Loading...
CCPC Minutes 09/20/2018September 20,2018 TRANSCRIPT OF TI{E MEETING OF THE COLLIER COI.INry PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florid4 September 20,2018 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 Stan Chrzanowski Patrick Dearborn Diane Ebert Edwin Fryer Karen Homiak ABSENT: Joe Schmitt ALSO PRESENT: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning Manager James Sabo, Principal Planner Jeftey Klatzkow, County Attorney Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney Tom Eastman, School District Representative Page I of67 Collier County Planning Commission Page 1 Printed 9/13/2018 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission AGENDA Board of County Commission Chambers Collier County Government Center 3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor Naples, FL 34112 September 20, 2018 9: 00 AM Mark Strain - Chairman Karen Homiak - Vice-Chair Diane Ebert-Secretary Patrick Dearborn Ned Fryer Stan Chrzanowski, Environmental Joseph Schmitt, Environmental Thomas Eastman, Collier County School Board Note: Individual speakers will be limited to 5 minutes on any item. Individuals selec ted to speak on behalf of an organization or group are encouraged and may be allotted 10 minutes to speak on an item if so recognized by the chairman. Persons wishing to have written or graphic materials included in the CCPC agenda packets must submit said material a minimum of 10 days prior to the respective public hearing. In any case, written materials intended to be considered by the CCPC shall be submitted to the appropriate county staff a minimum of seven days prior to the public hearing. All material used in presentations before the CCPC will become a permanent part of the record and will be available for presentation to the Board of County Commissioners if applicable. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the CCPC will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto, and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. September 2018 Collier County Planning Commission Page 2 Printed 9/13/2018 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Roll Call by Secretary 3. Addenda to the Agenda 4. Planning Commission Absences 5. Approval of Minutes A. August 16, 2018 CCPC Minutes 6. BCC Report - Recaps 7. Chairman's Report 8. Consent Agenda A. PUDZ-PL20170001733: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance Number 2005-36, the Regal Acres Residential Planned Unit Development, by increasing the permissible number of dwelling units from 184 to 300; by amending Ordinance Number 2004-41, the Collier County Land Development Code by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of an additional 23.15+/- acres of land zoned rural Agricultural (A) to the Regal Acres RPUD; by revising the development standards; by amending the master plan; adding deviations; revising developer commitments and by approval of an affordable housing density bonus agreement for the added 23.15 acres that will generate 46 bonus units for low or moderate income residents. The property is located on the west side of Greenway Road east of Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951), and north of U.S. 41, in Section 12, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida consisting of 59.90+/- acres; and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator: C. James Sabo, AICP, Principal Planner] 9. Advertised Public Hearings September 2018 Collier County Planning Commission Page 3 Printed 9/13/2018 A. ***This item has been continued from the May 3, 2018 CCPC meeting, May 17, 2018 CCPC meeting, and June 7, 2018 CCPC meeting*** 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, 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 CU- PL20160002577) [Coordinator: Sue Faulkner, Principal Planner] B. ***This item has been continued from the May 3, 2018 CCPC meeting, May 17, 2018 CCPC meeting, and June 7, 2018 CCPC meeting*** 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/CPSS- 2017-1) [Coordinator: C. James Sabo, AICP, Principal Planner] C. PL20180000038: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance No. 89-05, as amended, the Collier County Growth Management Plan for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, specifically amending the Future Land Use Element And Future Land Use Map And Map Series by adding 3.40 acres to the Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict Activity Center #2 and changing the designation of the property from Urban, Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict to Urban, Commercial District, Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict, Activity Center #2; and furthermore, recommending transmittal of the adopted amendment to the Florida Department Of Economic Opportunity; providing for severability and providing for an effective date. The subject property consisting of ±3.4 acres is located on the west side of US 41, approximately 2,200 feet north of 111th Avenue in Section 21, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (This is companion to PL20180000037) [Coordinator: Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner] D. PUDA-PL20180000037: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance No. 99-97, the Collier Tract 21 Planned Unit Development by allowing automotive vehicle dealers as a principal use, allowing a hotel up to 200 rooms instead of 100 rooms, and by reducing the allowable commercial parcel by 250 square feet for each hotel room instead of 225 square feet and establishing a traffic trip cap for the commercial tract; and by providing an effective date. The commercial parcel, consisting of 3.4+/- acres of the 267.44 acre PUD, is located on the west side of US 41 and approximately 2,200 feet north of 111th Avenue in Section 21, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (This is a companion to PL20180000038) [Coordinator: Timothy Finn, AICP, Principal Planner] E. An ordinance providing for establishment of a Water Pollution Control and Prevention Ordinance, providing for repeal of Ordinance No. 87-79, as amended, and Resolution No. 88-311; providing for inclusion in code of laws and ordinances; providing for conflict and severability; and providing for an effective date. 10. New Business September 2018 Collier County Planning Commission Page 4 Printed 9/13/2018 11. Old Business 12. Public Comment 13. Adjourn September 20,2018 PROCEEDING S MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mike. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Thankyou, Mike, forthe mike. Good moming, everyone. Welcome to the September 20th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If everybody will please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And will the secretary please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. Good morning. Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Chrzanowski? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Fryer? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mrs. Ebert's here. Chairman Strain? CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mrs. Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. Mr. Schmitt is absent. And, Mr. Dearborn? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. That's an excused absence from Mr. Schmitt. He mentioned it last time. And Mr. Dearborn has to leave at 1:00 today, but we'll still retain a quorum. So that brings us to the addenda to the agenda. And in talking with the county staffin regards to No. 9E, which is the -- I'll read it -- water pollution control and prevention ordinance, that ordinance, they've requested that it be continued until the second meeting in October, and that would be the October 18th meeting. There's some additional information that they want to provide so it will be as complete as possible. So with that is there a motion to continue 9E to October l8th? COMMISSIONER FRYER: So moved. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Make a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Mr. Fryer, seconded by Diane. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signifu by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CFIAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAN: Motion carries 6-0. There's two other items. As when we met last time, there's a meeting in this room at 5:05 today, so we have to decide what time we want to finish up for today, and whatever we don't finish, if we don't, goes to the next meeting. Last time we quit at 4:00 so there was ample time for the room to clear out and refill. Troy says we can go to 4:30 if we wanted, but what are the wishes of this board? Anybody have any preferences? Page 2 of 67 September 20,2018 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we just keep it to 4:30, hoping we can finish everybody up, especially with 9E continued, because that one would have been a rather long one. So with that, we'll break at no later than 4:30 for the day. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chairman, I have one question with respect to the item we've continued. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I had sent into staffa rather lengthy redliner showing proposed procedural changes to that 2D-page document; nothing substantive. And I guess my question is to staff: Will you be taking that as input in preparation for our next meeting, or are you going to wait and see what substantive issues come up? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I spoke to them on similar matters that I had. And what is going to happen, I understand, between now and the next meeting, they are going to have some procedural meetings and other process meetings through the County Attorney's Office, so that may cure some of that problem. But their intention to continue was to address issues that you raised, that I raised, and other Planning Commission members who have spoke to them. So they'll either come prepared to answer them thoroughly or amend things where they believe it should be amended and changed at that point. I would expect, Mike, did you want to add anything to that? MR. BOSI: No. CHAIRMAN STRAN: I actually spoke to them at length yesterday about this, so that's the only reason I answered in place of you, so... COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then the other thing on addenda to the agenda, a new item has to be added under new business. The County Attorney's Office has asked that we have a new ordinance consideration for the removal of all modular trailers for schools, and - I'm just kidding. I had to see Tom's reaction. He was rather upset last time we brought the issue up. So that's not true, everybody; we're not going to have that addenda to the agenda. COMMISSIONER FRYER: The color's come back to your face, Tom. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Tom's usually very quiet during the meetings and jumps in when school issues are up and, boy, did he jump in last time. So, Tom, everything's fine with the modulars. MR. EASTMAN: Thankyou. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Planning Commission absences. Our next meeting is October 4th. Does anybody know if they're not going to be here on October 4th? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We have a quorum. That takes us to approval of the minutes. We had a packet distributed electronically for the August l6th minutes. Does anybody have any changes or corrections to those minutes? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I didn't get minutes. Did everybody else get them? I didn't get them. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I got them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I got them. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay. That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, does anybody want to make a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Patrick. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: ByNed. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signiff by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. Page 3 of67 September 20,2018 COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CIIAIRMAN STRAN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Ray usually does our BCC reports and recaps. Mike, you feel you're up to it? Okay. MR. BOSI: Yes. On September 11th, on the summary agenda the Board of County Commissioners approved a Lely Barefoot Beach PUD amendment, and on the regular agenda they approved the Sand Banks parking exemption as recommended by the Planning Commission 4-1, and on the Pine Ridge Commons PIID amendmenf as well as Growth Management Plan amendment, it was approved 4-l as recommended by the Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Mike. That takes us to chairman's report. I've got really nothing new to report today, especially with the long agenda. So we'll move right into it. **'<Let's - the first item is our consent agenda. And so for the benefit of the public who may be here for this one, the last time the Planning Commission met -- and this is PL20170001733. It's for the Regal Acres Residential Planned Unit Development. It's on Greenway Road, and it's a Habitat for Humanity project Last time we met we had a series of stipulations, and we normally have what's called a consent agenda. That is not an agenda to discuss new issues. It is only an agenda for the Planning Commission to acknowledge that the stipulations that the Plaruring Commission recommended of the applicant were properly incorporated into the language that was then forwarded for our final review. So we don't normally entertain public input on consent agenda. This one had a different twist forjust one item, and the item at discussion was the rec center. We had made a stipulation to move the rec center last time, and Habitat - and Im kind of glad they pointed out that maybe where we had wanted it to go there was a problem with the location, so they wanted the opportunity to come back and discuss alternative locations with us, and that's the only issue up for discussion on the Habitat project today. And they are here, and so we will be going through that. I'll read it again. It's PL20170001733,the Regal Acres Residential Planned Unit Development located offGreenway Road. All those wishing to discuss this item, please rise -- to testify on this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. If you're going to speak on this item, please stand up. (The speakers were duly swom and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we'll start with disclosures down on Tom's end. MR. EASTMAN: No disclosures. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I had a conversation with Nick Kouloheras and Lisa Lefkow. CHAIRMAN STRATN: Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I had conversations and email exchanges with staff, and applicant's agents. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I had a conversation with Laura DeJohn and staff. CFIAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I met with the representatives of the applicant; I can't remember how many, two or three people; and, of course, normal conversations with staffand I did receive a couple of emails. And a gentleman who lives south of the current location of the rec center came in and dropped offa letter with some site plans. I made sure that was in the packet that was distributed to the Planning Commission. Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I just exchanged email with Lisa Lefkow. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Okav. Patrick? Page 4 of 67 September 20,2018 COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Just emails and then just coordinating with staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That takes us into the case, and we'll starl offwith the applicant's presentation. First of all, I'd like to ask that Planning Commission members, we had, I forgot maybe 10,12, stipulations, and I want to make sure that those that are already completed were articulated properly in the applicant's document that was forwarded to us. Does anybody have any questions about those before we get into the recreation center? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: NEd? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Let's see. With respect to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, this is because of any possible change in the way they've written it versus what you intended. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Exactly. CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: This has to do with Condition 3 which was the statement of how the dwellings would be configured. And it was my understanding that when we voted last time, our vote was to approve and authorize use number one, which I believe was worded "detached single-family dwellings." Then when the material was circulated, a use number two was also included, and that is described as "zero lot line single-family dwelling detached." And I'm uncertain as to the meaning of zero lot line. A common meaning, of course, would be that the units are joined by a firewall or a cornmon wall, but I understand that that may not be the case. And so I'm asking for clarification before I make a comment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Laur4 if you want to answer ig that's fine. I certainly can answer it or staff can. Whatever - and from a zero-lot-line perspective, it's still a detached single-family. It's just the manner in which the setbacks are applied. A zero lot line means on one side of the house you can have zero, but then you have 10 feet on the other side so that all houses are still separated by the minimum l0 feet. And maybe, Laur4 if you want to elaborate on that, any particulars to your project or, James, feel free. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chairman, just so I understand what you just said, so the zero lot line would apply in each case down the line to the same side of the building. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. They wouldn't be able to have two sides atzero and then touch each other. COMMISSIONERFRYER: I see. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's always zero and 10, zero and 10. And they can't modifu that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That clarifies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or it's five and five, and -- yeah. You either can centralize it at five and five or zero and 10. And regardless of which way you do it, the separation -- the minimum separation we've always stood by still stands. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And in my way of thinking then, if that's the case, that that is faithful to the images, the pictures that we saw, which had space between the dwelling units on both sides. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They won't be attached. So does that clear up the issue? COMMISSIONER FRYER: That was one. I had one other, and it had to do with Condition No. 5. There was some language added. It was my understanding that the applicant was going to remove a reference to an image which I think was done, but also there was language added to Deviation No. 5 in particular, language that says with an alternative configuration such as a hammerhead or Y configuration. I don't recall whether we discussed that and asked for it, so Im just raising that question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I was the one that brought the question up as a result of a gentleman to the south who disagreed with the position of the HOA that had already sent a letter of no objection. He was Page 5 of67 September 20,2018 one ofthe affected parties close to that rec center. And during the process, I immediately looked at where could it go easily, and I thought the hammerhead. And Habitat's representative spoke up and said, we have no problem looking at a new location. Could we have the ability to come back with a variable just in case the hammerhead doesn't work? And so that's why they have some play in that and that's why we isolated it out, with advice from County Attorney's Office, as one item we could resolve at today's meeting. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. So that phrase at the end is consistent with your understanding of what we approved at the last meeting? CHAIRMAN STRAN: The phrase at the end; refer to me the page you're on. COMMISSIONER FRYER: It's in Deviation No. 5, page -- Packet Page 72. And the phrase says, "with an alternate configuration such as a hammerhead or Y configuration." CHAIRMAN STRAN: Yes. The details that were shown up on the bottom of that weren't necessary. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They can provide anything that meets the fire code is what basically drives that train. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Then that's the only other question I had other than discussion about the rec area. So I'm satisfied that the language was faithful to the action we took last time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Table2 for Parcel B, development standards. Development standards for single-family attached is still in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And I was going to point the same thing out if someone hadn't brought it up. That column should be dropped from the table. Your single-family attached,that no longer is an existing product. MS. DeJOHN: That's right. We did remove most of them and didnt get to remove that one. We will remove that one, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that third column over will be completely struck and removed from the document. Anybody else? Any inconsistencies between our direction and the document? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll move in -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: I do have one question. I do have one question, and I did talk to Laura about it. The trees, being we weren't going to do the trees on the boulevard, where are you putting these trees, the required? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The required trees would fall to the Land Development Code. We all - all we did in our discussion was not approve it as staffrecommended, Deviation No. 3, that would have provided an alternative to the single-tree issue that came up in using palms instead. Laura, did you have anything - is that consistent with what your understanding is? You now fall back to the code. I don't see any reason why you wouldn't. MS. DeJOHN: That's correct yeah. And I do have a copy of the code if we need to refer to that. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. So that takes care of those issues. Now let's open discussion on the rec center and, Laura, we'll start offwith you and then follow up with the staffreport, and then we'll go to public speakers. MS. DeJOHN: Laura DeJohn with Johnson Engineering here on behalf of Habitat for Humanity. Good morning. I do want to point out for clarification -- we'll get help from staff. Just for the record, the cover memo from planning stafflisted the 10 stipulations that we're coming back to you to address, and the stipulation about relocation of the rec area, I just want for the record to be clear, as Chairman Strain said, the comment in staffs memo says relocation of the rec area to the hammerhead road area and, in fact, the motion was to evaluate alternatives. So that's what we did. Page 6 of 67 September 20,2018 And in evaluating alternative locations, we did look at five variable locations, looked at accessibility, safety, and critical rectangular space for the critical area needed for a rec area to function. And in doing that, we located the most appropriate location, as shown in your packet, a northem move of the rec area into the inside loop of this project so that it is insulated fiom any perimeter neighborhoods, neighborhoods on the perimeter. So that location is shown to satisfu the stipulations provided by -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you put the overhead -- yeah, that's a good idea. If you had something on the overhead, we could follow along as you spoke. Thank you, Diane. MS. DeJOHN: I'm left-handed, so I'll just like - turning is hard for me. So my pen is pointing you toward what's labeled as rec area as I described. The wording -- it's hard to see on that screen - is spelled out right on the inside of the internal access road loop. The rec area was moved to that northern location because of the comments we received at the last meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are you done? MS. DeJOHN: Well-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you tell us why the hammerhead wasn't functional? MS. DeJOHN: Well, yeah. And I can show you another exhibit to help you understand that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And also, you had, I believe, subsequent conversations with the community to the south, and I would like you to talk to us about the outcome of those conversations, if you don't mind. MS. DeJOHN: Okay. So when you look at the diagram, which just shows you what's on the ground, you can see if the rec area were placed in that hammerhead are4 it basically abuts a lake, which is not the safest condition when children do play and balls bounce around, and we don't want proximity to the lake to be a safety concem for what's going on in the rec area. The other big issue there is the access. If any - it's basically the most remote location for either anyone in the Parcel B proposed development or in the existing Regal Parcel A development. Any access to that rec would result in the need to cut through private property or cut through the lake area to get from the shortest distance between anyone living in Parcel A to the rec area. That was a prime reason for having located the rec area where it was to begin with, just for accessibility. And you might be familiar with the concept of crime prevention through environmental design. You usually try to locate things where -- you know, that are public in nature like this in places that can be seen. There's nafural surveillance benefits to putting arec area in a place that's visible to others rather than tucking it away in a more remote area. So putting it in that hammerhead was not considered the highest and best location for a rec area. We looked at, like I said, that and four other locations and arrived at the one that I showed you earlier. We met with Westwind's HOA representatives as well as.Mr. Duppstad! who was the one who did voice the concern about the rec area being where we proposed originally. And what's resulted from those discussions is feedback that the southern location is more preferred, for the most part. I mean, I don't want to represent the voices ofpeople that I'm not here to represent. But those conversations led to feedback that the southern location was more preferred from their perspective. So as the applicant, of course, the southem location was our preferred location. We complied by showing you another location to the north, because that was your recommendation, and today it would be nice to resolve, and we're happy to work with whatever your recommendation is going forward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All right. And we will be resolving it one way or the other with direction today in the recommendation to the Board. So with that, based on your comments and this issue, does anybody from the Planning Commission have any questions of the applicant at this time? Go ahead. Diane, then Ned. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question. Laura, I talked to you, and in the center section you plan on doing the alleyrvay. Won't that mess that up? MS. DeJOHN: No. There's not a problem with the layout as we were proposing in that intemal loop area. It's pretty well laid out in the sense that there's the ability to create the alley system, the homes offof the alleys, and that rec would become a wide open space that is not intemrpted in any way, you know, PageT of67 September 20,2018 with - conflicting with the homes or the alleys. That would not be a conflict. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Thank you. CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Just so I understand, Ms. DeJohn, of course, you had originally spoffed the rec area on the south. MS. DeJOHN: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And Mr. Duppstadt who is here and, of course, will speak for himself in time, had asked that it be moved to the north because of noise and other issues that would affect his neighborhood, and you have done that and have made it what I would consider to be a reasonable accommodation in so doing. But your preference would still be to the south, would it not? MS. DeJOHN: Yes. The original plan would be our preference. And in having, you know, generated the conversations that we've had since the September 6th meeting, we do want to be good neighbors, and we're hearing the neighborhood; the majority representatives of the neighborhood want it to the south, and I think Mr. Duppstadt has design proposals for how he things it could work to the south. So we're trying to, again, be good neighbors. And putting it to the south makes sense to the applicant. I could, you know, give you a quick display of how that interface works, because I think we have provided more than standard distance and more than standard buffering if it is located on the south. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think providingthat information is a good idea, so I'd like to see it, but I'd also like you to tell us how it differs from what the gentleman had offlered up in his detailed plan that he provided and that's in our packet. MS. DeJOHN: Okay. Again, sorry, this is hard to see, but the image shows you to the left we are starting with the standpoint of where Westwind Estates is located, and this is a cross-section showing you the distance as if you were standing in a backyard on Westwind Estates looking toward the Regal Acres proposed development. And so the distances shown there show you that there's already 50 feet between Westwind's property line and the proposed Regal Acres'property line given the fact there's a 40-foot-wide canal there. Then once you reach the Regal Acres properly line, there's 40 feet between Regal Acres'propefty line and where the rec area begins. Within that 40 feet, there's accommodation for a l5-foot landscape buffer, a wall, and the grading required to get from Elevation 5 to about Elevation 9 given the standards that need to be met in development of this site. So that 40 feet is being provided between property line and rec area beyond, you know -- which is beyond a standard setback and beyond - and the landscape buffer, again, is wider than most. And the wall is being positioned about 24 feet away from tl.re properly line. Mr. Duppstadt has, you know, variations in maybe wanting to see more than the 40 feet distance, but I'd like him to speak to that. I'd ratherjust speak to what it is we've proposed so that it's clear that there's 40 feet between the Regal Acres properfy line and where the rec area begins. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: If we tell you -- we're not going to tell you to move this are4 or are we? But if we tell you to move this area to the north, are you going to go in front of the Board and tell them you'd prefer to keep it to the south? MS. DeJOHN: No. The applicant is able to put it in the north, and we put it in the north, and then - COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: But you prefer to keep it to the south? MS. DeJOHN: Correct. What you'll here today is maybe it doesn't need to be in the north, and so we're happy keeping it in the south. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And are you going to make that same argument to the Board of County Commissioners when you go in front of them? MS. DeJOHN: Yeah. We'd like your recommendation so that we're going forward with kind of a single voice of what it is the Planning Commission thinks is the appropriate location. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. MS. DeJOHN: And we're able to agree whether it's north or south. Page 8 of67 September 20,2018 COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Laur4 there's a -- this map or this graphic, frst of all, do you have any objections to attach the graphic to the PUD? MS. DeJOHN: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So based on this graphic, you are, from the rear property line of Westwind's lot, the nearest lot to the property, to the rear properry line ofthe rec area is 90 feet. So you're 90 feet away, and that's separated with a wall and landscaping, but then the setback in the rec area to the first strucfure -- now, let's assume this, whatever it is, is the first structure, it's one of those jungle ryms or something like that. It's been a long time since my son was that little, so I don't even remember what it is. Are you willing to indicate how far those kind -- I think there's probably two issues -- the play structure and maybe the basketball court, if you use one, and what is the minimum distance they will be to the south -- to the rear properly line of the rec area or to the southem propefty line of the rec arca? MS. DeJOHN: What we - I'll just tell you this positioning here was centrally located in the rec area, assuming it would be centrally located. So some minimum distance, you know, I know we could probably agree to being 60 feet from the properly line with any play structure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm just suggesting, you have at least two people from Westwinds here. One, I don't even -- I know there's two people here. Before they speak, it would be good to know what terms you're agreeing to for some of the things that bothered at least one of those people. So let's get that down so this graphic has more meat to it. Because right now, it's clearly 90 feet away. But then what happens when we get to that rear property line? And that is in your -- the rec -- let me pull up your rec area standards, because you have a rear setback in the rec area standards, I believe, that should apply to this. But I think what you presented to us appears to be greater than that. Rear yard setback is 10 feet. That certainly depicts much, much more than 10 feet. That's why I think it's - and if you're going to show this, and it's probably one of the two areas that, if there is any noise generated, that's where it would be from, it would be nice to know you've gone a further distance and agreed to a greater setback for those couple of items. MS. DeJOHN: Well, like I said, I think 60 feet, we've heard, is a critical dimension we've heard requested already. So 60 feet for any structure from the property line would be agreeable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And when you and I spoke the other day, you told me you were willing to limit your hours of operation. Have you got hours of operation that you would limit those to that we can also include? MS. DeJOHN: Dawn to dusk. CHAIRMAN STRAN: And lighting. Is there going to be any lighting in the facility? MS. DeJOHN: No, there's not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No lighting, which means those offhours, you definitely won't be having people there. MS. DeJOHN: (Nods head.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Noise. Do you have any problem with a prohibition of outside amplified sound? And I'm talking about boom boxes and things like that. People love to go to the beach and disturb everybody else's peace and quiet. So the same thing could happen here. MS. DeJOHN: Of course, the noise ordinance would apply and, you know, any complaints about noise -- CHAIRMAN STRAN: Well, if you're not going to -- noise ordinance would apply if the decibel levels reach the decibel levels required, which are pretty disturbing. Our noise ordinance doesn't do a lot for people who try to use it. I would suggest that if you're not going to have facilities there that need to have loud speakers or anything else, you wouldn't have an objection, then, to outside amplified sound being prohibited. MS. DeJOHN: Right. We don't have an objection to, like, a structured amplified sound. I'm fearfirl you're thinking we'll be able to be there every time someone has their phone with the speaker on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I wouldn't expect that. I was more concerned that if we had this in Page 9 of67 September 20,2018 there, whether you were there or not, if there was someone over there partying with outside amplified sound through boom boxes and stufi someone could at least make a phone call to code and have it fixed, and that's what I'm aiming at. It's -- go ahead. Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: You were going to have a homeowners association, right? Are there two separate homeowners associations for each parcel? MS. LEFKOW: Yes. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So there are two separate homeowner associations. MS. DeJOHN: Parcels A and B, separate HOAs. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So Parcel B homeowners association is going to be paying forthis rec area, maintenance and upkeep, replacement. So it doesn't matter whether it's there or not, because both communities aren't going to use that just the Parcel B? MS. DeJOHN: They'll allow access from Parcel A to the rec area. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So they don't mind paying for it for the other people to use? MS. DeJOHN: There may be proration of shared expenses there. We haven't gotten into all those details. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well, a homeowners association would have to be detailed. MS. DeJOHN: Right. Not at zoning, but, yes, HOA, those would be worked out. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, go ahead. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Just a point of clarification on boom box. I did a little research. I don't think boom boxes have been made since the '80s. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you know,I've been around since before that, so I still can't -- well -- oh, well. Thank you for that clarification. You've made me feel really - COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And cars. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well - COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Cars are just as noisy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, they are. So if someone pulled up and opened up their car doors and it would rise to a level where someone else offsite could hear it and wanted to complain, they'd have the abiliff to. That's the point of what I was trying to get at. So I think with that, that works. And then the wall height that you have the deviation for allows you to a maximum of eight feet. Can we stipulate that on that southern property line, not just by the rec area -- because that's the closest property line to Westwind - that the wall there is going to be eight feet? Not a maximum, but it will be eight feet. MS. DeJOHN: Right. And that's reflected in our buffer enhancement exhibit as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right here. MS. DeJOHN: Eight feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then right here it's exhibited, too, so that's why I wanted this graphic, so... Okay. So just to reiterate, you're going to - in the PUD you're going to remove the column for the attached unit product that was inadvertently left there? MS. DeJOHN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAN: The hours of operation on the rec center are going to be from dawn to dusk. You're going to have no lighting which further enhances the ability for it to be shut down in the dark areas. You'll have no outside amplified sound. The wall along that southem line will be eight feet. And you're going to make this graphic part of the PUD. And the rear setback for the rym -- for this configuration, since I don't want to go back before 1980, what do we call this, Patrick, do you know? Is that a jungle gym, or what do they call those things? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I'll have to Google ig sir. Give me a second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whateverthese -- MS. DeJOHN: Play structure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The play structure and a basketball court, if one were to be put there, would Page 10 of67 September 20,2018 be at least 60 feet away from the rear property line for those two items. Okay. MS. DeJOHN: Agreed. CHAIRMAN STRAN: So with that, we'll move into staffrepor! unless there's any other questions of the Planning Commission. Hearing none, is there a followup staffreport, James? MR. SABO: Yes. James Sabo, for the record. Staffcontinues to recommend approval. It's consistent with the LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then we'll turn to -- we'll start with any registered public speakers, and ifnone are registered, I'll go to public atlarge. MR. SABO: I have no registered speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Any members of the public wish to speak on this matter? Okay. I think -- I don't know how to say your last name, but please come on up and identify yourself for the microphone and just spell your last for us. Niles is your first name. It's a lot harder on that second one. MR. DUPPSTADT: Nile like the river, and Duppstadt is a strange German name. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's D-u-p-p-s-t-a-t? MR. DUPPSTADT: A-d{. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A-d-t, okay. MR. DUPPSTADT: It's a little awkward. Ray and I have had some disagreements representing the community. We've gone back and forth with this since the meeting on the 6th and had a well-attended meeting at our clubhouse last Friday and overwhelmingly agreed that we would like to see the Planning Commission -- or, I mean, see the playground at the south end but with some very reasonable setbacks. This graphic is not a good example. I checked with people in Planning Commission or, I mean, at the - whatever you want to call it, at the main offices, and this detail they have no knowledge of. It seems to be something that was kind of thought up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, sir, you have to talk from the speaker, because we can't record you liom over there. Sir, I'm sorry. Just so you know, the detail on here will now become part, as a stipulation to the document that goes forward. So this detail will be memorialized. MR. DUPPSTADT: Yes, and I think we disagree with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What are your disagreements? MR. DTIPPSTADT: Well, the wall should be right close to the playground. If you look at what - the play equipment there, it's actually higher than the wall. And it's so far back that it doesn't really function as a noise barrier anymore. It should be right near the playground. They also, by doing this, are filling in an enormous amount of area that doesn't need to be filled in, very costly, and we lose a lot of existing trees that way. I submitted a drawing that shows how this could be - play area could be moved just slightly north and the basketball court across the street. The basketball court is a real issue with the neighbors. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, just -- we typically -- and the reason this all came up is we typically ask for rec areas to be centralized in the communities, not on the periphery. So your argument that this is a problem is a good one. At the same time, if this was moved, they would be able to build houses right up to l0 feet offthe rear property line, or whatever the setback is, and I think it's probably l0 feet or maybe even less for accessory uses. There would be no restrictions on those homes. They would operate like a regular family home. That means the backyard would be occupied and be used for whatever they want to use it for. The safety on this -- and it was pointed out as to why it would be an advantage to have this in your location is because you actually have this restricted during hours of operation. They cannot have noise that is loud enough that you would probably hear it from any artificial sound base. They have agreed to actually be 150 feet back from your rear property line, which is more than any house would be. The lighting is not going to exist, so that's not going to disturb you. The wall has to be within the landscape buffer that's required in that area because it has to have landscaping or, in this particular case, drainage on one side or the other of it. Those are all probably -- you might want to consider those as being more advantageous than having Page 11 of67 September 20,2018 homes closer to your home right -- and then their backyards being subject to whatever they want to do in them without restriction. So, you know, if you're still dead set that this is the wrong thing for your location, we'll certainly consider that. But I was hoping that - when this graphic was portrayed this morning, I had no understanding they were going to be that far back with their activities, which is the basketball cour! specifically, and the play structures. That's a good distance back than you will see, more so than you will see if it was a single-family home sitting there, so... MR. DUPPSTADT: I understand, and all our neighbors understood that also and prefer a playground with a wall to having houses right behind them, even though further down the street there are houses backed up. But they are a considerable distance from the property line there. CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. DUPPSTADT: Id like to see the buffer continue right along the back. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Well, the buffer does continue. The buffer is part of that 40-foot property line separation between the rear of the rec and the rear of the PIID. That is part of the buffer. Now, there's a preservation area back there, but the additional distance to the preservation area is going to be replaced with the elements you see here. And I don't know if that helps fuither explain it to you, but... MR. DUPPSTADT: I guess what I would like to do is defer to Ray for a few minutes and maybe come back for a second. I don't want to take up too much time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. No, we can do that. We want to get to the bottom of it and try to figure out a solution. So, certainly, if the other gentleman would like to come up and speak. MR. WILLTAMS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You just have to state your name for the record and spell your last name if it's complicated. I know it won't be for you, but it may be for me. MR. WILLIAMS: Ray Williams, W-i-l-l-i-a-m-s. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. WILLIAMS: Long story shor! we met with Habitat on the 1Oth after -- because they had -- actually, we met on the Friday after the meeting, Niles, myself and Lisa did. We had objections about the noise from the basketball court and everything else. They said, fine, we can relocate that, do something else, that's not going to be an issue. On Monday the 1 Oth, I have a similar drawing that was emailed to myself and Niles. And this was more than acceptable to myself, and I passed it around to the other board members. Last Friday when we had a meeting, I passed this around. And the one thing, if that drawing is to scale and everything else, if you look at tha! there is probably six foot of fill that's going to go in on the backside. So any time that we can eliminate any water from their property going into our canals will be greatly appreciated. Our problem is is the way our canal system works - and South Florida Management doesn't work as fast as the water does. We have a drainage problem that we have about a half a mile of the canal that's overgrown with somebody else's property, and we can't get them to clean it out. So the way our water drains, it goes right across the back of our property, goes along Regal Acres, and out to 41, but towards 4l it's all overgrown. Now what's happens is that all is silted in. We have - dry season lve have four feet of water on one side of the development, and I'll have zero water on the Regal Acres side because it's all silted in. So any time I can look at avoiding getting any more water runoff- and that is, I believe, the reason why you're requiring the drainage swale on their proper{y on their - to take care of their runoff-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. MLLIAMS: -- because it's going to come into our property no matter what if that wasn't there. If we move the wall back another 10 feet, that's going to cause, in my opinion, more watershed into the canal. Okay. It was brought up about the distance on the playground and from the property line, and I'm not -- I Page 12 of 67 September 20,2018 don't want to overstep your guy's -- the bounds at all, but your drawing here says 105 by 220 is what the playground area was going to be. This is a drawing that I had emailed to me. So if you take that distance, you're at52.5 feet from where their playground goes to where, let's say, the center of their play structure would be, if that would be correct in thinking. That actually extends that center of that activity further back away from us even more. So I, as a board member, and the rest of the board and I'd say 98 percent of the owners would prefer to have it the way it is. We don't want the houses, like you mentioned, backed up to the houses -- to our houses, because it's just going to create a lot more noise. My opinion, I don't have a problem at all. The Board doesn't have a problem with it. The majority of the unit owners don't have a problem with it. We had a problem with noise on the basketball court, they said, we can configure that. Not a problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The discussion that we've had with the applicant here today would make either -- both the basketball court and this play structure, those structures would have to be at least 60 feet back from the rear rec area property line. And I think you just said by scale yours is about 52 to the center. So this would even move it back even further, and the basketball court as well, if one were to be there. If you add that on top of the existing 90 feet that goes from the rear rec area property line to the rear lines of your home, of your units, you're looking at 150 feet separation. And the water management by having the wall on the outside of the water management swale -- and the water management swale as it's cut here is picking all the runoffup from that propefty, and also the wall will help make sure, ifthere's ever a deluge of a storm like we had with Irma, less would be able to get through that wall over to the canal that you're concerned about. MR. WILLIAMS: No. Correct. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: So - MR. WILLIAMS: And if the one drawing that -- from Reflection Lakes to the back -- from one properlr on Reflection Lakes to the back of one of our properties in our development, I think it - Nick showed a drawing that was, like, 165 feet back of house, back of house, okay. So that's the distance back there. No, I take that back. Ninety-five from Reflection Lakes, and it was 165 from the Habitat property to our house. So they've even increased the distance further away from us with what housing make their bend going around their curve. I mean, honestly, Im in all -- I'm in favor for it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With the restrictions they've put on this, I think even the people closer to this location are going to be probably better offwith this than housing. The housing won't be as restricted as this. MR. WILLIAMS: By far. And I've already made the comment at the last meeting; I said if you really want to have some fun, I said, I'll go get some solar flood lights and put out in the backyard -- out in their property shining in the back of your houses at night, and that's what you're going to look at. I mean, to be honest with you, it's -- we would much rather, as a development, have the rec center. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Could I just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: StAN? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Bear with me for a second. This may sound counterintuitive, but if your neighbor has a foot of fill at a 1 percent slope and it sheds into your property, if he puts in three foot of fill at a 1 percent slope, he's going to percolate more water on his side and shed probably less water onto your property - MR. WILLIAMS: Correct. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: -- even though he's higher. MR. WILLIAMS: Right. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: So the fact that they're adding fill doesn't necessarily mean -- you know, unless they put a terrific slope to it, he's not going to put any more water onto your properly and probably hold more water on his property, not a lot, but he just won't shed more. Page 13 of67 September 20,2018 MR. WILLIAMS: Because the way -- the way after Irma came through, we got water offof Reflection Lakes coming into our property. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah, everybody got water. MR. WILLIAMS: I understand. And I've been here 32 years. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. MR. WILLIAMS: So I understand the problems that we have, so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thankyou, sir. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Thank you. MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you. CFIAIRMAN STRAIN: And would the other gentleman like to come back up, Niles, and finish with your time, and then we'll ask for rebuttal from the applicant. MR. DUPPSTADT: I drew a site plan, and I guess I'm asking the applicants why they didn't consider basketball court over across the street and something more like this configuration. I think at this point the basketball court location is going to be the biggest issue. There is a temporary one now, which everyone complained about the noise from that when we had this meeting last Friday. And I'm not content until I see a site plan. I'm seeing a section, which is really hard to read, but not how it's -- CFhIRMAN STRAIN: How many feet back do you believe the basketball court would need to be to protect what your concerns are from your rear property line? MR. DUPPSTADT: I have no idea. What I've drawn here is probably a hundred and -- 200 feet or so on this plan that I - CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. They're already at 150 feet with the plan in front of you. So you want the basketball court 50 feet even further back from where this plan would allow it to be, basically, is what it sounds like. And I don't know if the property's got that kind of depth, and I don't know what the intention is of the applicant in placing it, butiher'[ have a chance to respond to all this when we finish with our public speakers, so... MR. KLATZKOW: Is this play area lit? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. MR. KLATZKOW: So there won't be any noise at night? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. MR. KLATZKOW: So it's just during the day? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Anything else, sir? MR. DUPPSTADT: No. I think rhat's all. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Thankyou very much. And with that, I'll turn to the applicant. Are any other members of the public here to speak on this matter? Q.{o response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't think -- I remember there were two people from Westwind. So, Laur4 do you want to respond to any of this, especially focusing on probably the basketball court? MS. DeJOHN: I appreciate how involved everyone's been in trying to help plan this rec area. I think we've done above and beyond commitments on how the rec area would be designed, buffered, situated, managed, operated. To the points made, basketball has been brought up and agreements were made that if there is a basketball court, it can be situated as far as it needs to be away, even across Majestic Circle. You know, the conversation was, you know, separate the basketball court, if there is a basketball court, to be across Majestic Circle. We could put a liule star on the master concept plan that highlights that there's a rec area south of Majestic Circle in a star location north of Majestic Circle that says "basketball court only in the starred location." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you show the master plan and suggest where that would go? That's a diamond triangle, too, but that's actually for the signage. Page 14 of 67 September 20,2018 MS. DeJOHN: Sigrage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. But you would suggest the basketball court would go somewhere in that location? MS. DeJOHN: If there was a basketball court, yes. CIIAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. And you would be willing to indicate that on this master plan? MS. DeJOHN: Yeah. I figured a star could be indicated there, and a label could indicate that that would be the basketball court location. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you're willing to do that I think that solves the issue. And if you've already talked to the community about that, which they've testified you have, then that kind of wraps it up. I don't see any other issue remaining at this point. Did you have anything else you wanted to discuss? MS. DeJOHN: No. With that we would agree to what we've talked about here today, and thanks for your time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the language I would suggest to articulate just so you're -- while you're here talking, the rear setback of 60 feet would be for any play structure, and the basketball court will be specifically located as shown on the master plan. And then you're going to produce a master plan that shows that. And I honestly don't think we need to have you come back for another consent. Statr, I think, is clear. And I'm always available to do a final review of any refinement ifthe Planning Commission so desires. And we could be there. Does anybody on the Planning Commission have any other questions or comments? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I would like for - CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'd like for the final review to be in the hands of the Chairman so that we don't have to have another consent. And it's my understanding that now we're going to have a star indicating where the basketball court is. And how many feet from the closest rear wall of a residence, roughly, is that - would that star be? MS. DeJOHN: The rear wall of Westwind residents? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah, the nearest. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's the depth of your - north/south depth of your rec area? And then add this 40, 50 feet for the width of your right-of-way, and there you're going to be. Because you're at 100 and -- you're at 90 feet to the rear properly line. The depth of the rec area is what? MS. DeJOHN: 105-ish. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So now you're 195 feet. The width of the roadway you've asked for, I think, is what, 50 feet so that's 250 feet. So that's a greater distance, I think, than they were even thinking to begin with. so I think -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: I agree. CFIAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that would meet with -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: And then there were additional stipulations that the chair identified, the 8-foot wall, the dawn to dusk, and no lighting, et cetera. All those stipulations will be, then, reviewed by the chair without the need of a second consent hearing. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Yeah. That's how I'm suggesting. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'd put that in the form of a motion, but I know that other commissioners -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As soon as we close the public hearing, we'll ask forthe motion. I'll reread the stips and then -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Oh, good, good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: - ask for a motion. Anybody have any other comments at this time? (No response.) Page 15 of67 September 20,2018 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we'll close the public hearing. And let me read the stipulations that we've collected, then we'll go have a discussion and then go in for a motion. Based on the consent, first one is the column that still remains in the Development Standards Table referring to attached units will be removed. Then in regards to the rec center, the hours of operation will be dawn to dusk, and this includes the basketball area as well. Lighting, there will be none. That includes the basketball area as well. There will be no outside amplified sound in either one, the rec area or the basketball area. The height of the wall on the southern property line will be eight feet. The graphic that was displayed today will be made part of this PUD. And the rear setback for any play structure will be 60 feet minimum as reflected in that graphic. And there will be no basketball court on that location. It will be only in the location shown on the master plan. And that's the stipulations I've written today. Did anybody have anything that needs to be added? Q.{o response.) CHAIRMAN STRAN: With that, I'll open for discussion from the Planning Commission. Any discussion, Patrick? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I have a motion to approve based on those stipulations. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's wait for any further discussion. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Okay. So, Patrick, do you mind repeating that? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I recommend approval for PUDZ-PL20170001733 per stipulations just noted by the Chairman. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? Seconded by Stan. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signifr by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKJ: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. Thank you, all. We appreciate the time it took to get this through, and I think we've got a good product going forward, so thank you. MR. KOULOHERAS: Thank you. Have a good day. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. We have four remaining cases but for two different locations. And there's a GMP and a conditional use request for the first one. And I will read them both off. And we'll discuss them concurrently, but they'll be voted on separately. *'t*The first one is 9A.. It's PL20160002584/CPSS-2017-1. This is forthe Grace Romanian Church at the corner of Golden Gate Boulevard and Collier Boulevard. That's the small-scale plan amendment part of it. The PIID -- or the conditional use part of it is PL20160002577, andthat is for the same church at the same location of Golden Gate Boulevard and Collier Boulevard. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly swom and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Discussions -- I mean, disclosures on the part ofthe Planning Commission. We'll start with Tom. Page 16 of 67 ieptember 20,2018 MR. EASTMAN: I spoke with Adrian Roman. He's a colleague of mine at the school district. He's our school district architect. He's a member of the church. And he merely mentioned to me that this item was coming to the Planning Commission today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I spoke with Mr. Yovanovich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Oral communications and emails with staffand Mr. Yovanovich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I have spoke with Mr. Yovanovich, but at the time he spoke with me I had not completed my review of the package, and I told him tha! so I have now, of course, by today. I did have some maybe correspondence or files with stafi and I definitely had a pre-staff meeting or pre-CC meeting with staff yesterday on this issue as well as the others on today's agenda. Diane? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Karen. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Karen. I'm sorry. I did that twice, didn't I? I did it last time, too. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I spoke to Mr. Yovanovich. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. 1980? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Just emails and communication with staff. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Thank you, Patrick. Okay. With that, we'll move right into the presentation by the applicant. And we are going to hear these -- discuss these concurrently, Ann4 so whatever your presentation is for, either one of them, we'll listen to it both at the same time. MS. WEAVER: Yes. Okay, good moming. My name is Anna Weaver. I'm with Davidson Engineering. Here with me today I have Josh Fruth, Jessica Haroldson, Rich Yovanovich, and Norm Trebilcock. So today we're representing the Grace Romanian Baptist Church. We're going to be discussing both the small-scale GMPA and the conditional use; the GMPA for the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. So, quickly, we'll just review the basic topics of the case. We did hear this at the May 3rd CCPC hearing. So you can see the location of the site. It's at the southeast corner of Golden Gate Boulevard and 951, and then about .75 miles to the east is Big Cypress Elementary school and .62 miles to the east is Max Hasse Park. So here you can see another view, an aerial view of the location. It's about six-and-a-quafter acres. It's got two parcels currently. The southern parcel has two structures on the site, a single-family home and an accessory structure, and the northern parcel is vacant. That's the parcel fronting Golden Gate Boulevard. So this is just another view of the existing conditions of the site today. And so the request in this application include the small-scale Growth Management Plan amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. That includes the exception to the locational criteria for the church in the master plan. And then we're also requesting a conditional use to allow the church in the Estates district to request to be consistent with one another. So here you'll see our conceptual site plan. Just real quickly, we're eliminating access from Weber Boulevard, which was originally proposed at the May 3rd hearing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You said "from." You mean both from and to? MS. WEAVER: Correct sorry. We're eliminating all access to Weber Boulevard, all vehicular access. And then -- so in the yellow you can see the development area. lt includes maximum of 24,000 square foot for the primary structure, and also it shows the outdoor recreation area and./or the optional pastor's residence, which will be a maximum of 3,500 square feet. And then we've also shown here in green the water management and preserve area as required. So now, real quick, we'll go over the landscape buffers. The first one is to the street frontages to the northandthewest. We'vegota15-foot-wideTypeDbufferwith25-gallon, l0-foottreesat30-footon Page 17 of 67 September 20,2018 center and a double-row hedge planted at2 feettall and maintained at 3 feet tall. To the south the code-compliant l0-foot-wide Type D buffer, same buffer content as the other street frontages, just a smaller width. To the east, on the north side we've got -- or the north end we've got a preserve area. and to the - adjacent to the contiguous residential propefty, we're doing a 1S-foot-wide enhanced Type B buffer, so that has 25-gallon, 1 0-foot trees at 25-foot on center and a 5-foot-tall hedge at 4-foot on center and 12-foot-tall palms planted behind the canopy trees. So this is a rendering of what it would look like when you're viewing from the contiguous residential property toward our subject parcel. And then the traffic impacts. Since we've removed that Weber access, you've got 100 percent inbound traffic on Golden Gate Boulevard and 100 percent leaving on Golden Gate Boulevard, and you can kind of see that25 percent of the traffic would turn onto Weber, 30 percent would continue east and 50 percent, approximately, would make a U-turn and go west. So the proposed conditions ofapproval, it's hard to see here; you have them in your packet, but I did highlight the changes that have been made since the last CCPC hearing. All of these changes were presented at our last NIM as requested, and we've only made one change since then that I'll get to in just a moment. So the first one is that we're limiting church service hours from 8 a.m. to l0 p.m. on weekends and holidays. We're also limiting church-related meetings to -- other church-related meetings to l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. and 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. on weekdays. We've also added the Easter sunrise service will be permitted. Number 2,max24,000 square foot and maximum 300 seats. Number 3, maximum 140 parking spaces on the site. That's really because we haven't nailed down what size the building will be and what shape. We've got our maximum building area, but it could end up being a little smaller. And so then a few more parking spaces may be added. Number 4 is the prohibited accessory use typical with other church approvals that have been done recently. 'We've added an exception for church-related food services associated with activities, including fellowship, weddings, and funerals. And then No. 5 is the list of accessory uses that are permitted, and we added that limitation for storage sheds that will be a maximum of 1,800 square feet, and then also we have the pastor's residence, maximum of 3,500 square feet. So No. 6, we've added a condition regarding signs. We're prohibiting signage on Weber Boulevard and just limiting where it will go on the corner of Collier and Golden Gate Boulevard. Number 7,that leasing of the church is permitted only when operated and staffed by a church representative, and they'll have to be present at those events. Number 8, we're limiting those events to l2 per year, and no carnivals will be allowed. That is the one piece we've added since our NIM on June 25th, and that's at their request, and we've ageed to that. Number 9, outdoor amplified sound is prohibited unless permitted temporarily associated with those events that we've talked about in No. 7 and 8. Number 10, no outdoor accessory recreation area lighting; however, the pastor's residence will be allowed to be lit similar to other residential properties in the area in the Estates zoning district. Number 11 is a lot of site lighting parameters. We're including Dark Skys compliance, height limitations, and shielding. Number 12 is no steeple lighting. Thirteen, is the enhanced buffer that we talked about adjacent to that residential property that's contiguous to the southeast. It will be 80 percent opaque within a year. Number 14, actual building height is 50 foot maximum and 60 foot for the steeple only. Fifteen, the dumpster enclosure will be located on the west edge of the preserve if needed. They may be allowed to provide roll-out receptacles after review. Number 16 is the maximum trip generation. So we've calculated 12 p.m. peak hour two-way trips on a weekday and a maximum of 240 peak hour on weekends. Seventeen is regarding certain events if county reviewers determine, then they may require traffic Page 18 of67 September Z0,Z0l8 control. And that's it. If you have any questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ned's gone, but I know he's usually got questions, but he'll be back. So anybody else have any questions at this time of the applicant from their application? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, Ann4I have questions. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Sorry, Mr. Chairman. I need to, but please feel free. CHAIRMAN STRAN: I'd rather you go first but go right ahead. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. With regard to the conditions, I have a number of questions. I don't think I have serious problems, but just some need for clarification. First of all, there was reference in the earliest materials, I guess, going back to May, that there would be a Thursday evening church service. Do I not remember that correctly? MS. WEAVER: I don't think there was any specific written material that said there was a Thursday service, but we did have that church meetings would be on weekdays. I haven't seen anything that specifies Thursdays. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I just wanted to call that to your attention to be sure that you knew that it's not being permitted here. MS. WEAVER: Correct. So we're going to include the church meetings that have shorter hours on weekdays or weeknights, and then the main services will be expected to be on weekends. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. That's fine with me, if it's okay with the church. Number 3, the maximum of 140 parking spaces, the previous document had said minimum of 129. Well, that's fine with me. I just wanted to point out that change. Then in No. 4, the second bullet point where it says, "except church-related food services associated with activities including, but not limited to, fellowship, weddings, and funerals." Could you give me some examples of permitted versus prohibited uses? That language is rather general. And I'd just like to get a better handle on it. MS. WEAVER: Do you mean permitted versus prohibited food services examples? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. Activities, I guess. It says "including, but not limited to" which means -- MS. WEAVER: Like the ones listed here is that we wouldn't be allowed to hold soup kitchens for, like, an open house for anyone, but if there was a wedding, then they would be allowed to use their kitchen inside to provide food. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That seems rather broad to me, I just wanted to point out, as to the breadth of that. Outreach programs. Personally, I believe that AA meetings and similar events are valuable community services. Sorry to see that these would be prohibited. MS. WEAVER: I believe that these were suggested by staffbased on previous -- recent previous church approvals. Of course, we would be happy to eliminate that from the list. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think you might want to hear everybody's comments on that before you think of eliminating it. MS. WEAVER: Sure. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Number 7, leasing ofthe - sorry. "Number 7, leasing of the church facility or properly to outside groups is permitted only when operated and staffed by a church representative who must be present during any leasing to an outside group." This seems vague to me. I guess as long as one staffperson is present, almost anl,thing would be permitted unless expressly prohibited; at least that's how I read it. MS. WEAVER: I think - and I did get that comment yesterday. So we've kind of come up with something that may be able to help be a little more specific with that. Of course, we don't really know what events will come up. We want to leave that a little bit open. But we have just some suggested language to add to No. 7. So leave the sentence as written but add a following sentence to say that "leasing shall be limited to charitable events, weddings, funeral, educational Page l9 of67 September 20,2018 events, and events associated with holidays." COMMISSIONER FRYER: That certainly gets closer to what I would be looking for. My next question -- MR. YOVANOVICH: If I could add forthe record. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Please. MR. YOVANOVICH: A couple of things that typically come up that churches do and actually lease their space out for: One is elections. The Supervisor of Election leases space from churches to hold the elections. And, two, frequently the only place we could find to have neighborhood information meetings is at churches, and they're gracious to give us a space, and they usually charge us a minimal fee to deal with their custodial services and things like that. So that was the intent of that leasing language. And hopefully the language we proposed gets us closer to it not being really a profit center for the church, which I think was your primary concern when we were discussing that it was going to get too broad and it would be a moneymaker, and that's not the intent of that language. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. I like that. And certainly the uses that you mentioned, voting and the NIM, I think, those are -- maybe should also be mentioned as examples. MR. YOVANOVICH: I think we should put governmental uses, if that's okay -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- or governmental-related meetings. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That works for me. We'll see what others have to say. My next question maybe is better stated for staff, and I will ask them, but maybe you-all can weigh in on this. Page97 of the new packet, it says, "ln staffs opinion, if this petition is approved it will increase the likelihood of a similar petition to allow an Estates zoning district CU being submitted for the property across Golden Gate at Boulevard at the northeast comer of Golden Gate Boulevard and Collier Boulevard." Staffmaybe should be thinking about that. But we have had discussions here about precedential effect, and maybe the County Attomey wants to weight in on that. MR. KLATZKOW: Every parcel is unique. There will be no precedential affect. Staffmay, on its own, be consistent in its application, but as far as review by the Planning Commission and the Board, every parcel's unique. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Thank you. CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: Just so you know, too, I think Sue will be ready to address that during staff report. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Good, okay. On Page 101 it stated, "The restudy for the Golden Gate Area Master Plan identifies the eastem quadrants of Collier Boulevard and Golden Gate as appropriate for Estates zoning district CUs with conditions including a size maximum of five acres." And, of course, you're talking about 6.25 acres. Could you explain that discrepancy? MS. WEAVER: This is a restudy that I believe has not yet been adopted, but it's been presented to the Board. So at this time I don't believe that we're required to meet that. It's a recommendation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It has not been adopted. It went through here, transmittal, and it's now not yet at transmittal to the Board. It's been continued. MS. WEAVER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then it has to come back for adoption, and we're probably six months or more from getting it finalized. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. But in the meantime this would not be subject to that five acre? CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: That's correct. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Then -- let's see. I was very glad to see the elimination of the ingress and egress point on Weber. That solved a lot of concerns that I had. I might suggest that some of the visuals that you've shown us, there's one with a big red X showing no ingress or egress of Weber. It took me a little while to get to that point. I would have gotten to it a little sooner if I had seen that graphic. It would have been nice to have been included in the material. Let's see. I think that's all I have for now. Page20 of 67 September 20,2018 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions ofthe applicant? Go ahead, Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Not a question; a comment. Hi, my name is Stan, and I'm an engineer. MS. WEAVER: Hi, Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'm with Ned as far as AA meetings. I think they're perfectly harmless. AA, NA, people like that are generally very quiet, and I see no reason why it's excluded, but that's just an opinion. MS. WEAVER: We would agree. COMMISSIONER EBERT: You would agree. You would like it? MS. WEAVER: If the Board is willing to recommend thag then yes, we would. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let us move on with the rest of the comments and testimony before we get to those points today. And let's start - if everybody else is finished, I'll start with mine. I have a few questions, and I have some of staff, and I certainly have some of the applicant. I'm trying to find where to start here. Just give me a second. Okay. Your traffic. Is your traffic consultant here? MS. WEAVER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Norm -- is anybody else doing traffic in Collier County anymore? Norm? Can I ask you -- do you mind if I ask Norm a few questions? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Jim Banks. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Oh, yeah. Jim's got awhole pile of stuffhe does, that's right. How did you arrive -- and I'm trying to find where I made my notes on your -- there it is. Norm, you've got your weekday trips at 12. It was eight. You've increased it by 50 percent. Can you tell me how you calculated the 12? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. That's a function of the square footage of the building itself. I think in the prior analysis we were doing a 15,000-square-foot building, and so now it's a 24,000-square-foot building. Oh, for the record, Norman Trebilcock. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How did you calculate the peak hours? MR. TREBILCOCK: The ITE. It's a land use in ITE, and so that's -- those are the values that get generated when you enter in that independent variable of the square footage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's not what I meant. MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Their hours of operation are offpeak. Did you consider that? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yeah. Exactly, but - CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no. Exactly, what does that mean? When you - I just said they're off peak, can you tell me what peak is, and then what hours you used to calculate the peak hours that they're now saying is 12. MR. TREBILCOCK: Sure, yes. Okay. So ITE, when you look at the weekday traffic, what the concem is in terms of Collier County is the peak hours which would be in the moming, 7 to 9 a.m. and 4 to 6 p.m. So when you use the ITE trip generation, it relates to those peak-hour periods. So that gives you that trip generation during those peak hours, because that's really when the roadway has the higher capacity associated with it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because your stuff is so mythical, I need to ask you as you go along to explain it. MR. TREBILCOCK: I understand. And it really is not. It's technical, but it's not mythical. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stop. Stop for a minute. Let me ask my question. Okay. What you just said, basically, is it addresses the peak hour, but since they are going from 10 to 4 and 6 to whatever, how is it addressing the peak hour if the peak hour's 4 to 6? MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. So we would typically be offthe peak period but, again, as a -- you know, as -- you would still have some traffic associated with it. And, again, we're just using the typical ITE numbers. CFIAIRMAN STRAIN: If they were operating from, say, l0 to l0 and they didn't have that break in Page 2l of 67 September 20,2018 that 4 to 6 peak hour, would it change? MR. TREBILCOCK: l0 a.m. to -- CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Say they're operating 10 to 10 and they didn't break for the peak hour. ln this case they're saying they want hours of operation from 10 to 4 and from 6 to I think it's 9 or 10. So you have a break at the peak-hour time. Say that break wasn't there and they wanted to operate every day from 10 to 10, how would you then calculate the peak hour? MR. TREBILCOCK: Well, again, what we rely on in traffic engineering is the ITE, the Institute of Transportation Engineers -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know what it stands for, Norm. MR. TREBILCOCK: No, I know. I'm just helping for the general public. I understand. But there's a lot of acronyms used, so I'm son1z. I don't mean to -- but we didn't specifically for that, for that - what we do do, though, is for the sake of the Collier County traffic network -- because you're still going to have some trips associated because people will be coming to the facility, you know, in preparation for the operations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Actually, when you end at a peak-hour beginning and you begin at a peak-hour ending, you have generated more traffic during peak hour than less because everybody leaving at 4 o'clock will be into the peak hour as they depart the facility. That means 50 more U-turns, 20 percent going this way or 50 percent going that way. And if they're all going to be there at 6 o'clock for a service, they're going to get there five or l0 minutes early. So you actually have, by what they're doing, increased your peak-hour trips from what I can tell, because they're going to be rushing to leave or rushing to get in during that peak-hour period. How did you account for that? MR. TREBILCOCK: I didn't specifically then. I used the ITE established nip-generation rates. CFIAIRMAN STRAIN: Based on there not being during -- open during the peak hour? MR. TREBILCOCK: Well, they can be. I mean, that's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then why does -- (Multiple speakers speaking.) MR. TREBILCOCK: -- ITE trip-generation rates. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why does the generation rate for the peak hour during the week differ from the generation rate on Sunday? MR. TREBILCOCK: Because there's a significant difFerence. Typically a church will have a lot more attendees for a service on a Sunday. So on a Sunday, what it is, it's not the - it's not -- it's the peak hour of what we call the generator, so it's the peak hour of what the church generates. And so that's what's identified there. More for what we call operational purposes, because it's offpeak of the roadway network, because the roadway network isn't going to have a high amount of trips associated with it. But it's to look at what is that church going to generate in terms of kind of what I'd call, lack of a better word, a worst-case scenario in terms of the highest generation out of that church. And so that's what that Sunday is reflective of, and that's why there's such a big difference. That is consistent with any church project that I've worked on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's not one I've seen before. MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So let me go back. So on Sunday during the peak hour on Sunday with the service held, you're saying they could have 240 peak-hour trips; is that right? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why couldn't they have the same number of peak-hour trips for the weekday events? Tell me what here prohibits them from doing that. MR. TREBILCOCK: There is no specific prohibition. It's just normal operations of a church. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So what you're acknowledging is they could have 240 peak-hour trips during a weekday? MR. TREBILCOCK: They could. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's exactly where I was going. Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: May I ask for some more clarification on that very point before you go on, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go right ahead. Page 22 of 67 September 20,2018 COMMISSIONER FRYER: Then to me it seems as though when you have an organization like a church whose peak hours are just completely different from ITE peak hours, what relevance is ITE when you're trying to determine what the effect is going to be on the roadways? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, you want to ask that of the traffic engineer or of the attorney? Because I notice he's jumping up to try to help his traffic engineer, and I don't know if he's the right - if you -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'll start with Mr. Trebilcock. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'd like to answer some questions. MR. TREBILCOCK: I'm sorry. Would you mind repeating the question? COMMISSIONER FRYER: No, not at all. I mean, the ITE is useful, I think, when you're considering conventional organizations, conventional traffic. But when you're talking about something like a church whose peak hours are going to be way different than what ITE contemplates, what relevance is ITE when we're looking at the impact that the church would have on the adjacent roadways, the actual impact? MR. TREBILCOCK: Well, the ITE is the adopted standard that Collier County uses for trip generation for projects. So it's quite relevant and it is the standard practice of industry community-wide. So that would be the relevance. One -- you know, the ITE -- again, you look at those peak-hour periods. What it basically represents and demonstrates is that churches will typically have a very low generation during the week and then off-- on Sundays they'll have a much higher trip generation, okay. So what we'll look at, then, as a consequence is using that off-peak period, the higher generation, to make sure that, operationally, we have adequately sized turn lanes and other such features of the site so the site can accommodate the need. But again, typically a church will be offpeak in terms of the members coming for a meeting, et cetera, you know, as a result because you really don't want to be there right at the peak of the peak of traffic. COMMISSIONER FRYER: No, I understand. That's not exactly what I was asking. Maybe I'm not being clear. But my concern is if you're - if the only standard of measurement is ITE when you come to unique organizations like churches, it could be that the - I mean, the sky is the limig really, as long as they're not trespassing reasonably on conventional peak-hour time frames. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well - and if I may, the standard -- the objective standard that Collier County uses is the ITE manual based upon peak hour. So you have an ITE manual that studies how churches actually operate. And I think those of us who have attended church at some time throughout our life understand that, depending on what your faith is, Saturdays and Sundays is when you're going to have your busiest time and the most people on that propefty. And we've accounted for that by doing an analysis of the Sunday and Saturday peak. We also know that during the week there are church activities that do occur. You'll have pastoral counseling; you'll have Bible studies; you'll have things like that but it's at a much lower use of the facility during the peak hour, and that's what ITE factors in, and we've capped ourselves at 12 peak-hour trips. Now, if it's a problem for us to regulate our hours and have a two-hour break, we'll be happy to go from 10 to 10, because we're not trying to create a traffic problem by limiting the hours. We limited the hours so that we thought we were helping and addressing the community's concerns that a whole bunch of people were going to show up between the hours of 4 and 6 in the afternoon or early in the morning when people were going to work or going to school, you know, because usually school buses and things like that. We thought we were doing the right thing, but if we've inadvertently forced people to leave the property too soon or rush to us too soon, you know, we'll live with the 12 peak-hour trips that we've got in there. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, that's certainly not going to happen. And I understand that you were attempting to point out the fact that given that the unique peak hours for institution are going to be significantly different from ITE peak hours, I just - my only question is to why we are spending so much time analyzing in relation to ITE when the actual efilect could be way different in a way that ITE can't capture. Page 23 of 67 i September 20,2018 MR. YOVANOVICH: And that's why we have to have a unique application for churches. We have -- their peak is the weekend, and that's why we've addressed that through a unique application. And you'll even see that in every church application that comes through, we have the caveat, if there's a lot of people attending on Sunday and it somehow messes up traffic, we've got to hire an off-duty police officer to help deal with traffrc. You don't find that in any other application, but we use the ITE manual for every use and every petition, and we've now started putting in peak-hour caps so we can monitor and regulate, you know, what acfually can happen on the property. And it's the measurement we have. We have accounted for the uniqueness of a church by doing a Sunday and Saturday peak, because the ITE manual isn't perfect for the Saturday and Sunday operations for a church. And I think we've done the right thing. When we have to customize, we're doing that in this application. MR. KLATZKOW: The purpose of measuring this at peak hour is really concurrency, but that's not what we're looking at here. Here you're looking at a conditional use and whether or not this traffic is compatible with this neighborhood and is impacting this neighborhood with respect to this noise and everything else. It's a different concept. We're not talking about concun'ency here. We're talking about compatibility. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And the point I was trying to make is the previous application that was heard by this board put limitations on the number of people that could occur in the facility during the week because it was supposed to be a period of time when they weren't having their services. They've come down now and are virtually operating seven days a week for extended hours all those days with no limitations on the size other than the building can hold up to 300 people; that's what they could have. So the way I'm reading this and the way we should always read land use is what's the worst-case scenario for the public and for the community that's got to live with the situation that we allow them to create. And I'm suggesting that without limitations, the fact that they took the limitations out is a telling factor. We've got a situation where they can now expand their operations to a seven-day-a-week operation most all daylight hours during those periods of time with no limitation on the number of people and up to 300 each time. We have a traffic study that didn't really take that into consideration because, if it did, it would have to look at it similar to what it's like looking at on a Sunday even! and they didn't do that. That's the piece I was trying to get to. And I'm not done asking questions of the traffic engineer, so I would like Norm to come back up and address a couple more questions I have. MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I answer the hours-of-operation comment? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When we get to it. I'm not to there yet. I'm just expressing my questions over the TIS. Norm, when you look in the TIS manual, the traffic -- I mean the ITE manual, and you look for churches, how many churches are there in that manual and what range do those churches have? MR. TREBILCOCK: I'd have to get back to you to give you that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I can tell you there are a lot. There's more than one. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAN: And I can tell you they range from small churches to mega-churches, and then they average it out. MR. TREBILCOCK: Correct. And what that tells us when we have a large sample size is that's an excellent sample, and that's reflective of churches in general. And, again, all churches. I live next to a church. It's a very large church, so it's got a lot of seating, and I did the analysis on that church as well, and I did it in the same manner. You do a weekday trip generation. That gives you the actual operations that occur in a typical church, and that's reflective of it. Page 24 of 67 September 20,2018 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. TREBILCOCK: Whether it has 500 seats or 1,000 seats, that's what it's reflective of. And it tells you that very well. And that's why we use that as a general practice, and that's why it's done in that manner. So I would submit to you it would be my opinion and belief that what we analyze is applicable to this church as it is to other churches that we have done countywide for many years. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Right. So you have no way of differentiating between a neighborhood church, as this was, I thought, intended to be, and a mega-church that could go up with -- MR. TREBILCOCK: Well, that would be reflective of the size of the seating, and that would -- because a mega-church would have a lot more seats; 3,000 seats. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The turnover rate on a mega-church could be completely different in an operational rate than we have on a neighborhood church. MR. TREBILCOCK: Correct. But the only thing is you'd have a larger seat size. That would give you a higher trip generation. So I submit to you that this is reflective of such. And what we did do is a comparative analysis between seats and square footage and took the higher of the two, and so that's why we had come back with a slightly higher trip generation for you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you didn't do it factoring services during the week? MR. TREBILCOCK: Well, no. What it did is factored services to the same extent that churches nationwide, the ITE samples, do as well. So we're consistent with churches. People that need to express their freedom of religion, that's what's really being done there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you believe there's different religions? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir, there are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. They all have different priorities. In fact, we had a religion not too long ago that came in with services during the week. I'm concerned about the intent of a neighborhood operation becoming a larger operation than originally intended. And with that, we're going to take a break and come back at 10:45 for the court reporter. Thank you. (A brief recess was had.) MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mike. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thankyou, Mike. Okay. If everybody will please take their seats, we'll assume the discussion between us and the applicant. I've got some questions concerning the conditions of approval that Anna introduced. And, Ann4 you weren't here when this came through last time, because you're new with your firm. MS. WEAVER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I need some clarification and explanations, and maybe Josh or someone could jump in, if you're not familiar with it. MS. WEAVER: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When this project came through a long time ago, the first NIM they did they said they want one Sunday service and one Thursday. The Thursday service, I guess, being a Bible study. Well, after the NIM, I mean, I think you have realized through your training with Josh and others we memorialize every -- we memorialize everlthing that's committed to in the NIM. I went, and at one of the meetings that I had with the applicant prior to the Planning Commission, I used those as a basis for their operation, because that's more of a neighborhood situation when you've got a church operating with limited number of hours. It works, sometimes, well. They said, well, you know, we really don't know what night we're going to do our Bible study, and we may want to expand that to five nights of the week so we can have some flexibility, and that seemed reasonable. It still was a low-key operation. Well, then it got to the Planning Commission the fnst time, and all of a sudden the hours needed to be discussed again. We needed some on Saturday. And then I can't remember if it was at the Planning Commission or when the first draft of the responses to some planning commissioners expanded the hours Page 25 of 67 September 20,2018 even more, which kicked it into issues that needed to go back and have another NIM, and they had this other NIM. So we go from an operation that first went to the communrty and said, we're just going to have Sundays and Thursday to an operation that's now operating seven days a week. And there are no limitations, basically, except for the Sunday services were limited -- basically, the property is limited to 24,000 and 300 seats. But those 300 seats could be done any time of the week they want, the way it's written now. That was not the way it was written previously. That was not the way this was presented to the community and to this board previously. And my position on this church initially was it's better than commercial at that corner. I believed that. I believed it then because they were limited. They took all that limitation away. So I'm very concemed about these conditions that have now come through. And I'm telling you this because without those conditions -- with the conditions as they're written today make it more than a neighborhood church. With the conditions they want to add for some of the uses, this isn't a neighborhood church that I think meets the compatibility that we're supposed to be addressing as a conditional use. So with that, I'm just telling you that's my position on the first condition of approval. I think those are far more than what was initiated, and it's a little bit of a concern to me. And I'm not asking you to respond. I'm just telling you where I feel -- what I feel about it. And, you know, if you have some comments on it, ill certainly listen to them. Mr. Yovanovich, I was directing my questions to her. Did you have something you wanted to add? MR. YOVANOVICH: I do, because you are talking about the fact that she wasn't involved during the first -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You weren't either. MR. YOVANOVICH: I know. And right after the first meeting the church came to me and asked me if I would help them get through the process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I said, huppy to help. I'd already done work for the Grace Romanian Baptist Church, I knew Adrian, and I knew the minister, and I knew other members of the church. And I said, happy to help. Done many a churches in my day. Let's go through the conditions that were in the conditions. And I said to them, have you thought about some of the things like what happens if you want to have services on Saturday? What happens it God forbid, one of your members dies and you want to have a funeral? You can't have a funeral during the day under the conditions that were in there. So we started talking about the conditions that were there and said, what do you really need to be the church that you want to be, which I disagree with you, is a neighborhood church even though they have some operations during the day and they have the ability to do services on Saturday and Sunday. So we made revisions to the conditions, and we went back out to the communiry with a brand new neighborhood information meeting with every condition in front of you today, and then we were asked by John Kelly, who's here - he had a concern about camivals and would we agree to exclude carnivals, and we said, absolutely. So we went back to the community when we had an opportunity to sit down, think about how does the church really function. And we didn't want to misrepresent how much the church was going to operate, so we made the changes in the operations based on thoughtful considerations about how does the church really operate. That was my fault, because we had conversations about how does it really operate. And we don't believe that these changes in any way change it from a neighborhood church. The reality is churches do not operate 24 hours, 7 days a week, where you have 300 parishioners flowing in and out of there for their -- that's why you have the peak-hour limitation. I can't go above 12 during the peak hour during the week, and that is an issue for transportation concurrency as well as compatibility with the neighborhood. So if you're going to blame anybody for the hours of operations changing, you need to blame me. CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not blaming anybody. I have questions. Anna, would you mind coming back up to the podium. Page 26 of 67 September 20,2018 Now, let's get back to the questions that I started with. It started out having services on Sunday and Thursday night, and then it went to the weekday nights. And now I need to understand from the operational aspect why you need to have 300 people to be able to attend this church from l0 in the morning till 9 p.m., seven -- not only five days a week, but then all day on Saturday and Sunday. So why did you feel 300 people are necessary to be there for those durations of time? MS. WEAVER: I think -- so we don't necessarily feel that 300 people are going to be at the church during all of these times. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. WEAVER: But I think what I'm gathering is that we kind of wanted to nail down how the changes were made. We -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I want to know what you intend to do. If you're not -- MS. WEAVER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: - going to have 300 people there during the weekdays and the maximum number of people, they are going to have 10, 20 or -- tell us. MS. WEAVER: Maximum 300 is for our general services on the weekends, and that's indicated also in the maximum trip cap in the conditions of approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, butthat's - MS. WEAVER: So maximum is for the building capacity and also for - not just the building capacity, but for their sanctuary. So that's limited for weekends based on the trip generation. The other times during weekdays are going to be much smaller meetings, and that's limited also by the trip max in the conditions with the l2 peak-hour two-way trips on a weekday. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well - and I believe that that tailored 12 peak-hour trips is problematic by the way it was calculated purposely omitting the time frames in which the peak hour occurs and the operational hours that were here. Plus, based on the testimony of the traffic engineer, you'd have to -- you could have up to 240 trips. So somehow that needs to be corralled and brought back to a reasonable opportunity to make this - to believe what Mr. Yovanovich says is a neighborhood church. Right now I don't see it. So, Diane, did you have something you wanted to -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: No. When you're done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I won't be done for quite some time, so you want to speak? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. I'm going to ask, how many members does this church have now? MR. YOVANOVICH: Right nowthe church has 91 members. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Thank you. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: YeS. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Could I make one comment while you're going through your list? CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. Absolutely. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I just feel the need to say to me the purpose of churches is -- number one is outreach, and whether it's my church or this church or you don't go to church. So I just want to kind of highlight some things from my perspective that whether you're a believer or nonbeliever, these churches and these facilities really do facilitate the neighborhood, the community. NA, we heard before, Narcotics Anonymous, Alcoholics Anonymous, Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Bible studies, pumpkin patches, youth group things that -- I'm just relating these to churches that I attend or churches that I know ofin the area. I'm not saying they're going to or -- I'm just bringing up the point that me personally, I'm still -- I think bring up some valid points. I still think that there needs to be some flexibility for a church to be a neighborhood church, that there has to be able to be use for those kind of positive things in the community that I think a church represents. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But do you think that a church in this -- in a neighborhood has the ability to have from 10 in the morning till 9 at night on the weekdays and all day Saturday and Sunday, 300 Page27 of67 September 20,2018 people all day long milling around the church and it still is a neighborhood church? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I do not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. That's all I'm trying to say. That's the change that occurred between last time and now. Ann4 I still have more questions. Your changes that you made in the sheds, this is a little different because in the NIM you said you had a shed. Now you're looking at sheds. So you want more than one shed going on the property? MS. WEAVER: At our June 25th NIM we included storage sheds to be limited to a maximum of 1,800 square feet, and that was the most recent NIM that we had as required by - I think recommended by your board but also required by the LDC to accommodate any changes that we had to the site plan. So we did present that to our most recent NIM. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the most recent NIM was not the one on July 13th, 2018? MS. WEAVER: We didn't have a NIM July 13th. COMMISSIONER FRYER: June, I thought. MS. WEAVER: It was June 25th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait. Well, I've got a memorandum from -- to Sue Falkner from Frederick Hood. The following PowerPoint presentation - this was what he supposedly did at a NIM. I'm sorry. That's the date ofthe memorandum. The storage shed was originally proposed at 1,000 square feet. It is now updated to 1,800. Fred Hood replied. Yes, that is the request for a storage shed was at 1,800 square feet. So now you're saying it's ttsheds." Now, it wasn't a -- I'm trying to figure out if it was a NIM -- a neighborhood information meeting was held on June 25th, so it is that one. And this is - Frederick Hood started the meeting. Following PowerPoint presentation, the following concerns were stated, and that was his response to a concern expressed by the neighborhood. So you expressed it in a singular, but yet you put it as plural in your conditions. So now are you going to have multiple sheds, or how does this work? MS. WEAVER: I can't speak for Fred. He's not here. And I don't know exactly what he said, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the NIM is a document that is recorded that we've -- you've submitted. So you tell me, is it not valid that you've said that at the NIM? MR. FRUTH: No. For the record, Josh Fruth, Davidson Engineering. At the June 25th NIM it was presented as shown to you today: "Sheds not exceeding 1,800 square feet." So they could have two sheds that are 900 square feet apiece. That's the intent. But in likelihood, yeah, it's probably going to be one shed, but they're capping it at 1,800 square feet. CFhIRMAN STRAN: But on Page 55, the document that was sent on July l3th from Davidson Engineering to Sue Falkner and James Sabo, on the first page it says that - the reply from Fred Hood was a storage shed at 1,800 square feet. All I'm saying is your document now says multiple sheds, and I don't know what we're going to end up, just like I don't know what we're going to end up with without restrictions on the attendance during the week for this facility. MR. FRUTH: Understood. I see what you're saying, but I can tell you that at the NIM to the public it was shown the same way it was shown to you today. Sheds, 1,800 square feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So whoevertyped up the document from your office made an error? MR. FRUTH: Sure. We forgot an S. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Well, that's -- I've heard certain people argue on S's a lot and commas and little things like that, so... MR. FRUTH: Yes. But as Annajust stated, the conditions from the June 25th NIM were attached to the memo as well. So you can see that what we clearly presented did not change. CFIAIRMAN STRAIN: In the special events, Ann4 that you have here, it talks about camivals are prohibited. I believe, according to the document submitted, the question was, would you prohibit camivals and revivals. So does that mean you're going to have revivals but you're not going to have carnivals? MR. YOVANOVICH: We agreed to eliminate camivals. Page 28 of 67 September 20,2018 CHAIRMAN STRAN: I know. The question at the NIM was carnivals and revivals. So does that mean you're going to have revivals? MR. YOVANOVICH: We could potentially have revivals at a church. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just wanted to make sure the public who hasn't spoken yet understands that. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. And subject to all the conditions that exist in the document. CHAIRMAN STRAN: And underyour amplified sounds are prohibited, outdoor amplified sounds, you've added the language "unless permitted under a temporary or special-use permit," and that does -- and you get to have 12 of those ayear, so you're saying 12 times a year you can have any special event but a carnival with whatever amplified sound is permitted for that? MS. WEAVER: It will be reviewed by staffat the time of application for a temporary-use permit. Every time, yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the decibel level is set by our code, which is really not helpful to areas that don't have a lot of white noise drowning out things like this. Your peak hours during the week have increased 50 percent based on this current application, and your peak hours during Saturdays and Sundays has increased 3l percent. I'm not sure why if your volume of people, which is 300, is the same, why the increase. MS. WEAVER: It's calculated based on the size of the building. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. It was the first time, too, I believe. MS. WEAVER: Correct. At the last CCPC hearing the building was shown smaller at 15,000 square feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's -- MS. WEAVER: But we did present this larger number at the June 25th NIM. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you've increased the building size but you left the seating capacity -- the 300 is the same? MS. WEAVER: Correct for the sanctuary. CHAIRMAN STRAN: And I'm just going through some issues to make sure I've asked you everything I need to at this point. The leasing of the church property originally was you're just not going to have any outside groups. Now you can have outside groups as long as someone from your organization is present. So a volunteer could volunteer to sit there all day while it's leased out to somebody else, but you're now limiting the leasing out to just those organizations that you have indicated? MS. WEAVER: Correct that we -- yeS, that we identified earlier. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And, you know, the previous size for the shed -- sheds, was a thousand square feel which -- and you're now up to 1,800 square feet. That's larger than many houses. That's a pretty good-size structurejust to be a shed. MS. WEAVER: At the May 3rd CCPC hearing, I don't believe that sheds were limited at all. The conditions that I have doesn't have a square-foot limitation next to sheds. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Page 65 of the most recent packet, proposed zoning conditions of approval post 5/3/18 CCPC hearing, sheds shall be limited to a maximum of 1,000 square feet. And it says that. But if you're saying it doesn't, I guess I'm -- MS. WEAVER: It could have been a supplemental submittal or per coordination with staffif it was post the 5/3 hearing. CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But it was in our packet, and I'm reading from our packet. MS. WEAVER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAN: And that's it for now. I'll have more when we get through staff Anybody else have any questions ofthe applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then we'llgo to staffreport. James? MR. SABO: Mr. Chairman, for the record, James Sabo. Do you want to hear from comp planning first as - Page 29 of 67 September 20,2018 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Either. It doesn't matter. They're going to have to provide a staff report, and there may be some questions from them, so... MR. SABO: All right. The recommendation from the ZoningDivision is for the Planning Commission to forward the petition to the Board of Zonng Appeals with a recommendation of approval for the conditional use if the companion GPA amendment is approved. That's our recommendation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any questions of James? Q.{o response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a staffreport for Comprehensive Planning? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I had asked a question earlier about the precedential effect, which the County Attorney answered. My question now, though, is, is the staffaware of discussions or applications that are going to come before us in the near future for the other comer on the east side of this intersection? MR. SABO: We have nothing in the works right now. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Go ahead. Sue. MS. FALKNER: Sue Falkner, Comprehensive Planning. I'd like to respond just one more minute on the question that you raised conceming the statement in the staffreport for our opinion that it was potential, likely, that there could be an application come in in the future if you were to approve the southeast corner for a conditional use; that there could be an application for a conditional use on the northeast corner. That's our experience and - through land use and many years of experience. So that's pretty much the answer to why that statement was in there. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. MS. FALKNER: And the Comprehensive Planning is hoping that you will recommend this for approval to the Board of County Commissioners. CH{IRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any questions of Sue? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sue, I've got maybe one or two. More or less a statement than a question. Under your compatibility analysis on Page 9 of your repoft, the third paragraph you said the following: "Historically, churches have been located within residential neighborhoods. Generally these churches are not mega-churches with significant activity on site every day of the week, rather were small with primary activity on Sunday. MS. FALKNER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I agree with you that is historically what we've tried to do. But like gas stations and convenience stores and other things that went from mom and pop two-pump operations, to mega-pump operations with24 pumps and big convenience stores, churches seem to be evolving from what you've just described here to a constant operation with multitudes, now, of sources of, let's say, activities for their members and/or revenue streams, or whatever they do. And that's what's got me concerned here. And I was trying to understand is these changes that have occurred, we've not -- we started to address those recently with gas stations because we rewrote that section ofthe code. Has anybody looked at addressing the differences between neighborhood churches and those that aren't neighborhood churches in relationship to how the code addresses them? Because the code doesn't. It just says "churches," and it assigns an SIC code to it. And I think the testimony we're hearing, even in the traffrc counts, they're not considered because they're all lumped together with the little to the biggest, which doesn't help us identify what's compatible for neighborhoods. And, Mike, I saw you move forward. Is that something staffs going to be looking at? MR. BOSI: Staffhas not put that, sort of on the radar, so to speak. What I would say is the majority of these churches go through a conditional-use analysis. And it's that individual analysis, the square footage, the number of events, type of activities, the things that are being described uniquely for that application would be evaluated based upon the situation of where it sits within the built environment, whether it's within Page 30 of67 September 20,2018 the neighborhood, on the edge of a neighborhood, what's the characteristics, its physical location. CHAIRMAN STRAN: You're probably talking too fast for our court reporter. I know -- I've been trying to be real careful today, and I'm getting carried way, so you've got to slow down a little bit. MR. BOSI: So all of those unique individual aspects of an application are what makes up the conditional use. But with that comment from the Planning Commission, we most certainty can look towards what literature, what's out there, what the current thought is related to making the distinguishment between a neighborhood church or a mega-church, and maybe there was something probably in the middle. Im not sure, but I think. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It might a good thing to consider, Mike, especially in the master plan going through changes things, and we've got more opportunities. We probably ought to see what's right for the neighborhood versus a main arterial road that is surrounded by commercial or high density or something like that. So, I mean, we're going to be looking at sea level rise, and maybe one of the things you guys could tuck away is this is an issue to be considered to be looked at, so... I wanted to get that on record before Stan asked iq so... Sue, I want to make sure -- I think I had a couple other things. I wanted to make sure I've asked you everything. Just give me just a minute. That's all. Thankyou. Sue. Anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that we'll go to registered public speakers first, and then we'll ask for anybody who hasn't spoken. So when your name's called, if you come up to one of the mikes. We ask you to try to be about five minutes in length, but we'll certainly be considerate if there's more time needed. Chair, we have five individual requests for speaker slips. The first would be John Kelly followed by Renate Kelly. MR. KELLY: Hello. John Kelly. I reside at22l Weber Boulevard South and have for the last 25 years. As a neighborhood we're mostly concemed about traffic. The northeast and southeast corners of Collier Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard comprise the entryway into the true Golden Gate Estates and should not be represented by uses that are not consistent with the current Growth Management Plan. With respect to the current restudy, it's believed that this property is only mentioned because of the current petition before you and would not otherwise have been mentioned. The first residential street east of Collier Boulevard is Weber Boulevard South. The county, by implementing current traffic policies and patterns, has created a high-speed 951 bypass. As there are no effiorts to calm traffrc, the community is left with no recourse but to object to and oppose any uses that will increase traffrc on the roadway to an intensity greater than that of a single-family residence or perhaps a model home. Weber Boulevard South is the primary means of accessing First Avenue Southwest which already seryes the following nonresidential uses: Max Hasse Community Park, Big Cypress Elementary School, Jehovah Witness two worship facilities which allow for simultaneous services; and Cypress Woods Presbyerian Church and childcare center. With respect to churches, most conceming, that churches typically provide additional outreach services such as daycare programs, schools, and promotes special events for awareness and fundraising. Churches are more than a once- or twice-a-week worship service, and with each service or program comes additional traffic. Additional worries involve the fact that the property is served by well and septic, lighting, signs, and noise. Back to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan restudy. Both the petitioner and staffpoint to the restudy to indicate the community desires to allow for conditional uses at the subject location. Again, I don't believe the property would have ever been mentioned were it not for this petition. And the opposite side of Golden Gate Boulevard is already improved as a single-family residence. Page 31 of67 September 20,2018 I don't know how many Estates residents were polled, and I'm in the opinion that the majority of residents would prefer the Estates be left as it is. The subject properties are located within the Eastern Rural Estates. The vision statement for the Eastern Rural Estates reads as follows: "The Golden Gate Eastern Estates is an interconnected, low-density residential community with limited goods and services in neighborhood centers defined by rural character with an appreciation for nature and quiet surroundings." Further note that the staffreport states that in staffs opinion, "If this petition is approved, it will increase the likelihood of a similar petition being submitted for the property across Golden Gate Boulevard." Additional properties in close proximity will also have the ability to obtain conditional-use approvals without undergoing the GMPA process, as they'll be deemed to be consistent. Conditional uses in the Estates include child and daycare centers, private schools, group care facilities and, I'm not certain, but cell towers. Is this what we envision for the entryway to Golden Gate Estates? How does this fit within the vision statement? I don't think it does. Additional argument, again, we're mostly opposed to traffic racing down Weber Boulevard South from White Boulevard and believe that's a direct result of persons desiring to bypass a "no right turn on red" that was implemented from Collier to Golden Gate Boulevard. If there was no entryway to the subject properties from Golden Gate Boulevard, the lane could be used for right-tum-on-red traffic. I'd argue that as the properties have been combined, there are no landlocked properties, and the actual access to the properry that fronts on Golden Gate Boulevard should be on Weber Boulevard South. If we approve this Growth Management Plan amendmen! we lose the ability to fix the traffic problem. Additional concerns: The petitioner previously owned properly on Livingston Road and had that properry rezoned and went through the SDP process for a 500-seat church. They have since sold that proper(y, but I would argue that this church plans to grow. I'd also be curious - as while this has been going on, I researched the Property Appraiser's website and determined that Grace Romanian Baptist Church owns another properry at 6645 Willow Park Drive. They have received at that property an administrative parking reduction to allow for a church. They have also gone through the permitting process, based on public records I was able to access through the public system, they obtained building permits to convert the lower portion of that building to a church. How many churches do they need? And why are they trying to shoehom themselves into a property that doesn't have good access? In closing, the Golden Gate Area Civic Association has submitted a letter of objection, and I echo their concerns. I don't believe the petitioner purchased the property with any right or expectation to be able to have a church at this location because it is not presently consistent with the Golden Gate Estates Area Master Plan. Additionally, I think we're putting the cart before the horse. The real argument is whether this property should be considered for a Growth Management Plan amendment. So I would ask that you not find in support of the Growth Management Plan amendment. And, in closing, the petitioner argues, or rather their traffrc engineer, that 50 percent of the traffrc that exits the church will U-turn on Golden Gate Boulevard. I don't believe that's true, as that U-turn lane only allows for three or four cars. They'll need a sheriffevery weekend there. But most of the people will exit onto Golden Gate Boulevard and make an immediate right onto Weber Boulevard South. So thank you for listening, and that's all I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we have a question, John. Go ahead, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Kelly, first of all, I think you alluded to a possible speeding problem on Weber; is that correct? MR. KELLY: Very much so. COMMISSIONER FRYER: All right. Have -- that's obviously beyond our scope and jurisdiction. So my question is, have you been in touch with the Sheriffs Office about that? Page 32 of 67 September 20,2018 MR. KELLY: Oh, attempted to many times. They just direct you to a telephone line to t a recorded message of your traffic concern. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. There is really nothing, I don't think, that we can -- that we can do officially on that subject. That's really, I think, in the purview of the Sheriff. My second issue or question has to do with a rather unique aspect. I believe it's on the FLUM, Future Land Use Map; that the church parcel is situated on a sliver that is actually east of Collier Boulevard. And by the color coding, it appears to me that even though it's surrounded by the Rural Estates, that it's really part of the Urban Estates. MR. KELLY: No. It is Eastem Golden Gate Estates. COMMISSIONER EBERT: 951 is - COMMISSIONER FRYER: But there is a drawing here. This -- I have a drawing that shows - I don't have apage number, but I extracted it from the materials, and it shows a sliver that is color coded as being Urban Estates. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: I am not familiar with it. I mean, I've been -- I've been -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: I had a conversation with Mr. Yovanovich aboutthis, and I wonder if that's been looked at. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I would suggest staffwill be the one to judge whether or not something's urban or rural and according to our zoning code. Mike, are you familiar with the east side of Collier Boulevard having an urban designation? MR. BOSI: Within the Future Land Use Map, whether it is an urban or rural, Estates lots, they are all designated the same color. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, I don't know where this came from, but it is in 9,{6 of our packet. I'm sorr5r, I don't have a page number. But very clearly it shows a rectangle that is east of Collier Boulevard color coded as Urban Estates. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't even know where we -- I never even heard of that before. Have you? MR. BOSI: I haven't heard of that. What I would say is that would be shown in error. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. It make no sense. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Yovanovich, did you -- we talked about that. Did you find anything out? MR. YOVANOVICH: I did not. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Did not? I'll get apage number. CHAIRMAN STRAN: David? MR. WEEKS: David Weeks, Comprehensive Planning section. Possibly that is referring to the planning community. We have an Urban Estates planning community and a Rural Estates, and the Urban Estates does go one mile east of 95 l, in part. So that could be what it's alluding to. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Does it mean it's any more urban than the regular Estates? MR. WEEKS: No, sir. As Mike mentioned - CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's just a way to label a planning community. So there's some differentials. MR. WEEKS: Right. Regulatory-wise, it's allthe same. COMMISSIONER FRYER: What, then, should I infer from the fact that there is this rectangular sliver with the church parcel right in the center of it against Collier but on the east side color coded Urban Estates? What am I to take away from that? CFIAIRMAN STRAN: It's just part of a different planning community than the rest of it, is that - MR. WEEKS: I need to see that exhibit. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Where'd you get this from? COMMISSIONER FRYER: It's in the materials. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, we got so many materials. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm going to give you a page. I'll give you a page number. It's just going to take me a second because -- CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: We have 85 pages, and I can probably scroll through them fasterthan you Page 33 of67 September 20,2018 can give me a page number, so let me see -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: All right. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I think you should give a little bit more explanation of the planning communities, because my understanding is - CHAIRMAN STRAN: There's nothing in -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: -- they're not adopted in any of our Growth Management documents. MR. WEEKS: Right. The planning communities are something that's created by the county. They have no regulatory effect. The entire unincorporated area of the county is divided :r;rto 12 different planning communities. And it's just to help us in providing information at a smaller level than counrywide or the entire unincorporated are4 but it has no regulatory effect whatsoever. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, that, I suppose makes sense. But to include it in this material with the color coding showing it Urban Estates is, at the very least, somewhat misleading, and I believe it was put in by staffas opposed to the applicant. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you don't know -- you still didn't find a page number on it? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I will have that. I don't have it right now, but I will have it soon. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Could it be a GIS map and not a countlz-adopted map? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKJ: Could I ask John something while you're looking? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Hi, John. MR. KELLY: Hi. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Hey, I'm looking at Google street view, and Weber doesn't have any stop signs on it on the cross streets? . MR. KELLY: None. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: You know, that's odd. I would think with the main street, 951, parallel to it you would want to discourage people from using Weber. I'm probably going to have to ask Mike why they don't put stop signs at every intersection. MR. KELLY: And I would think that it would be a no-passing zone. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah, yeah. Because, you know, if you really want to make time, you just go to 951. So that's a good point. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan, afterthe last Planning Commission on this matter -- and we heard the public's position -- I talked to -- I can't remember which person in transporlation -- about putting a stop sign there, and they said absolutely not. They are seeking traffic flow, and stop signs prevent traffic flow. So the answer was unequivocally no. I asked two diflerent people and was told it wouldn't be possible. So if that helps the reasoning any. I don't agree with them. I think it's more important to have the neighborhood protected than traffic flow in this case, but they don't agree with me. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Traffic flow is down 951, one block to the - CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan, you're -- I agree with you. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKJ: Okay. I'm preaching to the choir. CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: This should be fixed, but last time I spoke to Transportation they refused to consider it. And I went to two different levels at transportation to accomplish that question, and it didn't work either way. MR. KELLY: And if I may, that means that the only thing that the community can do is fight uses that are traffic generating. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions of John? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thankyou, John. We're going to have to move on to the next speaker. Would you call the next speaker, please. MR. BOSI: The next speaker is Renate Kelly followed by Patrick Miller. MS. KELLY: I'm Renate Kelly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to pull the microphone a little closer to you. Thank you. Page 34 of 67 September 20,2018 MS. KELLY: Renata Kelly. And I have to say again and again, I'm not against a church, but the traffic on Weber is terrible. I think I'm going to get killed on Weber, I really do. When I drive home from the light to my house, which is on the west side, and have my traffic signal on, the third -- I go the speed limiq and the third car behind me cannot see my signal, and they pass as I want to go in my driveway. And this happened two or three times now. I swear, I'm going to get killed, because the person that's coming in a hurry in the other lane to pass me is going to run into me, and I'm sitting there in the driver's seat, and I'm the one that's going to get hit. I don't want anymore traffrc on Weber. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Thankyou, ma'am. Next speaker? MR. BOSI: Patrick Miller. MR. MILLER: Good moming, Commissioner. Patrick Miller. I live at 210 Weber Boulevard; lived there for the last 24 years. I've been a resident for 50 years. I know that there is growth in the community. There's always been growth in the community. I made a comment at the NIM meeting that I would rather have the church than the Racetrac, no question about that. Some of the things they brought up today, I think the limitations -- I was concerned about the leasing out. They've got to have some kind of limitation about it. The hours of operation, I understand they're going to be flexible to some degree because of the church. Just kind of get an idea of what that is. I do want to address Stan's question to Mr. Kelly. I have talked to the trafhc department on multiple occasions, and every time I say something, they say, well, that's a speeding issue, and that's the Sheriffs Department's issue. So the Sheriffs Department, they sent a cop out, and he sits there for five minutes on one morning, and the frst time somebody sees him, everybody slows down for a little while. The next time, two weeks later, they send another cop out one day later. According to the neighborhood traffic planning booklet, somewhere in God's country they put Weber Boulevard in it to never have any traffic-calming devices on it. I have no idea why it's there. I said this the last time, if you go to Pine Ridge and you have Ridge Drive, that used to be a thoroughfare all the way around Pine Ridge, they've gone in and put stop signs at almost every intersection. Not every intersection, but some. All we've asked them for is the traffic. Do something with our street. And that's why we fight anything, as Mr. Kelly said, generating more traffic, because we have a major issue. With the school and the other churches and Max Hasse Park, it's like a racetrack there, okay? Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pat? MR. MILLER: Yes. CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: You have written a couple of emails you sent to Davidson, or one or t\ryo, or whatever. MR. MILLER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAN: You had brought up issues of hours of operation. You heard the hours of operation discussed today. You just didn't mention them. Now, are you now comfortable with those hours of operation? MR. MILLER: Well, the hours of operation, I understand. I mean, I didn't have a side conversation with Mr. Yovanovich. I mean, how do you keep a church from having a wedding or a funeral or something like that? So I don't know how to contain the number of hours of operation but, you know, you also have to consider, if you're going to have ig you've got to be able to at least let them have a funeral or a prayer vigil for a mass issue or something like that. So I don't know -- Mark, I understand what you're saying, and I - that was a point I brought out, but I don't know how you limit the number of people, or I don't know how that happens. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that's -- I understand what you're saying, and that's maybe what we would have expected as an accessory use to a church, even a neighborhood church, to have a funeral for their Page 35 of 67 September 20,2018 parishioners if one passes away. That makes sense. That's not what they're asking for here. That's the piece I can't get my anns around. They want unlimited uses for the hours listed seven days a week. That's not the way this started out. MR. MILLER: I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you're comfortable with that that's fine for you, but I'm a little -- that's the piece I canrt seem to get them to respond to, even though we've talked about it enough here this morning, but it's not coming from them. So I'm assuming they're still going to insist unlimited uses, unlimited operations for the hours that they're showing here, and that's a problem from what I can see. But I understand your position, and that's what I wanted to clariff. The leasing issue. You had been concerned about it, and I - MR. MILLER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- equally was. They've now restricted it to the uses somewhat like we're talking about with the effect -- with the except of the government and a few things. MR. MILLER: Right, government and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that give you a level of comfort? MR. MILLER: That gives me more comfort than -- you know, I saw it as an end around of being able to lease the facility out. You have, oh, one of my members is sitting there, you know, while whoever leases it out. At least it's limited to, you know, charitable organizations and government uses and things like that. That's what I'm looking for. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thankyou. MR. MILLER: Thanks. CFIAIRMAN STRAIN: Next speaker? MR. BOSI: Next speaker is Don Ward, followed bythe final speaker, Dan Blackman. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chairman, perhaps while the speaker's coming up, I do now have - CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 441. COMMISSIONER FRYER: 532, bltmaybe - CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: I got another one that comes up at 541. So, yes, I saw it. It is what David thought it was, the planning communities, it looks like. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes. And it was submitted, it looks like, by Davidson. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Could somebody explain what that is when this gentleman's done talking? CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, sir. MR. WARD: Hello. My name is Don Ward. I reside at4055 First Avenue Southwest. I recently purchased the home. It's directly to the west of the southem parcel in this petition. And I purchased it about six months ago. I've lived in the Estates 20 years; also a state-certified appraiser. I'm 23 years in Collier County, licensed realtor. I primarily work Golden Gate Estates. I buy and sell homes in Golden Gate Estates. I think this is absolutely the wrong place for a church in many reasons, traffic reasons, keeping the estates rural. There's just multiple reasons. The access to this property, I understand it's really the only viable access but, you know, that is just going to cause havoc to that intersection. That intersection I sit and watch all the time. There was just an accident there, a major accident Saturday night while I was sitting on my courtyard. You have three lanes, two or three lanes of traffic furning with a foemendous amount of traffic coming and going on Golden Gate Boulevard. All of that traffrc, the people that are going to be pulling in and out of that intersection coming in and out of the church, regardless of the size of the church, is just a bad idea all around. And then their access, like the other gentleman said, almost all of those people are going to go down and furn down Weber, because they have to cross two or three lanes of traffic to get to that U-turn, that first U-turn lane. You don't see any of that on these plans, or it's not really drawn out very well. But as far as that traffrc turning and being able to get across to make that U-turn, that's just not going Page 36 of 67 September 20,2018 to happen. You're going to see accident after accident at that intersection or that area based on the amount of traffic that's going through there. I don't think it takes traffic studies or any of that to show what's going to happen, but I just think it's a bad idea all around. The other thing I'm concemed about is this whole area is residential, and, you know, I had no idea that it may change to some type of commercial. This is the frst I'm hearing about it with the future land use. But I may have considered twice about purchasing that property if I thought that there was going to be any kind of commercial at that intersection, whether it's a church or anything else. I've heard a lot of talk today about the size of the church, the amount of traffic, the amount of activity. One way around that which I wouldn't be opposed to, is just eliminate that south parcel, which is part of this petition an)'way. That would, right offthe bat, eliminate the -- or reduce the size of the church, make it more of a family church, reduce the size of the traffic. That's really the only option that I would be agreeable to, but that isn't what's being proposed. So that's really all I have. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. One point of clarification, the idea of the commercial on that comer -- MR. WARD: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- isn't something that's being processed, but over the last 40 years that I can recall, it's been attempted twice. MR. WARD: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was the only point that eventually people keep trying for these changes, and if you look at what's happened to Collier County in the years I've been here, at least, it has changed radically. So the fear is that that could still happen again. Someone could come in and make an argument to have something there, and who knows what will happen based on who's making those decisions in the future, so... MR. WARD: Right. I don't know if any ofthese graphs would show an aerial of this, bu! you know, basically, my rear of the property looks across that lake, and I have full visual of that whole intersection, so -- and I would end up seeing everything that's on that comer across Collier Boulevard, and I have -- as far as the amount of traffic that goes by already and to see any more traffic both for the residents of the Estates and for the people in the immediate - the immediate surrounding residents, I just think is a bad idea. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Where did you say your parcel is? MR. WARD: I'm actually across Collier Boulevard, directly across Collier Boulevard at the corner of First. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Oh, okay. On the other side of Collier Boulevard. MR. WARD: Yeah. But it's right at the corner of First Ave and Collier Boulevard. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. When you said west of the south parcel, I was -- that's the canal, and then you've Collier Boulevard and then your parcel. MR. WARD: And them I'm on that corner. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you th" gry with the eureka palms? MR. WARD: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. That's a nice -- I like the way you did that. It even stood up during the hurricane; at least it looks like it did. So good for you. Thank you. MR. WARD: All right. Thankyou. Next speaker. MR. BOSI: I'm sorry. That was the last speaker. The final speaker I wrote - I had read his nrune, and it was for C and D. So I was a little premature on that. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Is there anybody else in the audience who hasn't spoken on this item that would like to speak on it? (No response.) Page 37 of 67 September 20,2018 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, I'll tum to the applicant for any - David, did you have something you want to add while - COMMISSIONER FRYER: May I set the stage for David? CFUIRMAN STRAN: Well, of course. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. Because he clarified for me. This -- I found this, and it's on Page 532 of our packet, and it appears to have been submitted as Attachment U by Davidson Engineering. And it has this sliver on the east side of Collier Boulevard, and it is color coded as Urban Estates. So I think my -- well, I want to hear from David, but I'm also going to want to hear from the Davidson representatives as to what they put it in in order to signify and why we have it. So thank you. MR. WEEKS: Again, David Weeks from staff. And I've put it on the visualizer. Although it's a black and white color, in your packet you have a color version of this exhibit. And as, Mr. Fryer said, this depicts the planning communities, and they're simply coded by color. So the purple color denotes -- again, you have the color version. The purple color denotes the Urban Estates planning community. The subject site is indicated on the map, as my pen is pointing to. So it's providing context. And the rest of the map shows North Naples, and I think Corkscrew planning community is shown as well. And so this is simply identifoing the property within planning community. And the county staffprepares certain data for planning purposes, one of which is population information, and we can do dwelling unit information. We have commercial inventory and so fonh. So for general planning purposes, we use planning communities. I'll let the applicant explain why they've indicated this. It may have something to do with their data and analysis to support the application. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you go, David - and I do want to hear from the applicant. MR. WEEKS: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So it was the county who color coded this and who labeled it Urban Estates. MR. WEEKS: No, sir. The applicant prepared the applications, that exhibit, so they put the colors on there. The colors simply are to distinguish between one community and another. Another way of distinguishing would have been simply providing the boundaries. But by providing color, I think it makes it easier to see. I think of -- if you look at a globe when you're child, a globe of the earth, and each of the countries would have a different color. It simply helps them stand out to be identified, and I think that's the same principle here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. But it was - in other words, it was the applicant. It was Davidson that superimposed the blue color on here, not the county? MR. WEEKS: Correct. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: It's blue? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. Well, it's an approximate blue. MS. WEAVER: I can just also add to that he is correct that this is just a planning community map for reference to find the location of the site for them, and it's a map that we prepare for all of our GMP amendment applications, and usually Comprehensive Planning requires that map. And then we use the data from the county GIS to put on as a layer, and then we just choose colors. COMMISSIONER FRYER: But you superimpose the color? MS. WEAVER: Correct. We picked blue or whatever color it is. COMMISSIONER FRYER: But you labeled it urban estates. MS. WEAVER: The labels - the planning communities are already labeled and titled in the county's map, and then we just put a color on it. So we could put hatching or - COMMISSIONER FRYER: Who's responsible for labeling this rectangle to the east of Collier Boulevard as Urban Estates? Is it the applicant or the county? Page 38 of67 September 20,2078 MR. WEEKS: That's the county. The county established the planning community. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who4 wait a minute. That's a different question. The plan in front of us doesn't say Urban Estates except up by Oakes Boulevard. And are you saying it's labeled over by where this church is? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes. CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So who put that label on there, David? I think that's the question. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That is the question. CFIAIRMAN STRAIN: I figured it was. MS. WEAVER: We made the map using the county's data. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Who colored it blue? MS. WEAVER: I colored it blue. COMMISSIONER FRYER: All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no. This is, I think, from the frst packet, isn't it? MR. FRUTH: Josh Fruth, Davidson Engineering. The data is downloaded from Collier County. We tried to add color to it to clarify, as David said. That's all we did. We don't provide the data. We just collect the data. We download it from Collier County. It's already provided to us. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And it gets thrown into our material without explanation, and I look at that and I see that somebody is associating that rectangle with the expression "lJrban Estates." MR. FRUTH: Yes, sir. And it's required in the GMP application for us to submit that. That's why it was submitted in your package. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It just isn't exactly as the county necessarily portrays it because of the coloration. MR. FRUTH: Josh Fruth again. It's similar to -- just give -- on the Property Appraiser. Platted lot lines as they are surveyed are not exact as the Property Appraiser shows it. So the data that we pull may be offby, let's say, 10 feet. But in this instance, we're splitting hairs because of what you said, Commissioner. It is very close with the coloring. That's the only scenario I can give you if you look at the Property Appraiser's site and applied it to a subdivision where lot lines could be offslightly. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, I think I understand your explanation, but if I were a property owner there and I saw this map, I would come away thinking that the county is attempting to reclassiff part of the Urban Estate part -- of the Rural Estates into an Urban Estates area where there's going to be greater concentration, more commercial use, smaller lots, et ceter4 et cetera. MR. WEEKS: Not at all, not at all. And let me point out one more thing. You see on the map there's a dashed line that is depicted on this map. Let me -- (indicating) where my pen is pointing. That's the - what the applicant calls their market area. Something that the staffasked them to do, identify a, if you will, market area which we usually associate with a commercial request. But where are your congregants residing, your present congregants, where are they living, and that's provided on a different exhibit. This exhibit showing the planning community has overlaid on top of it their market area. And - COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have no questions or problem with that dotted line. MR. WEEKS: Okay. COMMIS SIONER FRYER: I understood that completely. MR. WEEKS: But I'm providing the context, though. So what they're showing is here's our market area in relation to planning communities because the county has population data by planning community which the applicants took from us and then, in turn, provided back to us as part of the application. It's really just a -- this is a planning tool. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, and we're the Planning Commission, so you're in the right place. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else before we get to any rebuttal that the applicant wants to make? Q.{o response.) Page 39 of 67 September 20,2018 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, David. MR. YOVANOVICH: Just briefly, I just wanted to address a couple things that Mr. Kelly listed as uses and make sure we're all clear are not allowed. One of the uses he talked about was daycare. That's a specifically prohibited use on the property. Educational services are specifically prohibited uses. So we're not going to have daycare and schools on this property as part ofthe application. Golden Gate Estates is kind of an unusual place as far as the Growth Management Plan goes. Essentially, you have to do a Growth Management Plan amendment to get a church approved in Golden Gate Estates. That's why you're seeing these Growth Management Plan amendments. There's very limited opportunities to put a church out in Golden Gate Estates without having to go through and do a master -- I mean without doing an amendment to the master plan, and I've done several amendments in the Golden Gate Estates area for churches through the master planning amendment process, and that's what you have in front of you today is an amendment to put a church. I totally understand Mr. Kelly, and I believe that's his mom's concerns about traffic speed. I know throughout Collier County there are examples of trafiic tables, calming tables that are out there that slow traffic down. I don't know why Collier County transportation has thrown down the gauntlet and said this street's not eligible to have traffic calming, especially when the people who are living out there want it. There's lots of examples of that. And I would encourage the Transportation Department to please work with their neighbors and put those devices in: Stop sign, traffic humps, traffic tables, speed tables. They're all the way throughout Collier County, and I don't know why they couldn't be put on this piece of propef. Mr. Strain, I welcome your proposed language to address something that we're not trying to create. We are not trying to create a24-hour, seven-day-a-week, 300 people attending this property in all -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Never said 24-hour, so... MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I've been told seven-days-a-week operation. Okay. We don't intend from the hours of, basically, 10 in the morning during the week to l0 at night or from 8 in the moming to l0 at night on weekends to have 300 people on this prope(y all the time. Churches don't operate that way. It's a fact. But we're -- we welcome appropriate language that will address what we do think will happen during the week which is primarily -- I don't know that there will be that many weddings, but there are some weddings that do happen during the week. There are funerals that do happen during the week. There are, at times, catastrophes that happen in the world, and you might want to have a vigil service or some type of a service to show community support. Those are the things that we think will have a significant amount of people up to the 300 seats that we can hold during the week. We believe that there will be limited people attending Bible studies, going to counseling with their minister, or whatever other church-related meetings that would happen during the week. So apparently we haven't come up with the right language. We welcome your input on what's the right language to assure that we are not doing what we don't intend to do. We're not saying -- we're not saying we don't want to have the limitations. We don't think we will really operate that way, but if there's appropriate language that addresses those events that may result in people coming between the hours of 10 and 4 and 6 and 9 during the week, we welcome limitations because we -- and I told Mr. Miller that. Is he still here or did he leave? I told Pat that; that that was never our intent. And I think he takes us at our word, and I think he understands that that's how churches really operate. But if it could be better, we want it to be better, the language. It wasn't that long ago that I was doing I think it was called the Heavenly PUD for Covenant Presbyterian Church, which is in the Pine Ridge community. It is on U.S. 41. It is accessed by Trail Boulevard, a fiontage road, and the Pine Ridge community was concerned about traffic and how was the cut-through traffic going to impact their lifestyle and the like. And there were prohibitions on you can't take a right turn onto Myrtle Road to go back to your house if you live on Myrtle Road. You have to go out onto North Trail Boulevard and come around to go backwards even if you went to church from that community. We agreed to all of those conditions. They've been implemented, and they've been successful, and they've also had the condition that if -- and it's a much Page 40 of 67 September 20,2018 bigger church than what we're proposing -- if we ever have so much traffic on a Saturday or Sunday when they have their normal worship services, they'Il have a sheriffs deputy, or they'll have a police officer there. To my knowledge, they've never had to do it. So the traffic impacts never really came to fruition. But we have that safeguard in this conditional use that if traffic becomes a problem on Saturdays and Sundays when we have our normal worship services, we'll have that police officer out there to direct traffrc and make sure traffic flows. We have designed this to recognize the realities of how churches operate. They're 9l members today. They do want to grow. That's how churches operate, most faiths operate; they want to grow, but they're capped at 300 seats. And we've, I think, been responsive to our neighbors. We are willing to put appropriate limitations in there to assure that we're not going to have 300 people there from 10 a.m. to 9 p.m. during the week and 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. during the weekends. And we hope that the Planning Commission could follow your staffs recommendation to approve subject to the revisions we've made and, again, subject to appropriate language that the Chair may deem appropriate to make sure we don't do more than we really intend to do on this site during the week. And with that, we're available to answer any more questions that you may have. And I will close by saying there are a whole lot of neighborhood churches throughout Collier County, and they are good neighbors. They do not in any way negatively impact those churches (sic), and we are not a mega-church when you have 300 seats. We are an important part of this community -- all churches. I'm not just talking about this specific church - and provide valuable services not only to members of the church but to the community as a whole. And I think that these types of uses should be encouraged, not discouraged, in neighborhoods. And with that, we'll answer any questions you may have. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Questions from the Planning Commission? Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: First of all, I certainly think I'm joined by others up here. We want to find a way to facilitate a church growing and contributing to the communiqr, no doubt about it, consistent with the appropriate considerations to be made for property owners. Also, I support the objective that the Chairman has stated and would like to see a way of crafting language that will - in other words, I don't hear a lot of difference between what Mr. Yovanovich has proposed and what the Chair is asking for. I think it's just a matter of getting the language there to tighten it down, and so I would encourage that happening. The only other issues that I have besides hoping that that one gets resolved favorably would be I would like - I would like not to have a prohibition about alcohol and substance abuse rehabilitation, and I would like to see the language in Section 7 of the conditions be tightened so that it's more than just having somebody present a church employee present which, under those circumstances, the way it reads now almost anything goes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Did the language we propose -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'd like to hear it again, but it might, yeah. Again, I don't think we're apart on that. I would just like to be reminded. MR. YOVANOVICH: It looked clear to me. And this is the language we read in initially, which waq "leasing shall be limited to charitable events, weddings, funerals, educational events, and events associated with holidays." I think we also agreed that we needed to say governmental meetings, was the other one because, again, churches -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Governmental and NIMs. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. And I put NIMs in there, but we cuul say governmental meetings, NIMs. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I think add governmental and NIMs and, I'm sorry, you had put that up. and I -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We did, but we had not added those words. So I would assume we would add words to that like "to limit" -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: That would be fine with me with those additions. That's just me speaking. That's all I had, Mr. Chairman. Page 4l of 67 September 20,2018 COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It says associated with holidays and you mean members of the church, right, or are you looking at doing educational events attended countywide? Because then you're an educational facility. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I assumed that NIMs are not, obviously, for the members. NIMs are for the general public. CHAIRMAN STRAN: But you said under -- that's government. But what about the ones shown here? The charitable events, are you going to have ones for other churches orjust your church? MR. YOVANOVICH: I envisioned it could be - for instance, the Rotary comes to us and says, we would like to use your facility to host a meeting at night or weekly meetings. Why would we not be allowed to have a Rotary meeting? That's a charitable organization. If I'm not a member of the Grace Romanian Church, which I'm not, but my daughter wanted to get married in that church, that's the type of wedding I was thinking. I didn't think I needed to worry about weddings for members. That's a normal accessory type of operation. We were talking about for weddings for people who were not members of the church. Same thing with a funeral. If someone in the neighborhood, you know, wants to have a funeral and they want to use this church facility for that funeral, I don't know why we would say to a member of the community you can't have a funeral because you're not a member. Now, some churches do that but you know, a lot of churches don't. They'll allow for those types of events to occur. These are not -- I thought the concern was is we were going to try to use this more as a -- almost a commercial operation as a revenue stream. We're not. We're looking at this as an opportunity to provide opportunities for charitable groups and, you know, local neighbors to use the facilities, you know, if they would like to use the facilities. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You wouldn't be charging for these uses? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I imagine we would probably charge something because -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it isn't charitable then. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, we have custodial services and things like that that, you know - Mr. Strain, we have to keep the lights on. It costs the church something. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just trying to understand what you're saying. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAN: Yes, sir. MR. YOVANOVICH: It says "leasing." We would lease it for a fee. CHAIRMANSTRAIN: Right. Sothat'swhatlmean. Soit'snotcharitableonyourpart. It's leasing for a monetary value to possibly a charitable organization. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: They're also going to be -- will there also be circumstances -- and I'm just going to speak on other churches I'm familiar with who allow a Boy Scout troop to meet. They don't charge that group. The group may do cleanup around the church or various services, and they may not charge NA or AA. And I want to clarifo and ask a question of my fellow commissioner there, Ned. You had mentioned the NA and AA. It's been brought up before. Have we had any clarity from them on that? Is that still kind of ambitious and not out there? Is that church going to be allowed to potentially allow those types of organizations to have a meeting there, whether it's leased or they're just there for free? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I think that that is still open, but I plan to try to close it either as an amendment to the vote or before we vote. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Okay. I think it's imporrant. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: You know, you're never going to cover everything. Like, if they wanted to have a blood drive if there's an emergency somewhere or if we have a hurricane and you want to put up some people and give out stuff. You know, there's a whole bunch of things -- you can't put your finger on everything. You've got to give them some latitude. Page 42 of 67 September 20,2078 COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Stan, and that's what I was trying to say earlier - Mr. Chairman, I'm sorrlz, one more thing -- is it goes back to we're human beings. This is a church. The word "faith," whatever that means to you in your definition, there has to be some faith of we say, hey, there has to be some leeway. The church is there -- all the churches that I'm familiar with that I've been to events, whether it be a pumpkin patch, a Scout meeting, friends of mine that go to an AA meeting, whatever, it's an outreach in a facility in a safe haven for the neighborhood and the community to have a place to go to potentially hold these things that couldn't be held elsewhere or not affordable. So I think it's critical that there definitely be some leeway and that we all take a leap of faith, within reason and within the parameters and stipulations that we are guided by, to give them that kind of flexibility. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. I might, just following up with what Patrick just said. I think by limiting it to charitable events, we're contemplating a lease with a 501(c)3 organization. You're a 501(c)3 organization. You can't make a profit. Well, let's not -- well, okay - well, Ill withdraw that. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, Rich Yovanovich is notthe 501. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah, well, that's true. But my concept of what is meant here is cost recovery. MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand. And, again, the churches I'm familiar with, it's not a profit center. It's covering, you know, if we have custodial staff. And I can only talk about my church, which is Vanderbilt Presbyterian Church. That's what we do. We have AA meetings and we have narcotics -- Narcotics Anonymous meetings we have there. I don't think we've ever - anl.thing bad's ever happened to anybody who lives in the community because we provide that space available for people to come and address their addictions and concerns. You know, Stan needs a place to go for his engineering anonymous, you know, with his friends. COMMISSIONER FRYER: He's not quite over that yet. MR. YOVANOVICH: But you know, it takes time. But you know, that's a serious, serious concern throughout our count4/, and you need places to provide a safe place for people to meet. And we would like to provide that. We have it as a prohibition because it's become almost a standard prohibition for churches to not provide those tlpes of services, but we'Il -- we want to -- we want to address concems we can agree to address with still keeping our mission of what we need to be that's a church. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chairman, from my personal standpoin! I'm satisfied with the new No. 7 with the addition of the references to NIMs and polling places. And with regard to the abuse rehab programs, I am -- I'm going to want to move to amend. If we can't get it resolved simply by consensus when the main motion is made, I'll move to amend to remove that restriction at the appropriate time. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: While we're on that subject, Ned, I mean, neighborhoods have been excepting out of our zoning commercial applications on many occasions substance abuse facilities and things like that because they attract to a neighborhood maybe people who wouldn't be there unless they were going for the substance abuse. And I think that's a concern for any neighborhood. And I think this is like - it turns it into something far beyond what I think people think as far as members of the community go as far as a church goes. I don't think it's a good idea for a neighborhood for such outreach programs. We've limited them even in commercial areas for the same reason I just articulated. So I don't think that's a good idea, but it's not -- it's near my house. lt's not near anybody else's on this board, so... Go ahead. Tom? MR. EASTMAN: I just wanted to support a little bit of what Patrick and Stan were saying about charitable events through churches. I know with the earthquake in Haiti, there was at least one church that held an event where they wanted the public to come and bring supplies. They were going to mail them. And it all came up really fast right after that event and unplanned, unknown, but certainly would fall under the category of the charity activity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And to follow up on Patrick's leap of faith or in faith, Pafick, were you here when this came through last time? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I wasn't. Page 43 of 67 September 20,2018 CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Well, you missed me arguing against the very neighborhood I'm from and the people that were - a lot more in this room than you saw here today who were against this, and I argued against them telling them, no, this is a better operation than the operations that have been attempted in the past, and with the limitations they had put on their hours of operation and their attendees, I felt it was still better. And I fought that to the end, and I supported it to the end. Now, they came at the end of the last meeting with differences than they started to at the NIM, with differences than they talked to me about, and now they're coming here today with more differences. Each one's growing and growing and growing. So when you say we need to have some faith, I have none, because I have not been dealt with fairly by this group from the day they started in my office talking to me about their limitations, because we're way beyond that now. And that's what I'm mad about. That's what upsets me. Because you want to have a faith. Well, I don't have any. They wiped that out of me because of the way they've approached this, from my perspective. So that - just to answer your question. With that, if there's no other questions of Mr. Yovanovich, we will move on to closing the public hearing and discuss a motion. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Did we hear from stafl CHAIRMAN STRATN: Yes. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was -- yes. So I don't know when this board's -- well, I think I can tell by the way the Board's thinking, but I would like to suggest, if someone's going to make a motion to approve, then I would like to see the hours of operation that are non-service on the weekends and -- non-service operations on the weekends to be limited to a number of attendees as a maximum. Previously the church had agreed to 100. I don't know if that works with them now. But since they did previously agree to it -- and I'm not asking Mr. Yovanovich to come back up. MR. YOVANOVICH: You just asked if we would agree to it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It doesn't matter. We're going to -- if the Board doesn't want to make the motion, then they don't have to. So I would suggest we limit the attendees during the week to no more than 100, and the weekend services are the elements that can go up to the maximum seating of 300. That the leasing language be changed as has been discussed; that No. 7 be changed as discussed; that the sheds cumulatively be limited to 1,800 square feet. Instead of one at 1,800, they could have multiple, but they won't exceed 1,800; and that a wall be added along the south property on First Stree! just the, you know, small piece of propefty, an 8-foot wall to provide sound, lighting, and noise attenuation for the neighborhood to the south. I think that is the minimum that can be expected on that. That's my suggestion. So if anybody on this board wants to make a motion for or against, they can consider those suggestions. Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mark, where do you want the wall? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's First Street right there. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. So youwant it here? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. This is the pastor's residence; is that correct? CHAIRMAN STRAN: I don't know. I'm just -- the parking lot goes -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Normally, if there is a house right nextto it, which it shows there is, I would think you'd want the wall here. CHAIRMAN STRAN: The man there doesn't want a wall. He already stated that at the last meeting, so... COMMISSIONER EBERT: Oh, okay. So you're saying you want a wall on First Street? CHAIRMAN STRAN: Correct. And that's to stop -- the traffrc circulation goes around First. So if they're leaving late at nighl all their headlights, their hom buttons that tums the alarms on and off, everything Page 44 of 67 September 20,2018 will be less -- more buffered if there's a solid wall there. That's what I'm suggesting, so... Now, as far as a motion maker goes or any change for discussion, does anybody have any other comments? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm sorry. Go ahead. Please, Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Just one comment. And I know transportation doesn't have to get up and say any,thing. I don't care. I just used Google Earth street view to drive Weber Avenue, and that entire length south from Golden Gate there's one speed limit sign, speed limit 30. I can't imagine people using Weber to get past 951 when 951 is, like, 45 miles an hour and limited access, and here you've got Weber, which is 30 miles an hour. So I know people are speeding down that road. I know that transportation could put out these tubes that can tell not only how much traffic but how fast it's going. I still think there should be a stop sign at every intersection. I'm not talking about tables or speed humps or any,thing. But if you put a stop sign at every intersection and maybe more speed-limit sigrrs that say "speed limit 30" maybe every block so that if somebody comes in on a block and the speed-limit sign is behind them, they actually know that the speed limit is 30 miles an hour on that road. That might help, too. I see a problem there, and, you know, Im just -- that's my comment, and I can see where the people would have concerns. CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mark, the only thing I have a problem with is you want to limit the people that come to that church to 100 during the week. They have 91 members now. If -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane, they agreed to 100 at the last meeting. That's why I used that number. That's what was -- if you look at the documents you have in your packet from the last meeting, you'll see it was up to 100 people or attendees. Now they've expanded their operation. And so does that - why wouldn't the 100 still work if they are truly trying to stay with less intensity during the week? So I was just putting something on the table, because my position on this is going to be voting no, but the rest of you, obviously, are heading in a positive direction. That's fine. But I wanted to at least get as much as we could on record if that's the route it's going to go. That's why I suggested that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I had misunderstood. I thought you were proposing a 100 limit on weekends, but it's weekdays you're talking about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no. The weekends are already acknowledged there's services up to : the services have 300 attendees, but anl,thing other than services I'm suggesting be limited to 100. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chairman, would it be appropriate -- may I ask that we receive a response from the applicant on the 100 limit? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As a Commissioner you certainly can. We'll open the public hearing back up. And who wants to respond? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mr. Chairman, before he comes to the podium, the only comment I'll make is to my fellow commissioner, Diane. So what you brought up I agree. The issue is if you limit it to 100, you have 91 members, let's say there's a funeral on a Wednesday night, which I'm telling you funerals happen during the week, too. Ninety-one members or 50 members and their spouses, all of a sudden now you're at -- and their families, you're well over 100. So to limit that whether you're for or against it, I think, really handcuffs them and is not realistic as far as an expectation of you can only have 1 00 people at your church. I'm going to use the example of my church, since people have been quoting their churches, St. Monica's Episcopal Church. When we have certain events, let's say it's a pumpkin patch which is known throughout the community and families come there, don't buy anything, don't spend any money, and just come and take photos with their kids around all the pumpkins and the wooden things we have set up. I'm only bringing that up because when I go out places and I wear a shirt that might say St. Monica's Church, they go, oh, you're the pumpkin patch church. These people may never go to church, but they love to come there every year as a community outreach and take photos with the pumpkins with their kids. So I'm bringing that point up. If we were to limit that church with the number of people during a Page 45 of 67 September 20,2018 weekday, you're defeating the purpose of community outreach in my opinion. MR. KLATZKOW: Just keep in mind, this is a conditional use. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. That's what I'm trying to - MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. You guys have been arguing what a church should do and what a church shouldn't do, but that's the wrong argument here. The argument here is what should a church do in, basically, a residential neighborhood? What conditional uses should we put on this so that not to impact this residential neighborhood? This church could have gone to an area where they were permitted as of right to go, and we wouldn't be having this discussion, okay. But they're putting this in a residential area. The code requires that there be - this be a conditional use so that this Planning Commission can go down and say, okay, how could we make this compatible with the neighborhood, and that needs to be the discussion. Not what churches should do or can do, but what conditions should we be placing on this applicant so that the residents aren't unduly harmed by this use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And, Patrick, you said you weren't here for the last meeting. If you had read Page 65 of our document, you'll have read the following language proposed by the church: Church-related meetings/gatherings, i.e. weeknight Bible study, shall be limited to weekdays between the hours of 6:30 and 9:00. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Okay. CIIAIRMAN STRAN: Not more than 100 parishioners. So they volunteered that number. I didn't come up with it. They volunteered it. So I'm just saying maybe something of what they told me previously can be salvaged. That's all. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well, can I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. Go ahead. MR. YOVANOVICH: Do I get to respond or no? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: The one -- the meeting we -- I guess we didn't have on May 17th - CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I dont know that I remember the dates, Diane (sic). COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: The conditions there said no more than 200 parishioners. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know which one that came from. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: That one came -- I think we didn't have this - we didn't do it on the 17th.It was after the May 3rd. It came back, and we didn't - but we received changes, but that said 200. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Im just telling you what I read from the -- that's in our packet, so... COMMISSIONER EBERT: And they had to redo it. They had to push it off. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know. I don't know what the dates -- I can't follow the dates. So, Richard? MR. YOVANOVICH: You-all had a meeting. You discussed conditions. You said go back and re-think it, which also included eliminating access on Weber Boulevard. We met with the church. And you're dealing with people who are dealing with you in good faith, but they're not used to doing land-use petitions and don't totally understand that when, oh, guess what, you've now limited yourself to only evening operations and when, you know, just a dumb lawyer like me said, what happens when you want to have a funeral? And they went oh, we didn't think about that. So to in any way imply they are somehow not dealing with the county or anybody at the county in good faith is not fair. They came to me for legal advice. I gave them the best legal advice I could and said, we're going to go back. We're going to do another NIM. We're going to explain everything again, explain all the hours ofoperation. We had a NIM. We laid out everything in front of you today at that NIM. And, yes, there were changes because they were educated and they got smarter and they realizedthat what they had previously thought would work for them didn't. That's how we got here today, and to imply that they haven't been dealing in good faith with anybody is not fair and it's not factually correct. So we're going to stop talking like tha! because I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're not going to tell me how to stop talking -- Page 46 of 67 September 20,2018 MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm goingto defend - CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: - Richard, so I'll put that clear to you right now. MR. YOVANOVICH: And that's fine. You can say whatever you like, and I'm going to clarifu on the record on behalf of my clients, because I am their advocate, and I believe in what they do. And I think there is absolutely no evidence in the record from any qualified expert that says we are hurting anybody traffic-wise. Your county experts have said we are fine under your traffic analysis. It's not an emotional issue. It's a factual issue, and the experts have said we're fine. Now, you have a problem with the fact that some people don't like that the Collier County Transportation Department won't put traffic calming out there. That's not my client's fault. My client is in the right place. They're going through the conditional-use criteria. We believe, as it's written, we satisfy those requirements. We went back to the communrty and said, guess what, here are the hours of operation. They're different. We pointed them out at the NIM that they were different than what they first heard. Nobody's playing Hide the Ball. We explained it all, and we would like a vote up or down. Now, my understanding on the wall is the code only limits me to a 4-foot wall. That's my understanding. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think it's a 4-foot wall, and I don't know that we can do a deviation at this time. But it's a 4-foot wall, and the neighbor's not asking you for a wall. So we would -- we don't want to agree to the wall, and we think that our proposed hours of operations and the way churches really work, we should be allowed to move forward as it's currently -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned, how much of a question did you have of Mr. Yovanovich? Because we're getting a second rebuttal here, and that's not what we have closed the public hearing for. So did you get your question answered, Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I thinK So. CHAIRMAN STRAN: You think so. Is there any more questions? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Number 7 was his concern. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: One question. When you have a funeral service, how do you tell parishioners from non-parishioners? You limited parishioners, but you didn't limit non-parishioners, so I'm just curious. MR. YOVANOVICH: What do you mean? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Never mind. I don't wantto know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can I close the public hearing for the second time? Okay. Back to discussion. There's no time that I met with anybody from this church when one of their hired professionals weren't present who were advising them either on legal aspects or planning aspects of the church. So for them to say they didn't understand, well, their blame ought to be on their professional for not telling them. It ce(ainly isn't on me for them not knowing. They had a man there who was supposed to be hired to protect their interest. I don't know how in deep they go to understand the interest of their client, but that's what should have happened. So regardless of that, I'm done discussing this. I've suggested whatever you-all want to do, and I'm going to - with that, we'll close the discussion and public hearing, and we'll entertain a motion. Does anybody here have a motion? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. I move to approve PL20160002584/CPSS-2017-1 with any stipulations that they have agreed to and we have put forth. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Motion made and seconded, but now it's stipulations that they have agreed to and we've put forth. Do you know what those are? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: We've got to do the Growth Management. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: No, I have no idea what they are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's a good point. We'll getto that. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I don't know whether we're going to have AA meetings or not, NA meetings or not. MR. KLATZKOW: That would be a different motion. Page 47 of67 September 20,2018 COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Ned is goingto help. MR. KLATZKOW: That would be a different motion. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. Let's start over. Let's start with the -- MR. KLATZKOW: Look, I'm saying this because I'm guessing there's going to be split on the board on whatever conditions you're putting in here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Probably not. There'll probably be one vote no, and the rest will vote in favor. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Well, the first motion is only for the CPSS. CFIAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's why we're going to -- I'm going to read it into the record. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I don't think we need to include this stuffin there. CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let me read it into the record, and then we'll starl with the motion all over again. It's for PL20160002584/CPSS-2017-1. Is there a motion to approve with or without conditions, and if there's conditions, specifically what conditions for that? Who would like to make the motion? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'll make the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And does the motion maker have any conditions on the motion? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm going to move to amend iq but I could put another condition on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to move to amend -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: What's easier? MR. KLATZKOW: Let's get a starting place. Is the starting place the proposed zoning conditions of approval in your packet? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I think so, because then I can move to amend. MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, exactly. So you need a starting place. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes. MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. So what was advertised, what is before you -- MR. BOSI: Point of clarification. Within a small-scale amendment, there are not conditions of approval as such that would be associated with the conditional use. The Growth Management Plan does not have conditions of approval that would be associated with it. Those conditions of approval would be associated with the conditional-use petition. Just for clarification. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Really for this motion, are there any amendments to this motion or any conditions of this motion regarding just this - that would be applicable to the Growth Management Plan? Rather than dumping them together, separate them out. Do you have any, Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: No. I'm going to make a motion to amend, though. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To amend your motion? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you just tell us what your motion is, then. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, I'm going to want to remove the prohibition for substance and alcohol abuse. MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. This is where the confusion is. Are we -- we're going to have to -- let's do it this way. Let's have two separate motions. Let's have a motion for the GMP. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. That's what we're on, the first one. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, I'm not sure everybody's on that page. Let's have a motion on -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: So the conditions are not before us right now? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. We're on the Comprehensive Planning small-scale plan amendment. That's the broader one, the very first one. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, then - then to clarifu, my motion was to approve that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second to that motion? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Is there discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAN: All in favor of the motion, signifo by saying aye. Page 48 of67 September 20,2018 COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Those to -- motion for denial? Aye. And my reasons for denial is that this would produce an incompatible situation for the neighborhood in question. The church size is greater than what I believe indicates an operation that is going to be a neighborhood operation versus more of a commercial operation. And, for that reason, I will be voting no. All -- and so that's it. Now, the next motion is on the -- let me pull it up. The next motion will be on the PUD or conditional use. It's PL20160002577, and it's for the same case, but this one is the conditional use in which we can amend or provide stipulations with the motion. So is there a motion with stipulations or without? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'll make that motion with the stipulation that the alcohol and substance abuse rehabilitation prohibition be removed. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made and seconded with one condition. Is there any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I will be making a -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Seven. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Oh. CHAIRMAN STRAN: I was just going to bring all that up. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah, I'm sorry. I thought that that had been rolled in. MR. KLATZKOW: No, no, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's language that's been amended in the leasing part of it. There's a change in No. 7, as shown here. The hours of operation and the attendees, if you didn't want to label that -- do anything with thaq fine. But I read things in that you didn't incorporate, and I didn't know if you intended that or not. It's up to you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Would you mention them again? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mentioned five different things. The applicant has spoken and addressed one of them, which is the 8-foot wall. I'm not sure the position on all of them. The hours of operation are the - that are - let me try to figure out how I phrased it. For services up to 300 attendees, for other than services up to - I had suggested 100 attendees because that's what they had put on the table last time. You're going to change the leasing language to that which was suggested and discussed. You're going to change No. 7 to what was discussed. I also suggested we clarify that the sheds collectively won't exceed 1,800 instead ofjust one shed at 1,800 or each shed at 1,800, and that they add a wall along the souttr property line which the applicant really is not in favor of. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I will accept all of those with one exception, and I'm going to propose a limitation of I 50 rather than 100. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a second to the motion? Anybody going to second the motion? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I don't -- no. I don't like the limit. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Patrick already seconded it. Or do you need another one? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I need to second it with the amendment that Ned just spoke about. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Point of clarification. I don't fully agree with that other one with the limit cap of 150. I think we've already brought up some discussion there's some potential that that number was 200 at a previous meeting as brought up by one of the board members. So I think the number Page 49 of 67 September 20,2018 needs to be 200. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned, doyou -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'll acceptthat amendment; make it 200. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Then I second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Motion made and seconded. Arry further discussion? Go ahead, Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: The wall. That came up at the last minute here. I don't see it. We have five churches on Immokalee Road. There are no walls that I see. And just for that one short corner, I don't think it's necessary. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know if the motion maker wants to consider that in his motion or not^ COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm not going to accept it at this time but would be willing to think about an amendment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, now's the time to make an amendment. If you're going to make an amendment, do it now. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, I'd like to get something passed first, if we could, and then during the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why would we pass a motion that we're just going to amend? Why don't we just do the whole thing at one time? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I was seeing a motion, a second, and then in discussion a motion to amend. CFIAIRMAN STRAN: We are in discussion right now; that's why I'm asking you if you want to amend. This is the discussion. We already made the motion. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. You want -- well, I'm not willing to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that's what I was trying to find out. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: If I may, I agree with Commissioner Diane as far as the no need for the wall. I would highly encourage that we come up with a proposal that does not include the wall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, this wall wasn't -- when I restated it, I dropped the reference to an 8-foot. So it would be whatever wall was allowed by code. And Mr. Yovanovich indicated he believed a lesser wall was there. I don't have time to go back and research the code to check that issue. So I don't know how big of an objection there would be thinking that the wall is just code compliant, but it would be there. So if the code-compliant wall that was there was allowed to be at six fee! it would be at six. If it was four, it would be at four. That was the intention in the second round. So now, based on that, where's the motion maker and the second? Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Diane, you're wanting no wall. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I don't see a need for a wall just at that one end; I just - I don't. If they have to go in and out on Golden Gate Boulevard and they can't use the other, I don't see a problem. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I guess where I am, then, on my motion is to accept a 4-foot wall or whatever the current zoning specifies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's allowed for a wall because the current zoning doesn't require a wall at that location. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah, but -- so I'm actually going further and saying "require," but to a limit of what would be permitted. If it's four feel it's four feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the second? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I will second that. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. So now we've got past that. So before we call for the vote, I'm going to be voting no on this because the changes that I've already seen from the day this went to the first NIM to what we did at the second -- the frst Planning Commission meeting to now have completely changed Page 50 of67 September 20,2018 my mind that this is no longer a neighborhood operation. They're going seven days a week better part of all of those days. The limitation on the quantity still is not neighborhood orientated for the size of this facility that's going to go there. They also have -- there's been testimony they have another location that had up to 500 seats, so it's obvious they intend to grow. And without restrictions that they put forth the first time that I had actually forlght for, they are no! I believe, any more - any longer compatible with the neighborhood from all aspects, and for that reason I will be voting no on this. And I do not believe the alcohol and substance abuse issue is locally compatible for that neighborhood either. So with that, anybody else have any comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor of the motion, which is approval with stipulations, signifr by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAN: All those opposed? Aye. Motion carries 5-1. And with that, we are going to take an hour lunch and come back at 1:30. (A luncheon recess was had, and Commissioner Dearborn is absent for the remainder of the meeting.) MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mike. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody. Welcome back from the lunch break. We have two cases remaining for today's agenda. They'll be discussed concurrently and voted on separately. ***ThetwoofthemarePL20l80000038andthePL201800000037. ThesecondoneisthePlanned Unit Development. The first one is a small-scale Growth Management Plan amendment. Both of these are for a property on U.S. 4l called Collier 21. All those wishing to testifu on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. If you're going to speak on this item, please stand up. If you might speak on this item, please stand up. (The speakers were duly swom and indicated in the affrrmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAN: Disclosures, we'll start with Tom. MR. EASTMAN: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane - I mean -- that was a quick one. Stan? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: You forgot already? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: What was my name again? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, we all do that. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Hi, I'm Stan, and I would like to disclose that I talked to Rich Yovanovich. C}IAIRMAN STRAIN: NEd? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I spoke with applicant's agent and staffmembers. CFIAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: None. CFIAIRMAN STRAIN: And I have spoke with the applicant various agents of the applicant, and stafi staffreport. And I think I'd gotten an email from a couple people who are not here. One person in particular, Donna Caron. She's not here today. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I spoke to Mr. Yovanovich. Go ahead, Stanley. Oh, I'm sorry, Karen. You spoke to Rich Yovanovich. Okay. We'lltum it overto you, Bob. MR. MULHERE: Thankyou. Page 5l of67 September 20,2018 For the record, Bob Mulhere here on behalf of the applicant. Also with me is Pat Utter with Collier Enterprises; Rich Yovanovich, who is our land-use attorney; Dominick Amico, who is the civil engineer working on the project, and although we don't have any specific project, but Dominic did the planning on the project; and Norm Trebilcock, who is with Trebilcock & Associates. I do have some, I think, relatively minor changes that this time I did distribute, albeit a little bit late, but I did distribute it to County Attorney's Offrce in advance of this meeting. And thank you, Heidi. She was very helpful with some corrections to the language, and I appreciate that. So I'll go over those. As Mark said, or as the Chairman said, this is two companion petitions. One is a small-scale amendment to the Future Land Use Map to revise the activity center boundary to incorporate this 3.4-acre parcel back into the activity center. It was at one time in the activity center. The county some time ago, I think it was in the '90s, maybe 2000, revised the activity center boundaries, and although this parcel retained its commercial zoning, it was removed from the activity center. One of the items that we are requesting is an automobile dealership and that -- to change - basically to change the uses, this would have to be incorporated back into the activity center. So that brings me to the second part of the companion petitions, and that is an amendment to the Collier Tract2l PUD. As I said, this is an existing 3.4-acre commercial. I mean, it allows up to 50,000 square feet of typical C3 permitted and conditional uses, and it also allows for up to 100 hotel rooms at present. Our proposal is to increase the number of hotel rooms allowed from 100 to 200 and also to allow for an automobile dealership. Some other changes that are happening along with this is the standard now to establish a trip cap and to provide a parking deviation if the car dealership is a luxury dealership, and I'll get into the details on that as I just move through this. Just to orient you towards the subject site, lmmokalee Road down here, U.S. 4llTamiami Trail here. This is the Walmart. We're just north of that. There is an access point already located right here that provides access to the golf maintenance facility and to the golf course, and that access also provides for access to this 3.4-acre site. This just makes it a little bit easier to see what is surrounding the subject site. You've got the BMW right across -- Germain's BMW right across the street. Here's River Place (sic) shopping center. There is the Walmart here. The balance of the property is - basically houses the old Collier golf club. This is the zoning map. We're zonedPUD. There's a commercial PUD to our south. There's commercial uses across U.S. 41. And, of course, as I said, there's C4 to the north of the PUD boundary here as well. This is -- this shows the subject site and basically depicts how the activity center boundary would be revised to recapture and reincorporate this 3. -acre commercial. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: That's not out of our current -- that's not the current layout; otherwise, you wouldn't need to be asking for what you're -- MR. MULHERE: No, no. That shows the proposed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you did what the previous applicant did. You kind of colored it in and lined it yourself? MR. MULFDRE: Yeah. We're required to provide that as part of -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I just wanted to make sure everybody knew it as that. It's not -- MR. MULFIERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. MR. MULFIERE: So there are some changes compared to what you have. And I've tried to capture your packet page number. There's always a lot of confusion. So this change is on Packet Page No. 1020, 1,020. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm missing almost 800 pages. Can you - do you know where those are? MR. MULffiRE: Well, I'm looking at my copy that was provided from me, and it says Package Page 1020. It's the ordinance itself. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is on Page 6 of mine, so I don't know whose -- Page 52 of 67 September 20,2018 MR. MULI{ERE: Well -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's okay. I understand where this is coming from. I just wanted to clarify I didn't get 1020 pages. MR. MULIIERE: I tried to simplift ig but I maybe don't have enough information as to why there's such a -- always a disconnect on the pages. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Called Accela. It's a new program. It makes things more confusing in Collier County. MR. MULI{ERE: Then I'll just explain where it's located. Section 2.3 ofthe PUD is entitled "Description of Project Plan and Proposed Land Uses." In Paragraph A it lists the land-use tracts and what's allowed. For example, it says, G, golf course, 170.5 acres. C, commercial - and the difference was that we had included in that - in this proposed amendment a -- well, increasing the hotel rooms to 200 subject to the conversion ratio that was already in the PUD. But as we met with members of the -- some members of the Planning Commission, it was suggested that we use a trip cap anyway. Really, you don't need that conversion ratio anymore. So what you see in front of you - and staffdid ask us to reference the trip cap here -- references the maximum trip cap established in Section 6.4,Paragraph E, and we'll get to that section in just a minute. So same thing here. We've got a maximum of 50,000 square feet of gross leasable area. You need to say something? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. I needto askyou something. MR. MULHERE: Let me just look here, because Rich has raised a thing. There is one correction, additional correction that we'll need in this language. That 50,000 square foot cap is not intended to apply to the hotel, and the original did not apply to that. The original amendment language did not apply that to the hotel. But when we changed this, when I changed this, I didn't make clear that it doesn't apply to the hotel. So I think we -- commercial up to 50,000 square feet of gross leasable floor are4 which - and then probably add another sentence that says this 50,000-square-foot cap does not apply to the hotel in the event that is constructed. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Do you believe that's the current intent? Because you didn't have that disclaimer when the hotel was 100 suites. MR. MULHERE: Well, when it was 100 suites, we had to convert - it was based on rooms. So we had to convert each hotel -- there was no cap on square footage. It was just a straight conversion. There was no cap for the hotel on the square footage. There was no cap. It was a straight conversion; 225 square feet per hotel room. So we would have -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would come offthe 50,000 square feet. MR. MULHERE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it was part of the 50,000, then; otherwise, how could it not come offof it? MR. MULI{ERE: Well, it could come offof it, but that conversion didn't mean that your hotel room was limited, your hotel was limited. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, but the 50,000, if you were to build a 50,000 hotel, that's all you'd have on that property, right? MR. MULHERE: No. It was based on rooms. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you had a number of rooms that would equal to the conversion of 225 nto 50,000. You'd use up all your 50,000 on the hotel? MR. MULIIERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the 50,000 square feet gross leasable floor area is part of the hotel based on traffrc capacity now? MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. Forthe record, by way of example, if we had a 60,000-square-foot hotel, we would have used up all of the 50,000. If we had done -- the way originally we wrote this, if we did 200 rooms, each room would take up -- with the amendment would take up 250 square feet. So all of the retail would be gone, but I could have a 60,000-square-foot hotel that housed the 200 rooms. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To get to the 200 rooms? Page 53 of67 September 20,2018 MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. I just wanted to make sure we weren't capping the hotel at 50,000 square feet. We've gone to the trip cap. This - the way I read the new language, it could be interpreted to mean a hotel can't be greater than 50,000 square feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean -- well, how did you -- MR. MULFDRE: So in no case would it greater than -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you had 75,000 square feet based on the FAR in the first hotel at 100, you're at200 with the new one, so your FAR would even be higher if you were to use that as a benchmark to understand how you got to the square footage. MR. MULFIRE: It could be, but we wouldn't exceed the trip cap. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's right. That's what I'm understanding. MR. MULFDRE: That's the whole point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry to intemrpt your -- MR. MULHERE: That's okay. I'm glad - thankyou. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're glad I intemrpted you? I'll have to remember that. MR. MULHERE: No problem. Sometimes it's beneficial. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Wait till Norm gets done. MR. MULHERE: So, again, the same clarification probably needs to occur here. A maximum of 50,000 square feet of gross leasable area may be constructed subject to the maximum trip cap established in Section 6.4, Paragraph B. When we removed the conversion factor, which made it clear that it didn't apply to the hotel, we now need to make it clear that that 50,000 square feet doesn't apply to the hotel. The second change there was a very minor change. The SIC code refers to automotive vehicle and equipment dealers which was the language in the original amendment we proposed. It was suggested that we take out the "and equipment." We really are asking for an automotive vehicle dealer. So just for clarification. And it's repeated there for no good reason. This change here, I believe, is necessary, and it relates to the trip cap. We've established a trip cap. The trip cap that we've established of 244 two-way peak-hour trips applies only to the 3.4-acre commercial tract. It does not apply to the existing developed golf course. So we've clarified that here. And the last, I think, change was to the deviation language. Staffrecommended approval of this deviation. Collier County already has adopted an altemative trip analysis for luxury car dealerships which they've applied - which they apply as part of the assessment for impact fees. Luxury car dealerships generate fewer trips and so there's already been an accepted alternative transportation study which reduces the impact fees for luxury car dealerships. Obviously, if you think there's a much smaller market segment, they don't have as much -- as many models or as much stock there. Typically they have different hours of operation, and so they generate fewer trips, and that's been accepted by the county. We wanted to provide fewer parking spaces in the event that we did develop a luxury car dealership commensurate with the fewer trips. So we submitted the deviation. It was accepted and recommended for approval by staff, but we really didn't have -- we didn't -- in the language we didn't have the definition that was also adopted that is found in the Collier County Code of Laws of a luxury dealership, so we've now added that language. And I had added some additional language, but subject to Heidi's review, this is the final language that we have now. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I think with the clarification on the 50,000 square feet, I think you're going to have to put language that it's 50,000 square feet and up to 200 hotel units - MR. MULHERE: Yes. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: - all subject to the trip cap. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: lnstead of having the hotel and motel unit count covered in 3.3, I'd move it up to 3.2 is my recommendation, but we can work out the language. MR. MULI{ERE: That makes sense. Page 54 of 67 September 20,2018 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULFIERE: That concludes my presentation. I know there may be some questions. We also have some - potentially members of the public to speak, so we're available to answer any questions that you might have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Planning Commission members, any questions from the applicant first? Go ahead, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. I understand the 50,000 square foot not being applicable to the hotel. I get that. But in the case of a car dealership, it's my understanding that that would be a maximum of 30,000 square feet; is that correct? MR. MULHERE: No. We didn't intend -- once we put the trip cap in there, we didn't intend to limit that at all. I mean, I know that's what the TIS used as an example. But with the trip cap, we've covered that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: All right. And the trip cap you're proposing is? MR. MULHERE: 244 p.m. peak hour. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Even though your study showed, I think, a smaller number, I believe -- ffid, also, this is a concern of mine which I've voiced before, the 19 - the 2017 AUIR has 173 p.m. peak-hour trips as the point over which we will be into an excess capacity deficiency zone. And so it troubles me that we're being asked to approve 240 when we know that that's going to throw the number, the actual number of trips, into a deficiency mode. MR. MULFIERE: Well, two things. I'm going to ask Norm to come up and -- well, never mind. I'll just let Norm speak to that issue. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. MR. MULI{ERE: Go rightto the expert. MR. TREBILCOCK: Good afternoon. For the record, Norman Trebilcock, Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, professional engineer and certified planner. We provided the traffic plan for the project. Regarding the current AUIR numbers provided, that--thel73,that'sapeakdirection. Soit'sasingulardirection, lT3vehiclesperhour. The244thatwe're proposing, that's a two-way peak direction. And so our one way would be 127 trips, and then that actually gets split. So it's actually a lower number, ultimately. But a key thing to understand is currently in this segment that gets impacted is Vanderbilt Drive had been under construction and was closed, and so - and you can see in the AUIR it had a big fluctuation increase in traffic on U.S. 41, and that was as a result of the closure of Vanderbilt Drive. So with the reopening of Vanderbilt Drive, we would see that additional capacity is going to be gained on 41 again, so that's why we didn't want to necessarily tie to some fluctuating number like you're talking about. We also are in a TCMA are4 and your transportation planning staffcould maybe speak to that a little bit, too. So there are opportunities, and that would be the reason that you wouldn't necessarily tie to a particular AUIR number, because we know that likely is going to go up again here. And when you do the detailed analysis for a Site Development Plan, you'll find that the numbers aren't just that singular two-way number. So I hope that helps. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Somewhat. Have you had access to the proposed 2018 AUIR number for this stretch of road? MR. TREBILCOCK: I don't have that. No, I don't have that here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Presumably it's going to be fewer, I would think, since it is - that stretch of the trail, the North Trail, increased by over 20 percent between 2016 and '17. One would just expect that that would - the remaining capacity will be smaller. MR. TREBILCOCK: Not necessarily, because what's happened is in that time frame you had Vanderbilt Drive that has been closed between this location and to the north, and so all that traffrc that normally would be using Vanderbilt Drive is gone to U.S. 41. So with Vanderbilt Drive being open again, that traffic is going to find its way back onto Vanderbilt Page 55 of67 September 20,2018 Drive, and that will actually relieve U.S. 41. So sometimes we get these fluctuations in traffrc volumes. That's why staffdoes this annual monitoring of traffic, because you get some variations like that and that would be the case here. So that's why we didn't feel it was wise to tie to a particular number, especially we see that there is a fluctuation there. Because it was about a 13 percent increase from '16 to'l7,like you said, yeah, so... COMMISSIONER FRYER: I think it was over 20 percent. MR. TREBILCOCK: Was it? Okay. MR. MULHERE: I did want to also add in response to your question, I think it's important that I at least put on the record that this, you know, this 3.4 acres is already approved for up to 50,000, and that trip cap. So, you know, we believe 244 units is appropriate. It's already approved for that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, that's a philosophical question, and we've talked about that at some length. And I get the concept of it already being approved, but now we have the advantage of current circumstances, and it puts us in a very difficult position to be asked -- and I'm not saying that that's the case because of what might be happening on Vanderbilt Drive. But if we were being asked to approve a situation that was going to throw us into deficiency, that puts us in a very difficult situation. MR. TREBILCOCK: No, that's true. And at the time of Site Development Plan or platting, we'd have to directly address that, and then the staffwould invoke the TCMA concepts, too. Yep. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. I think that's all I had, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Norm, while you're up there, do you mind a little more torture? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I notice in your TIS that you used 30,000 square feet as the basis, and you apparently referred to two different standards to get to that conclusion, both the 9th and 10th edition. I understand why, without you having to say it. But when it says automobile sales, did you use luxury or did you use standard, or is it separated that way in ITE? MR. TREBILCOCK: Well, ITE doesn't distinguish. So we're conservative, a bit on the higher side. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: That was my next comment. So this is the worst-case scenario, because if you used standard, you're probably going to have more traffic count than if you use luxury. MR. TREBILCOCK: No, I'm sorry. Ours -- ITE doesn't have a specific luxury item. CHAIRMAN STRAN: I know that. MR. TREBILCOCK: What they did between fth and 1Oth is they split the new and the used car sales apart. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. But you still use the standard car dealership, right? MR. TREBILCOCK: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because there is no luxury car dealership. MR. TREBILCOCK: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if there had been one, it most likely would have had less trips based on the argument about the parking. MR. TREBILCOCK: Absolutely. You're right. CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So this is the most conservative. And, most likely, since you're asking for automobile sales, they're going to be restricted to luxury automobile sales, then the number will be less than this. MR. TREBILCOCK: It will be less than tha! yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I was trying to get at. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. Yes, sir. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll getthere. Okay. I've got some -- I'll get to staffabout why we're even doing this, but that's a whole 'nother - and I'm just tying to make sure I understand why it all happened in regards to the omission from the activity center. And let me make sure I've got everything before I - and I don't. I've got to go into the PIID next. Page 56 of67 September 20,2018 MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Strain, if Imay? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: YES. MR. YOVANOVICH: I want to understand the conversation that just happened between the luxury and the standard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Norm said that this doesn't qualifi. MR. YOVANOVICH: We're not -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're in trouble. MR. YOVANOVICH: The PUD itself analyzed it as standard traffic, and there's not -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rieht. MR. YOVANOVICH: There's not a requirement that it be luxury in the PUD. It could be - CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. MR. YOVANOVICH: Hang on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's a requirement for the deviation to kick in, right. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. If it's not luxury, I don't get the deviation. I just want to make sure the record was clear on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I understood that, but I wanted to make sure that if you were to go luxury, which it seems you want to do -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAN: -- we have a better scenario, not a worst-case scenario. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I was trying to get at. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm trying to sort out my staffcomments versus yours, and I think -- go ahead, Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'm just going to interject something here. Every time Mr. Mulhere comes in front of us, it's a car dealership. You just did that at the Triangle, which was going to be luxury. Are you just putting a lot of car dealerships - MR. MULHERE: There's only so many luxury dealerships to go around. So if one place gets ig the other one loses out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the straight zoning districts, C3, which is what you're generally asking for, or started out asking for - MR. MTILHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAN: -- we already allow automobile vehicle dealers, new dealers, as a conditional use, which you would have gotten had you used the current standards in the LDC, and now you've agreed to strike that old language, and you're going to go with current standards. But now that doesn't work because you really want the straight zoning for a new car dealership exclusive of the conditional-use requirements that are in the straight zoning category under C3, which makes you a C4 use -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: - as far as this goes. And then the reason that you're asking for the change to the activity center is because that allows you to ask for the range of uses from Cl through C5 - MR. MULI{ERE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAN: - which the C4 now fits in without you having to have an issue. Even though you didn't ask for those initially, you're adding that C4 use now, but all the rest of the uses will be C3 until you come forward and ask for them. MR. MULffiRE: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that scenario plays out okay. Okay. The only thing that's one of the - one of the issues in the C3 conditional uses for automobile vehicle dealers is an assurance that the - how you're going to receive delivery of automobiles, and that's become a big thing because they're parking on side streets and everywhere else. Page57 of67 September 20,2018 You're just going to -- would you mind a stipulation that says "any vehicles delivered to the site will be offloaded on the site." MR. MULI{ERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then I think that takes me to the end of my questions. Let me double-check here. Yes, it does. So anybody else have any questions ofthe applicant? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I think the Chair asked "would you mind," and Mr. Mulhere answered "yes." MR. MULI{ERE: I meant we don't mind the condition. I thought he said "do you mind this condition." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anyway, that was kind of one of those arguments that you make, and it really doesn't matter what he says. The restriction would have still been there, so... Okay. Is there a staffreport? We'll start with Tim, and then I'll see David -- well, David will have to jump in, because we do have some questions for him. MR. FINN: For the record, I'm Tim Finn, principal planner. The project and the companion small-scale GMP petition is compliant with the GMP and the rezoning criteria within the LDC; therefore, staffrecommends approval. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Thankyou, Tim. Any questions of the -- our zoning staffbefore we go to Comprehensive Planning? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. David - and I'll just cut right to the quick for my question. MR. WEEKS: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I understand this was originally part of the activi[, center, but back in 1999 the applicant in their 1.6 statement of consistency said the following, "The 3.4-acre commercial Tract C is considered to be within the activity center by virtue of the activity center 75 percent rule of the Future Land Use Element and is, therefore, consistent with the Growth Management Plan. Tract C is a portion of Parcel 3, a separate tax parcel that includes and overlaps the activity center, which is legally described as Section 1.2 in the PIID document." Now, the PUD and the zoning have already accepted that as a statement, and it was made as an ordinance to our code adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. Now, I've been trying to figure this out, and I understand that subsequent to that the Comprehensive Planning stafftook it out of the activity center. So how did you take something out that's in by ordinance without changing the ordinance? MR. WEEKS: David Weeks of the county's Comprehensive Planning staff. Best I can tell, the county made an elror, or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, well, that's -- then why are we charging them for -- are we charging them for this? ,MR. WEEKS: Let me rephrase that. MR. YOVANOVICH: Wow. MR. WEEKS: We didn't follow the methodology that we did as a general rule. I'd like to walk through this, if I may. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WEEKS: On the visualizer is the Future Land Use Map, and you see a variety of red squares. I have my pen pointing to the greater Naples urban area. The coastal urban area is in yellow, some other colors in there, you see red squares at major intersections. Those are the boundaries ofthe activity centers as they were adopted in 1989 when the Comprehensive Plan -- this Comprehensive Plan was first adopted. Those were half-mile squares. They did not correlate, necessarily, with actual parcels on the ground, tax parcels or platted parcels. So there were -- there were two provisions for flexibility in the boundaries. One of those that's relevant here is the 75 percent rule. If 75 percent or more of a project was within the activity center boundaries that is that half-mile square, then the entire parcel would be viewed as if it were in the activity center, therefore eligible for commercial zoning or higher density. That is exactly the case here. Page 58 of67 September 20,2018 These half-mile-square activity center boundaries were in effect when the PUD was amended in 1999. And it met that 75 percent rule; therefore, the zoning was approved and we have this commercial tract. In 1997 - I'll put a different - in 1997,the county adopted amendments to all of the activity center boundaries based upon the 1996 EAR, evaluation and appraisal report. And those boundaries were in some cases enlarged and in some cases were made smaller. On the map I put on the visualizer, the dashed line represents that half-mile square, the original activity center boundaries. And by way of example, if you look at the southwest quadrant which is the Naples Park are4 you will see that a portion of that boundary was removed. Generally, what we did at the time - staffrecommended the Board ultimately approve. Generally what we did was follow the existing commercial boundaries. So in the example in the southwest quadrant where my pen is pointing on the visualizer, that's the Naples Park area that's zoned residential. So the recommendation by staff, and the Board adopted, was to move the activity center boundary to follow the commercial boundary, and that's why you see it shaped just the strip along I I lth Avenue and a strip along 41. And then you can see the other two quadrants on the east side of U.S. 41, you can see their shapes also don't follow that half-mile square. In that case, the boundary was approved - modified through a PUD approval. And so when we modified the activity center boundary, we followed the commercial boundary. Again, so that was -- my point here is that our general approach was to follow the boundary of the commercial zoning. But we did not do that for the subject PUD, and that's where, I believe, we did not follow our usual approach, which I think was a mistake. I don't think that was intentional. I think it was an oversight. Let me go back to the history and try to explain that. I mentioned n 1997 the county adopted these changed boundaries, but they did not go into eflect because those EAR-based amendments of 1997 were in part found not in compliance by the then Florida Department of Community Affairs. So the approach the county took was we're going to view all of the amendments, that the entire package of EAR-based amendments - which went far beyond these activity centers and went beyond the Future Land Use Element every element ofthe GMP, Growth Management Plan, was affected - affected by that noncompliance finding. So it wasn't until 2002 that the county readopted certain portions of those EAR-based amendments including the new activity center boundaries. So what happened is in between the 1997 adoption and the 2000 readoption of the activity center boundaries, this subject PllD was amended to add this commercial tract. And I think staff- we goofed. We did not catch that this commercial addition had been approved outside of the half-mile square and, therefore, we did not recommend it and nor did the Board approve, then, the activity center boundary to follow the PUD commercial tract. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In 1997 when this thing was reworked, did the plan for this project prior to '97 show that area as commercial? MR. WEEKS: It did not. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. So you would - they would -- theoretically, in'97, you would have no way of knowing that that went past the boundary, but then when it came in in '99, because this other thing was in transition for a year or two, it kind of missed being applied for their request in '99, and you stuck with the 75 rule? Because the 75 rule language went in in '99. MR. WEEKS: Yes. And when the PUD was approved to add this commercialtract in 1999, the activity center boundaries were still the half-mile square; that75 percent rule was still applicable. These site-specific boundaries did not exist. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Right. So in '99 when they came in - and they got approved. Your department said - MR. WEEKS: Yes. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: -- yep, the - you weren't -- you aren't in the activity center, but the 75 rule let's you in. And then sometime after that we now did away with the 75 rule, and we didn't readjust the Page 59 of67 September 20,2018 boundaries that came into play while that 75 rule was being processed to the new system through 2002, or whatever it took. Then we took their propefty rights away, in essence, by the language that we introduced in 2002that we previously approved language in their PUD that gave them the rights as part of what they're asking for today. So I - and they've been very cooperative, I understand, getting this done. But I guess the question goes on a faimess: Is this a cost the applicant should be paying for something they had a right to, or shouldn't that be something we should be directing because it was something misjudged or misinterpreted by us? MR. WEEKS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know how that happens intemally, but I don't -- and I don't know the wherewithal of this applicant or that much but, I mean, to me it seems out of fairness they shouldn't necessarily have to be paying for this. So I'm just making that point. I'm surprised at the way this came down. No faulting anybody. It's just a matter of circumstances. MR. WEEKS: And I am making an assumption -- I have not done the detailed research on this. I just know that I was involved in these activity center boundary changes, and so I believe, without proof, that staff was in error in not proposing the activity center boundary include the subject commercial tract. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Well, that's the first time I had a scenario like this. So I understand how we got there. I'm not necessarily thinking we're doing it the right way right now. I think the correction is fine. I think they -- without the correction, their PUD -- you didn't change the ordinance, so the ordinance, I think, still stands. MR. WEEKS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Were they notified that we were doing this to them back in '97? Well, actually, they wouldn't have been because -- or even if they did, they probably thought they cleared it up in '99. MR. WEEKS: There was no individual notice provided, because this was a Comprehensive Plan amendment. So it was the full -- I think full-page ads at that time. But anyway, we just followed the public-notice requirements at the time, which did not include individual properly owner notifications. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Enough said on that for me, at least. I do have one other comment, and I know it's a -- Corby wrote up the consistency review memorandum. But in the first part of the request : I'll read a brief part of it. It says, "It's to revise the PUD provisions to allow a new retail automotive vehicle dealer as an additional commercial use, allow an additional 100 hotel rooms for a total of 200, along with the conversion ratios," then says, "and update the permitted and conditional C3, commercial intermediate zoningdistrict uses already allowed to those of the present LDC rather than those tied to the LDC at the time of the PUD amendment approval in 1999." That is not what they're doing, and that's not the way it was written until I caught it at the pre-CCPC meeting on Monday. I suggested to these guys, why just add the hotel number and add the dealership? Why not bring it up current and just take out that language that referred to the '99? That was when that happened. But in the process of that happening, they explained to me that the automotive dealership they're seeking is not the conditional-use provisions of the C3. It's aC4 category. So I guess my question to you is, number one, is there a lack of coordination between comprehensive zoning and zoning in regards to if your intention was to do this, the PUD should have reflected that when it got to us? And, number two, in your review that this is now a C4 use, I'm assuming you find that consistent because of the change to allow the activity center to increase to cover this property. MR. WEEKS: For the first question there is coordination, but I think we -- in Comprehensive Planning, we're not trying to drive the process. What you are reading in the staffreport is where Comprehensive Planning staff is simply identifying what the proposed change or changes are to the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that wasn't -- MR. WEEKS: We got it wrong. We gotto wrong. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because that wasn't the proposed change. That's what I was hoping they would do. And when they came in, they agreed to it, but Ijust was wondering how you had thought of Page 60 of 67 September 20,2018 that because it wasn't what was there. So -- okay. MR. WEEKS: We're not perfect. We made amistake. And I can tell you that staffhad made the same recorlmendation, I think, going all the way back to the pre-application meeting, or at least suggested that the applicant consider it. And the reason for that is perhaps the same as yours, and that is it's -- the longer in time we go, the more difficult it's going to be for staff in implementing the PUD to go back and find out what version of the Land Development Code was in existence many years ago. And so we're glad to hear that they're going by the current. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It is. MR. WEEKS: Now, let's see. What was your second question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Actually, the changes in the - in the zoning -- to the C3 zoning, they're more advantageous now, so it's going to be actually more beneficial to them to have those, not necessarily against them, so... MR. WEEKS: The other thing is about the consistency. We recognize that with the amendment, adding the property to the activity center, they're eligible for Cl through C5 zoning. CFIAIRMAN STRAIN: tught. MR. WEEKS: And so we -- by our finding of consistency -- excuse me, finding of appropriateness for the Comprehensive Plan amendment and our recommendation of approval, we are making the general finding that the C5 uses would be appropriate at that location. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WEEKS: The zoning history and the Comprehensive Plan history was part of our consideration. We didn't even require the typical market study, if you will, for the application because of the history ofthe properry. The fact that it had been in an activity center based upon surrounding land uses. There's no residential in immediate proximity to this site. There are no infrastructure impact concems, et cetera. So we do recommend approval recognizing, again, that their PUD amendment itself is rather limited at this point but they could in the future come back and ask for C5 and - CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, and, you know, something just occurred to me in talking with you and hearing your explanation, and the point of the current code versus the '99 code. ln 2001, we changed the C3 district to have a cap and limitations of square footage on certain uses. ln '99 we did not have those. And I don't know when I was talking to the applicant if they were aware of that change. The applicant and all their experts were there but, then again, I learned today that even when experts are present, they may not know what's going on. So based on that, I will probably have to ask the applicant to again reflect on this change and see if it really is something they can live with. I'm not trying to box them in in a corner. I thought it would just be simpler. But if they didn't understand the changes that occurred between'99 and 2001, it may not be something as workable for them. Our 2001 code, I think, made a serious mistake in limiting the square footages the way it did. So there may be advantages to the'99 code. MR. WEEKS: I'll make one comment on that and, obviously, let the applicant speak forthemselves. But on the one hand the C3 district does have certain square footage caps for certain uses as a permitted use, but then under the conditional uses of C3, it allows you to exceed those caps. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's right, it does. So all your retail, instead of at 5,000, because they've been accepted for all the conditional uses now with the new language, they automatically wouldn't be applying to them. MR. WEEKS: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's even better. Okay. Good. David, I don't -- I think that's the only questions I had of you. I appreciate your time. Anybody else of Comprehensive Planning? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: With respect to Page 910 of the packet there's the proposed ordinance Page 6l of 67 September 20,2018 language that we're being asked to approve as a recommendation to the County Commission. And it's my understanding in the case of a small-scale amendment that the County Commission takes action and then, as a matter of -- as a ministerial act, transmits that to Tallahassee but without awaiting for Tallahassee's approval, correct? MR. WEEKS: Well, that is the process. The Commission would adopt it, send it to the State. The State would have 30 days in which to review it for statutory compliance. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Statutory. MR. WEEKS: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Really, my question goes to some boilerplate language. I don't know how long it's been this way, and maybe I just don't understand. But in the boldface, large typed font at the beginning, the Collier County Commission is being asked to recommended transmittal of the adopted amendment to the Florida Department. And it's not really recommending; it's directing, is it not? MR. WEEKS: Well - COMMISSIONER FRYER: Page 910. MR. WEEKS: Yes. I think my page numbers are differenq but you're referring to the staff recommendation? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, I'm referring to the draft ordinance that we're being asked to make a recommendation on. We recommend to the County Commission, but then this ordinance would be adopted by the County Commission. They're not recommending that it be forwarded to Tallahassee. They're directing that it be forwarded, correct? MR. WEEKS: Yes. They're approving the amendment and transmitting it to the State. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. So I submit to you that the word "recommending" is incorrect. And also, when I look at the ordinance itself, I don't see a -- well, the three sections. There's the adoption section, the severability, and the effective date. I don't see a section in here directing staff to forward, to transmit this action to Tallahassee. Now, maybe this is a form of longstanding, but as I look at it, itjust doesn't seem to make sense. MS. ASHION-CICKO: We'll look at it and correct it if it needs to be corrected. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. So I think there should be a Section 4 in there, too, calling upon staff to make the transmittal as well as changing the word "recommended" to "direct." That's all I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And, David, one last question. I know Jamie French is here, and he's lucky enough to be in charge of the Developmental Services building, which is now the Growth Management building, which could have been something else, who knows what. But in our discussion on this, I know the applicant had to come in for a PUDA, so they would have had their experts involved and everybody else. But I really think that charging them fees for comprehensive -- well, bringing this into the activify center is not fair, and I would probably like to suggest as a stipulation that those fees be considered as being credited back to the applican! unless there's some reason why you feel - I don't want to put you on the spo! but if you've got some concem over that, I'd like to know it now. And I'm not trying to point blame. I'm just saying it was a mishap that occurred over a series of --'97 , took about five years, and the applicant went forward in good faith. To have anybody have to be penalized for that when it wasn't really something they could have predicted, I don't think that's the right thing to do, so... Anyrvay, just thought I'd comment. Anything else from any of the Planning Commission members? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any public speakers? MR. BOSI: I have one slip for Mr. Don Blackman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Blackman, if you want to speak, just come on up to the microphone. If you don't get up, I know you don't want to. And, ma'am, if you'd like to speak, you're next. Come on up to the microphone and please identiff Page 62 of 67 September 20,2018 yourself. We'll be glad to hear you. MS. FERGUSON: I am Pam Ferguson. I live in Naples Park. My question -- COMMISSIONERFRYER: Was she sworn? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. I'm sorry. He asked if you were sworn in. You did stand up, so you're okay. MS. FERGUSON: Yes. I live in Naples Park. My questions are much less technical. And I apologize if this information was available before now, but I was not aware of it, so I'm going to ask anyway. The entrance to this proposed change is offof 4l? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ma'am, you have to direct your questions here, and, yes, it is. It's north of the Walmart. MS. FERGUSON: North ofthe Walmart? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. There's already -- yeah. Sojust south of Walkerbilt Road, I believe it is, or wherever that -- MS. FERGUSON: Okay. And there's no likelihood that ttrat would change? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. It's - MS. FERGUSON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, they have to have the entrance where they talked about it today, and there's not much choice in that unless they come back through a public meeting, which you probably would find out about. MS. FERGUSON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Bob, if you hear something I say wrong, just intemrpt and correct it. MR. MULHERE: It's a little hard to see, but if you look on the television there, the enfance is right here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that connects to 41 already. MS. FERGUSON: Got ig got it. My concern was that I was afraid there was going to be an entrance offof I I lth -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, ma'am. MS. FERGUSON: - right in front of my house. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think a lot of people who originally contacted us had -- the ad was such a big are4 I think a lot of people thought that but that is not the case. This is - that little blue square, that's it. That's all they're looking at today. MS. FERGUSON: All right. Will the trees remain on I I lth between -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're not touching 11lth. Do you see that little blue square north of Walmarfl MS. FERGUSON: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All the work they do is going to stay within that blue square. MS. FERGUSON: What's the timeline for construction? MR. MULHERE: We don't -- this is zoning, so at this stage we have no timeline for construction. MS. FERGUSON: Gotcha. Thankyou. CFIAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. FERGUSON: I'm so excited that we're getting another car dealership in Naples. Pardon me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. MULFDRE: My pleasure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other members of the public who would like to speak on this matter? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, Jamie, did you want to add something to the mix? MR. FRENCH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Go ahead. MR. FRENCH: Afternoon. I don't speak as well as James Sabo, but I was going to suggest - Jamie French, for the record, deputy department head for the Growth Management Deparfrnent. Page 63 of67 September 20,2018 Mr. Chairman, we'll review your suggestion, and if need be we'll include that within the executive summary to the Board with regards to the fees and -- because the way the growth management fee schedule is written is that only the Board of County Commissioners can waive fees. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Right. No, Irealize that; that's why we were going to -- I was going to ask this panel to consider it as a stipulation for consideration. And then with your input and David's, maybe it would be something practical to do. MR. FRENCH: Yes, sir. I just wanted to put that on the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thankyou, sir. Appreciate it. That takes us to the end of the meeting, and we'll close the public hearing, and we'll start with discussion, which I don't expect will be too long. We will need an EAC vote for the PUD. Does the GMP require an EAC vote? Mike, do you know, or Heidi or Jeffl MR. BOSI: The GMP small-scale amendment does not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So just the PUD will require a vote by the EAC. So we've got three votes to do today. I would suggest we accept the language changes as shown and as discussed and that the note of the 50,000 square feet and up to 200 hotel units will be - and that will be moved to 3 .2, the deliveries of any vehicles for any dealership there will be within the site of the dealership, and then that the -- we could have the Board consider a -- not charging fees for the actual CPSS application. So, with that anybody have any comments? COMMISSIONER FRYER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: None? Okay. Anybody want to make a motion? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'll make a motion; this is with respect to the small-scale GMP? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. PL20180000038. I'm sorr1,. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'll move approval of that recommendation with the proviso that the language of the ordinance be changed as I indicated in the precatory language changing the word "recommending" to "directing" and adding a Section 4 that, in fact, directs staffto transmit to Tallahassee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And is this the appropriate place, if we're going to suggest a-thatthe fees not be implemented for the CPSS to have -- MR. KLATZKOW: No. Do that as a separate motion. Just -- let's take care of the applicant's request, and then you can make a separate motion on a recommendation to the Board. Okay. With thal is there a second to the motion made by Ned? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Stan. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CIIAIRMAN STRAN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? Q.{o response.) CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries -- there's five of us left so 5-0. The next piece of this will be for the EAC vote for PL20180000037, which is the Planned Unit Development amendment for Collier Tract2l. And on that one I would suggest we include all of the stipulations but not the reference to the charge for the fees, the credit for the fees. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'll move that, acting as the EAC, we approve that with the stipulations. Page 64 of 67 September 20,2018 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONEREBERT: Second. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: By Diane. Discussion? (No response.) CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signiff by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CIIAIRMAN STRAN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-0. Do we have a similar motion for the PL20 I 8000003 7 for the Planning Commission's vote on Collier Tract2l? COMMISSIONER FRYER: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Ned. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Stan. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CFIAIRMAN STRAN: Motion carries 5-0. I would rather suggest that instead of -- we include the stipulation with either one of these documents, we simply ask staffto include that as a discussion point in the staffreport. MR. KLATZKOW: I would make a motion yourself whether or not, you know, the planning board recommends waiving fees. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I would then ask this planning board to consider a motion to waive the fees on this because of the circumstances of this project. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I would second under those circumstances. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Diane, seconded by Ned. Discussion? MR. KLATZKOW: Just forthe GMP. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For the GMP, yes, sir. I'm sorry. That's the only thing it would have applied to. All those in favor, signifr by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-0. Page 65 of67 September 20,2018 Okay. We're done with that one, and that takes us to the wrap-up of our meeting. New business. We do have one item of new business that I didn't - I failed to add in the beginning, but we'll do it now. After eight long, tense years and struggles, I want to thank Diane Ebert for her time and her commitment to this community, her unbelievable attendance for this panel, her unbelievable research. Now, we don't always have the same page in the research -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: I know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- but the lady does fantastic research. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Different opinions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I want to thank you very much from everybody. And I have been here through all of the many people that you've been here through, including those before you. But thank you for all your services to Collier County. I know we will not have heard the end of you. COMMISSIONER EBERT: You have not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you know what's nice, remember before you came on the Planning Commission, you and I could always talk. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We can do that again. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I've thought about that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So, Diane, thank you. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, I -- you're right. You probably won't get rid of me. I'll go over to Transportation or something. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, good. COMMISSIONER EBERT: But I want to say that I've met some wonderful people, made a lot of great friends in Collier County, and I will miss -- I will miss this, but you don't know, I just might be on the other side. CIIAIRMAN STRAN: But then you're limited to three minutes, so be careful. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: I do want to make sure, before you got done, you check with HR to make sure your pension is set up properly. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And with that, we don't have any -- MR. BOSI: And just from staffs perspective, we want to echo the same sentiment: Thank you, Diane. It's been great working with you and looking forward to further communications moving forward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I betyou'll have some. Any old business? We have none listed. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Just a question of staff. Besides the AUIR, what's coming up next meeting? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, I know that Grey Oaks was continued to that next meeting, although I don't know if it's still going to go on that date. MR. BOSI: It's being pushed forward beyond to the October 18th meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. BOSI: I've lost my internet connection. Just give me one second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you know, it's something -- what you could do is probably email all of us and let us know what's going. That would be sufficient, I think. We don't need to know the information immediately today. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Indeed. COMMISSIONER EBERT: We used to get a look-ahead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sometimes, yeah. Okay. Is there any other old business? COMMISSIONER EBERT: No. CHAIRMAN STRAN: And then we'll look at - is there any members of the public here who Page 66 of 67 September 20,2018 would like to address any issues? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Make a motion to adjourn. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Diane. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded byNed. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're closed. Thankyou. ******* There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at2:26 p.m. COLLIER COLINTY PLANNING COMMIS S ION ATTEST CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, CLERK OF T}M CIRCUIT COURT & COMPTROLLER These minutes approved by the Board on t(2- lE - )e, as presented or as corrected / TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. Page 67 of 67