (8) twelve (121 residential units per gross acre may be added to the base density if the project meets the definition and requirements of the Affordable-workforce Housing Density Bonus Ordinance (Section 2.06.00 of the Land Development Code, Ordinance 04-41, as amended), adopted June 22, 2004 and effective October 19, 2004 and if the affordable housing units are targeted for families earning no greater than 140% of the median income for Collier County. This bonus may be applied to an entire project or portions of a project provided that the project is located within the Neighborhood Center (NC) Subdistrict, Commerce Center-Mixed Use (CC-MU) Subdistrict or any residential subdistrict. c. Affordable-workforce Housing Bonus, By Right To encourage the provision of affordable-workforce housing within that portion of the Urban Mixed Use District, properties zoned A, Rural Agricultural, and/or E, Estates, and/or RSF-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, Residential Single Family and/or RMF-6, Residential Multi- ...._ — 11— Words underlined are added; words stfusk-through are deleted. { Row of asterisks (**** **** ****)denotes break in text. gage 1t' b PL20180001205 CPSP-2018-4 Family, for which an affordable-warkfeFse housing project is proposed in accordance with the definitions and requirements of the Affordable-workkforce Housing Density Bonus Ordinance (Section 2.06.00 of the Land Development Code, Ordinance 04-41, as amended, -__. -_ ._ - , !!• .-e -• _ • - '- --- !!•), a maximum of four(4) residential units per gross acre shall be added to the base density of 4 dwelling units per acre. Therefore, the maximum density that may be achieved by right shall not exceed eight(8) dwelling units per acre. Such a project must comprise a minimum of ten acres. Density achieved by right shall not be combined with density achieved through the rezone public hearing process. (End of Exhibit for the Immokalee Area Master Plan) — 12— Words underlined are added; words stru gh are deleted. Row of asterisks (**** **** ****)denotes break in text. I uZ 1� ?age of PL20180001205 CPSP-2018-4 Exhibit A HOUSING ELEMENT (Adopted October 1997, amended through January 8, 2013 by Ordinance no. 2013-10) I. INTRODUCTION [pg. 1] The goal of the Housing Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan is "to create an adequate supply of decent, safe, sanitary, and affordable housing for all residents of Collier County."With the exception of housing opportunities provided to citizens of very modest means, the provision and maintenance of housing is traditionally a function of the private market. The development of private housing in Collier County is driven by an expensive housing stock; effectively excluding low-income and working class families from the housing market. Thus, there is a need for the County to find ways to encourage the provision of affordable-workforce housing for these families. In Collier County, encouragement of the provision of affordable-warkfar-ee housing is the responsibility of the Collier County Operations Support and Housing Department. The purpose of the Department's grants and affordable workforce housing programs is to increase the supply of affordable workforce housing countywide, through management of the County's Affordable Housing Trust Fund. The trust fund has enabled the County to implement the following programs: • Impact fee deferrals, • Housing rehabilitation and emergency repair, • Down payment/closing cost assistance, • Land acquisition with new construction, • Demolition with new construction, • Special needs housing and pre-approved building plans, • Meeting community needs by facilitating the creation of affordable-workforce housing opportunities; the improvement of communities; and the sustainability of neighborhoods. Collier County will continue to address its affordable-warforce housing deficit by working collaboratively with non-profit groups, governmental agencies, and public/private coalitions to coordinate activities and effectively leverage the resources available to the entire County. The most current data available from the University of Florida Shimberg Center is considered in assessing the County's affordable-warkforce housing deficit. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** GOAL 1: OBJECTIVE 1: [pg. 2] Provide new affordable housing units in order to meet the current and future housing needs of legal residents with very-low, low, moderate and affordable-warkforce incomes, including households with special needs such as rural and farmworker housing in rural Collier County. — 13— Words underlined are added; words struck through are deleted. Row of asterisks (**** **** ****)denotes break in text. Page 13 of /5 PL20180001205 CPSP-2018-4 Policy 1.1: By January 14, 2014, the Department of Housing, Human and Veteran Services shall establish a method of Indexing the demand for very-low, low, moderate and affordable-warkforce housing. Policy 1.2: By January 14, 2014, the Department of Housing, Human and Veteran Services shall establish a method of Indexing the availability and costs of very-low, low, moderate and affordably housing. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Policy 1.10: [pg. 3] The County shall create or preserve affordable housing to minimize the need for additional local services and avoid the concentration of affordable housing units only in specific areas of the jurisdiction. Programs and strategies to encourage affordably housing development may include, but are not limited to, density by right within the lmmokalee Urban area and other density bonus provisions, impact fee deferrals, expedited permitting (fast tracking), public-private partnerships, providing technical assistance and intergovernmental coordination. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** OBJECTIVE 2: [pg. 3] Increase the number of affordable housing units, by the methods contained in Objective 1 and subsequent Policies, for very-low, low, moderate and affordable-workforce income residents with the assistance of for-profit and not-for-profit providers of affordable housing, within the County and its municipalities. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Policy 2.2: [pg. 4] Partnerships shall be encouraged between private developers, non-profit entities, local governments and other interested parties to ensure the development of housing that meets the needs of the County's very-low, low, moderate and affordably income residents. Policy 2.3: The County shall, with the City of Naples, continue to provide community organizations with brochures and up-dates on various housing programs, grant opportunities, technical assistance and other information that will promote affordable housing opportunities for very low, low, moderate and affordable-workforce income residents. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Policy 2.9: [pg. 4] The County shall review its Affordable-workforce Housing Density Bonus Ordinance every three years or sooner, as necessary, and revise the Ordinance, as necessary, to reflect changing community needs and market conditions. (The purpose of the Affordable-workforce Housing Density Bonus Ordinance shall be to encourage the blending of affordable housing density bonus units into market rate developments as well as to support developments exclusively providing affordable housing.) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** — 14— Words underlined are added;words struck through are deleted. 1_5- Row of asterisks (**** **** ****) denotes break in text. Page 0;< ! ■ PL20180001205 CPSP-2018-4 Policy 3.3: [pg. 5] The County shall continue to utilize SHIP resources and other funds to leverage the number and amount of loans provided by local lending institutions to very low, low, moderate and affordable- workforcc income residents for home improvements, rehabilitation and first time homebuyer's assistance. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Policy 3,8: [pg. 6] The County shall continue to maintain its Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) urban entitlement county status with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, which will continue to result in an annual allocation of federal funding available to assist very-low, low, moderate and affordable-warkfarce income households. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** OBJECTIVE 8: [pg. 10] Utilize SHIP, CDBG, or other funding sources and, in partnership with Federal, State and non- profit housing agencies, to provide in concert with Objective 1, a number of rehabilitated or new residential units per year for very low, low, moderate and affordable-war-44Fse income residents, based on identified need. (Families benefiting from such housing will include, but are not limited to, farmworkers and other populations with special housing needs.) (End of Exhibit for the Housing Element) 1\bcc.colliergov.net\data\GMD•LDS\COES Planning Services\Comprehensive\Comp Planning GMP DATA Comp Plan Amendmenfs12018 GMPAs Outside of Cycles\CPSP-18-4 Density Rating System\Draft Exhibit A's\CPSP•18-4 Transmttl Exhibit A.docx — 15— Words underlined are added; words struck through are deleted. Row of asterisks (**** **"" ****)denotes break in text. rage /5 of �- i n .- _- , NOTI _NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is r'•icby given that the Collier County Planning ommisslun will hold a public meeting en June 07, 2018 commencing at 9:00 A.M.in the Board of County trommissk ici:a Chamber, Third Floor, County Government C.errtei. 1299 Las: arniarri Trail,Naples,FL. The I:u'pos=of the hearriy i. t.:,,n•isi:ier: A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PROPOSING AMENDMENTS TO THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN, ORDINANCE 89-05, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO AFFORDABLE HOUSI$G TO R EYISE THE DENSITY RATING SYSTEM TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM AFFORDABLE HOUSING BONUS FROM 8 TO 12 UNITS PER ACRE AND REVISE TERMINOLOGY AND SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT; THE GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN ELEMENT;THE IMMOKALEE AREA 1 MASTER Pt AN FI FM.FKIF.AND Ti.rr un1 ciur ELEMENT. AND FURTHERMORE RECOMMENDING TRANSMITTAL OF THE AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY. IPL281800012051 All interested parties are 'wiled to appear and be liearrt! iCopies of the proposed RESOLUTION will be made available on Inspection at the GMD Zoning Division,Comprehensive Plarirnnr;! ection, 2800 N_ Ho.ses•tin Dr., Naples. between the hour; el :00 A.M.and 5:00 P.M..Monday through Friday_ Furlherrnjrn-, he materials will be madoavailable for inspection at the Collieil aunty Clerk's Of flee,Fourth Floor,Collier County Government. enter, 3259 East Tamiami Trail. Suite 401 Naples, one •t eek.' riot to the scheduled hearing. Any questions perlaininn to he documents should be directed to the GNU)Zoning Division. omprehensive Planning Section. Written coniinents filed whir he Clerk to the Board's Office prior to lune 07.2018.will be re•=.__� land considered at the public hearing. if a persoi ietides to appeal any decision made, ny !-h[- Collier County Planning Commission with r_sper_t 10 lino malEer considered at succi meeting or hearing.he will need a record of the= proceeding, and for such purpose he may need le 3n51.1r'2 that a vrrbatiir record of the proceedings is made,which rororrt Includes the ten many and evidence upon w.vlilcti the appeal I,. to be based. Ilfyou area per sonwithadisabilitywho needs any.0 NJMmorial inn; In order to participate in this proceeding, you art i iilillvil :r O cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance_ .lease! ontact the Collier County Facilities Manayernctu Gi•ri.iauj orated at 3335 Tamiami Trail East,Suite t01,Naples,Fl 34112-1 366, (234) 252.8350, at least two days prim In '€w ruovinir. ssisted listening devices for the hearing Unpaired ireav;,ilahlc LllLr�,the Board of County Commissioners Office. I.lark P.Strain.Chairman • Collier County Irlalm rg Corr ruc,5irn NJ,-•,:•> .-^,, e:a May_IB,2018 No.201-0,11-