Loading...
CCPC Minutes 11/01/2018November 1, 201 8 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida November 1,2018 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, EastNaples, Florid4 with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Stan Chrzanowski Patrick Dearborn Edwin Fryer Karen Homiak Joe Schmitt ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V. Bellows, ZonngManager Nancy Gundlach, Principal Plaxner Jeffrey Klatzkow, Counf Attorney Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney Tom Eastman, School District Representative Page I of49 November 1,2018 PROCEEDINGS CHAIRMAN STRAN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Thursday, November lst meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If everybody will please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. First item on our agenda is roll call by the secretary. Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chrzanowski? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm here. Chairman Sfain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Vice-chair Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Schmitt? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Dearborn? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Here. COMMISSIONERFRYER: Mr. Chairman, we have a quorum of six. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And addenda to the agendq I don't see any new items other than the three public hearings that have been advertised. Ray, do you have anything that needs to be added? MR. BELLOWS: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Planning Commission absences, Ray, Im going to need your help here for December, but I know that we have another meeting scheduled for November 15th. So does anybody know if they're not going to make it on November 15th? (No response.) CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll have a quorum. So the first meeting in November I know some things are scheduled for. I'm not sure all of which is, but there was a question about the second meeting in November, which is pretty close to Christmas. COMMISSIONER FRYER: December. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: December. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: December, Im sorry. I had suggested to staffnot to utilize that unless we had some time-sensitive issue, and the only issue at that time seemed to be possibly the Immokalee master plan, which I'm not sure we'd want to start that before Christmas and then continue it into January, so I suggested we hear that in January. So do you know if we're going to have something that's needed on the 20th of December? MR. BELLOWS: Not to my knowledge. There are no items contemplated at this time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because if that date's going to be open, I would think for the benefit of everybody here, we ought to know that as soon as possible. Is that something you can confirm at some point? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. We'll do thattoday. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Good, thankyou. That takes us to the approval of the minutes. We were sent electronically the October 4th minutes. Does anybody have any corrections or changes? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'llmove their approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made byNed. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Seconded by Patrick. Page 2 of 49 November 1,2018 Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. Ray, BCC report? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. On October 23rd the Board of County Commissioners heard on the summary agenda the Russell Square. That was approved pursuant to Planning Commission recommendations. Regal Acres was heard on their public agenda, and that was approved 5-0 subject to the Planning Commission recommendations. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Good. Thankyou. Chairman's report. I don't have anything that needs to be added right now. Oh, back to BCC reports. Wasn't there a discussion on sea level rise, I know -- on that BCC meeting, too? MR. BELLOWS: I heard some of ig but I wasn't involved with it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just know we were following tha! and I just wanted to make sure it was acknowledged that we did hear it. Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I was there. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Did they answer all your questions, Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I just want to know when we're going to get the same presentation in front of the Planning Commission that we were promised after the Board meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then that's something, Ray, if you could get that scheduled, we'd appreciate that. MR. BELLOWS: We'll follow up with that. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKJ: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It can be the same one? You want to see it twice is what you're saying? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. I wouldn't mind seeing it trwice. I have some questions that I didn't ask during the Board meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then let's go ahead and get it scheduled, and probably after the holidays will be better, Stan, or is that pressing? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: The sooner the better. But you're righq after the holidays is good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Whatever works. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'm easy. I'll be here. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Good. There is no items on the consent agenda. And that takes us into our first advertised public hearings. Now, there are two companion items we're going to discuss them at the same time. We'll vote on them separately. I'll read them offtogether. First one is 9Al. It's the HallstaVGrey Oaks Development of Regional Impac! PL20170001729.[t's at the intersection of Golden Gate Parkway and Airport-Pulling Road. And the other is an amendment to the Grey Oaks MPUD. Same location. It's PL20170001548. Allthose wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. We'll start with disclosures on the Planning Commission with Page 3 of49 November 1,2018 Tom. MR. EASTMAN: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Just the same emails that everybody else got. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned? COMMIS SIONER FRYER: Communications with staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I've had two meetings with staffand two meetings with the applicant. Their team was diflerent both times, but still two meetings with their team members. I've reviewed a lot of records, had discussions with staffmembers that weren't at the regular meeting outside of that. And that's it. Go ahead, Karen. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: None, just email. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Oh, yes, and I received emails, too. Go ahead, Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Received an email from staffthat contained a letter of objection, and I briefly spoke with Wayne Arnold this morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Patrick? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Just emails and communication with staff CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we'll - like I said, Wayne, we're going to be discussing both concurrently, so if your presentation can combine those two, that would be great. MR. ARNOLD: Sure. Hi. Forthe record, I'm Wayne Arnold with Grady Minor & Associates. I'm a certified urban planner and here representing Al O'Donnell, who is the owner of the subject property. With me today is also Norm Trebilcock, who did our transportation analysis, and also John English with Barron Collier Peninsula Engineering, who's been involved with the project as well. So the application itself is, to me, fairly simple. It's a matter of relocating two unused access points, one on Airport Road and one on Golden Gate Parkway to Livingston Road in order to serve the proposed use of land under the Florida Power and Light easement. Of course, on the visualizer is an aerial photograph outlining all of Grey Oaks. The FP&L easement runs the entire linear length of the property's boundary along Livingston Road. Mr. O'Donnell owns all the property south of Grey Oaks Drive to the Florida Power & Light substation along that corridor. It'sjust under 30 acres ofland. This aerial photograph shows you the proposed locations of the two new access points. The northernmost access point is south of the existing traffrc signal, and it's at a location that already has a left directional furn lane which functions as a U-turn movement today, and our proposal would allow that to be utilized as a left turn into the property. Mr. O'Donnell's other altemative is to utilize the sigralized intersection at Grey Oaks, go through their gate and then into the subject property, which is not an ideal situation, probably, for anybody at Wyndemere, Grey Oaks, or Mr. O'Donnell. So we think that clearly makes sense to utilize the existing median opening there. And the entrance that's shown on the south is meant to be a right-in, right-out entrance, and it's a location that already has what has been historically used as a construction easement. At the neighborhood information meeting we obviously discussed, you know, our proposed plans. We had some residents from Wyndemere present. We had obviously a few folks from Grey Oaks that were present. I think there was concern about the general use of the property, and Mr. O'Donnell obviously owns landscape nursery operations. And many of you may know that he's been around Southwest Florida for several decades and is well known in the landscape business industry. So his proposal is to utilize it for one of the handful of uses that the PUD authorizes under the FP&L easement. And the PUD language that authorizes that is in Section 4.02 of the Grey Oaks PUD. I've highlighted that, but it's -- hopefully you can read that but it says, "storage, maintenance yards, and landscape nurseries within the FP&L easement," and that is exactly what we're proposing to utilize the property for. Page 4 of 49 November 1,2018 One of the questions that came up as part of the evaluation of this was, you know, Livingston Road's a controlled access corridor, and do we really need two access points for what otherwise is a fairly low traffrc-generating use. And Norm Trebilcock is prepared to give you some discussion on the traffic analysis that he did that's associated with the landscape nursery use that's being proposed for the application today. And, again, I just reaffirm we're not asking to change any use that's already permitted in the PUD. We're simply asking to shift the access locations. We created an exhibit, and I'll show it to you, too, just so it's clear. I call it our access exhibit. So the two circled access points that are on the left side of the screen is the southemmost access point at Airport Road and another access point along Golden Gate Parkway. Those access points were originally desigrred to serve what was going to be a fairly large commercial component of the DRI and PUD. And, obviously, the plans have changed, and that's now been developed as a residential tract, and those access points no longer make sense or are needed. So then you can see where we're proposing to shift those two new access points on the east side. We don't have any objections from the state. In fact, the state gave us what's known as an E2 letter, which means it's a local issue, and there's no regional issue associated with it. So we dealt with Collier County Transportation, and we believe everything we've proposed here meets their access spacing criteria. So with that, I think I'm going to tum it over to Mr. Trebilcock and let them talk to you a lifile bit about traffic, and then if you have some questions, we'll be happy to answer them. MR. TREBILCOCK: Thank you, Wayne. Good morning. For the record, my name is Norman Trebilcock with Trebilcock Consulting Solutions. I'm a professional engineer and certified planner, and our firm prepared the traffic analysis for the project. And lll just review that with you-all this moming as well. As Wa1,ne mentioned, from a traffrc standpoint we'll look at the lnstitute of Transportation engineer's land uses when we analyze traffic, and so there's some existing and approved development for the project, and probably the key is, as Walme had mentioned, there's over 1.2 million square feet of general office and shopping center that aren't going to be built on the project there. And then with our proposed development it's really a nursery, wholesale nursery. ITE looks at it as Land Use Code 818. And when you look at that land use code, the key thing in looking at that is, you know, does it fit what we're asking for? And, yes, it does in terms of serving contractors and also landscaping services in the description. A key, though, is a sample size is very small. For the acreage independent variable, there was only one land use size that ITE had. So that can always be questionable when we have such a small land use size, and it was a 6-acre site in Califomia. And staff had that question as well. You know, does this make sense and fit? So what we did result, we looked a! you know, other landscape operations in the area, the one at Orange Blossom and Airport. That's within a PUD are4 but it has landscape contracting within that, and then also -- CHAIRMAN STRAN: Can you back up. I don't mean to intemrpt but on that page you said that PUD on Orange Blossom has landscape contracting within it? MR. TREBILCOCK: Well, what -- I'm sorry. The evidence is - and I've seen for myself because I live in the are4 is you have the landscape contracting services, like the typical trucks that we see for landscape contracting, and you can see it in the aerial of those vehicles and stuffthat do that kind of service that's within that area. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: You said that the PUD has - (Multiple speakers speaking.) MR. TREBILCOCK: No, no, no,I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and it does not. MR. TREBILCOCK: No, no, no. I apologize. What it is is we've got basically a wholesale landscape operation going on within this are4 and I was just using it as just kind of an example of a typical wholesale operation that we see in the area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just read that PUD, and I know that - Page 5 of49 November 1,2018 MR. TREBILCOCK: Correct. You're absolutely right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It isn't what it sounded like. I wanted that correction. Thank you. MR. TREBILCOCK: Thank you. And just another example would be the Squares over offof Collier Boulevard and Sabal Palm Road where, again, you see, similarly on the aerial, I saw the same type of thing. So based on that, what we did is, empirically, working with the client developed the landscape contracting portion. So we ran the typical ITE, but in addition we ran the landscape contracting operations. And, conservatively, we would be on the high side, but that's really where we want to be in terms of making sure that, A, there's no capacity issues on the surrounding roads, and also that when we get into site design, that things are sized correctly, turn lanes, et cetera. So that's how we've developed what we did and prepared for the project. But the intention was, this really is representative of the landscape operations for the project, and that's what we had created. ln terms of equivalency, so this would be equivalent to 70,000 square feet of shopping center from a trip generation standpoint. And then also, we looked at the distribution and the haffic analysis and the peak-hour movements, and so then we used that in our analysis to make some conclusions. We looked at background haffic used in the AUIR numbers and grew that traffic, looked at those volumes. Also, we looked as well at the existin g capacity out there. The bottom line, the surrounding roadway lengths will be operating at a satisfactory level of service with or without the project. The project impacts to the area road network were not significant, nor were they adverse. They were under the percentages we typically have. As Wayne had mentioned, the two connections, we would - and the one we would match the existing median opening for a right-in, right-out and left-in, and then down to the south there was an existing construction access that we were planning to utilize as well as a right-in, right-out. And during the site improvement process, we had planned to provide tum lanes and extensions its necessary based on that fine-tuned analysis. So in looking at the analysis, as was pointed out, we're looking to move the two accesses offof Airport -- the one offof Airport and the one offof Golden Gate Parkway and move them to Livingston Road. These two accesses, as proposed, they are 1,800 feet apart. The site itselfhas 4,000 feet offrontage along Livingston Road. The frontage length, when you use -- this is a Class 2 facility, which is really one of the highest classes we have in Collier County, but with our fiontage, we would qualify for three access points. They're 1,320 feet apart. We're looking at two here. One of the additional benefits of having these two access points -- again, we're not a real high generator, but it does allow Florida Power & Light to have access to their transmission facilities, which they like to see along roadways as well. So that was another one of the factors tha! you know, we just had in mind there because of the nature of the site. So, really, in our conclusion, we don't exceed the traffic generated by the PUD ordinance. The project isn't a significant and adverse traffic generator. The use of the existing site drives and modifiing them is warranted, and it provides for good site access for the project and also for Florida Power & Light and, in the mitigation, the removal of the access offof Golden Gate and Airport and also with the less intensive land uses, and our established existing DRI mitigation really should be deemed complete and satisfactory for the project. And with that, I'm available for any questions. CFIAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll start with anybody have any questions of the applicant? Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Oh, the first one, I guess, is for Mr. Trebilcock. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Your study showed l2totalpeak p.m. trips. How would that justify two points of ingress and egress offof Livingston? MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. Our study really didn't show 12. It showed the greater arnotnt,lT2 peak-hour trips, but also access management criteria isn't based on trip generation numbers. It's really a spacing criteria. If you look at our access management resolution, it doesn't specifu with so many trips you Page 6 of 49 November 1,2018 get so many access points. Really, in a case like this, this linear project, with 4,000 feet of frontage along Livingston Road, there can be good justification, and I believe we've presented that. And also the externality of providing Florida Power & Light additional access to their major transmission facilities, I think, warrants it and makes sense, and the fact that there are existing drives in the area also makes sense. So that was the rationale. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Actually, I don't agree with you from the perspective of people driving along Livingston. I think they have other considerations and concems, such as safety. MR. TREBILCOCK: Sure. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I take it, though, that you're not willing to amend your request to just one access point? MR. TREBILCOCK: Well, again, we, you know, feel like we've provided -- one of the concepts may be that southern access would be an exit only is a possibility, but you know, we feel that it makes sense. It's a reasonable request that's being made given the size of the property. And also, in terms of from a safety standpoint that's a key why we would, when we come in to do a site improvement plan, we'd provide a right-of-way permit application, and Collier County does have turn-lane warant requirements and sizing requirements to make sure that a project does provide the appropriate safety, which we would do, so... COMMISSIONER FRYER: On Page 35 of the packet, Mr. Trebilcock, you say, "Neither the nursery nor landscaping uses are available to the general public, and the only traffrc accessing the site will be employees and their respective commercial vehicles entering and exiting the site." Is that true? MR. TREBILCOCK: It's for the wholesale nursery operation. So it's not -- it's not open to the general public. COMMISSIONER FRYER: But you say, "The only traffic accessing the site will be employees and their respective commercial vehicles." That's not true, is it? MR. TREBILCOCK: I'm not -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Page 35 of the packet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He's probably looking -- if you look at the TIS in the explantation in the paragraphs as to how you got to your traffic calculation, Norm, I think you said there were 50 trucks with five employees each. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then you had discounted the employees as possibly carpooling - MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. CFIAIRMAN STRAN: - to get to the number you got but there would be about 200 -- I think you said there would be five employees per truck, so that would be -- average or -- MR. TREBILCOCK: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- close to. That means there's about 250 employees coming and going from the site, and then 50 trucks coming and going from the site. Is that a - MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Doesthathelp - COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. It just conflicts with what you wrote. MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. Oh, yeah. I mean, as a wholesale operation, you typically have deliveries and other such things. I guess I was trying to -- you know, maybe I didn't make it broad enough, you know. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, you would also, would you not, have other wholesalers or landscapers coming to pick up vegetation to plant? MR. TREBILCOCK: Well, it would be associated with this nursery. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yeah. And that - well, again, that - I believe that the ITE trip generation really, I think, captured that portion of it. What we felt it didn't capture as well is kind of our local conditions PageT of49 November 1,2018 we have where you have the landscape contracting operations. And, again, I feel it's a conservative and high number that we had but, you know, I don't think that's inappropriate either. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. I don't have any more questions of Norm. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Why don't -- anything of Wayne? MR. TREBILCOCK: Well, Wayne had more presentation. I'm sorry. My bad. I apologize. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you have something, Stan, you wanted to ask while Norm's up here? And then did you have something, Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I have questions, but I'll waittill Wayne's finished. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Just a little clarification. Norm, if you were dealing with a blank piece of land with a mile of frontage, how many access points do you think you could get? MR. TREBILCOCK: Well, if it was a mile of frontage, it would be -- you'd be potentially, yefr, four -- four points of ingress and egress you could potentially have along that length. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKJ: Just for a blank piece of land with nothing on it? MR. TREBILCOCK: For ablank, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKJ: Okay. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wayne? MR. ARNOLD: Mr. Strain, I'm sorry. I forgot to introduce Leo Salvatori as part of our team, and I think Leo wanted to make a couple of comments before we got into the general questions. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Yeah. He started looking around wondering what's going on here. MR. ARNOLD: I apologize to Leo and the Planning Commission. MR. SALVATORI: Lawyers are used to being overlooked, so that's okay. I'm Leo Salvatori. I represent the O'Donnells. Just a couple of things. It's really not so much traffrc oriented as it says drive oriented. And, really, Chairman Strain, this is actually a continuation of our discussion that we had yesterday. And there was some discussion yesterday about whether or not the nursery is a permitted use on this property as a result of where it's located within a PUD and as a result of the comments that were made back in 1990 at the time that this PUD was enacted. And I was not at the 1990 meeting. But I went through it again after we had our meeting, and as you saw on the handout, it is shown as a permitted use under Section 4 which talks about golf course, recreationaVpark rightof-way as it's titled; however, when you got into it, it does say for its purpose, includes dedicated easements and utility connections. So the title does not say anything about what's involved in the easement; however, the purpose clause does. And all this land is within that dedicated easement area. This land is primarily FP&L easement and, of course, there's also your force main easement that goes through there as well. And as we talked about yesterday -- again,I wasn't there, and I didn't represent any of the parties involved. But I'd have to think that at the time this PUD was being discussed that what, if anything, was going to go under the FP&L easement lines was probably at the absolute tip of the tail of the dog that was being discussed at the time. I'm sure this was not everyone's focal point. It just happens to be today. But I think the use that's being made, obviously, is fairly modest as far as a wholesale nursery. The other discussion was -- Chairman Strain brought up because he always does his homework. There was some discussion back in 1990. I think it was, you said, Commissioner Saunders that said there will never be any commercial uses being made of this site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Actually, Livingston Road corridor. I can read the stipulation to you to be exact, if that will help. MR. SALVATORI: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll get to it eventually. There's so many documents on this project that it took a while to -- here it is. And this says, Commercial Saunders, actually, was involved with this when he was on the board in 1990, and he stipulated the same stipulation for both the DRI and the PUD. And, basically, a motion to approve and the additional stipulations that there be no commercial in the vicinity of Livingston Road. Now, at that time the commercial that was shown for Livingston Road, and the Page 8 of49 November 1,2018 only one I can find on record being discussed, was where the Orchid Run apartments are. And because of Comprehensive Planning staffs position that that was outside of the activity center by a mile or so, you really couldn't - they were finding - they found it inconsistent with the Growth Management Plan. And I believe that was probably what may have got the Commission to be concerned about it, and they stipulated there will be no commercial in the vicinity of Livingston Road. So that was the reference I was referring you to. And, previously, I believe I gave a copy of it to Wayne, so hopefully you'd seen it. MR. SALVATORI: Understood. My point was this: I think any buyer that's going to look to buy a piece of propefty, see what the uses are, going to look at the applicable zoning, and the PUD we have in front of it does say clearly, storage, maintenance yards, and landscaping nurseries within FP&L easements or right-of-way, et cetera. There's nothing within the PUD document that, to me, is an ambiguity that would invite a purchaser to look at the minutes of the meeting when a PUD was enacted. As you said, there are a number of comments there. Why it didn't find its way into the document I don't know, but I do think it's unfair to burden a purchaser with having to look at the minutes of a PUD that seems otherwise clear on its face as the use. Again, this has nothing to do with the traffrc and the purpose that we're here, but I know that was a factor that was being considered, and I thought I wanted to bring that up to make sure people were aware of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Appreciate it. Thank you. MR. SALVATORI: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Was that simply a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Was that simply a minute? I'm sorry? CHAIRMAN STRAN: Pardon me? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Was that simply a minute, or was it part of a motion? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It was part ofa motion. COMMISSIONERFRYER: Okay. So it's notjust minutes? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. And there's more detail. And I appreciate Leo's briefing on it. But there are more elements that I have questions about thal when I get to my questions, we'll see where they go. MR. SALVATORI: And not to disagree with you either, Mr. Fryer, but my point was this: No purchaser's going to look beyond the PUD if it seems like its unambiguous on its face. And I don't think the Collier family would have sold the properly to the O'Donnells knowing that the only thing that he would get out of it was bragging rights that he owned the land that's undemeath the FP&L easement and the force main. That's my consideration. So I'm not disagreeing with Chairman Strain. I'm just saying in terms of precedent there's a precedent also to be had as to the landowner perspective as well that needs to be considered. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well -- but the motion that was made by the commissioner and that was adopted restricts commercial uses. MR. SALVATORI: I understand what you're saying. My point is this: It didnt find its way into the PUD document. And you have a purchaser now nearly 30 years later looking at a document that appea$ unambiguous on its face. It appears that the use is there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think if you -- let's get through some more questions, and maybe you'll see why I am having trouble with it. And I'm not saying that -- I don't know how to review this because of the conflicted statements I found in the earlier documents. I've asked David Weeks to attend the meeting today as part of -- a person who could probably help us understand this; certainly me. I need to know what direction all the staffmembers are going. So I think if you hold on just a little bit, some of this may come to a more reasonable understanding. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. Just a question. Hi, Leo. How you doing? Page 9 of49 November 1,2018 MR. SALVATORI: Fine, sir. Yourself? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: When I dealt with FP&L, I was told by FP&L that they pay so much for their easements but don't take the land because they don't want to be a landowner. But they pay a lot for their easements because they want total control over the easement. MR. SALVATORI: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And they will -- once they buy the easement -- I assume you've read the easement document here. MR. SALVATORI: I have. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And they are the only ones that have control over the uses on here; well, other than the county Planning Commission. MR. SALVATORI: Pretty much. I mean, we all have seen FP&L easements. You can't go vertical other than a few feet on it. And, obviously, they paid for that easement, I presume, to the Collier family incident to their getting the easement in the first place. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. Their easements are not normal easements. MR. SALVATORI: No. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKJ: Yeah, okay. MR. SALVATORI: One last thing, and getting back to your point, too, sir, in terms of commercial use, the minutes didn't really say what a commercial use was. Is this going to be a commercial use? I think so. I call it enhanced ag. It's going to be primarily furnishings - landscaping, obviously, but it's not storefront either and not office space either, and that's the million-two square foot they've got left on the table. And, unfortunately, that wasn't clear in the minutes either, so that's why we're thinking that there are some equities here that need to be considered. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Anybody have any questions now? Go ahead, Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Question to Wayne. Can you describe the use as wholesale what that -- does that mean any commercial landscaper in the county can go in there and purchase landscape materials? Is it open as a -- basically for wholesale but only to commercially licensed landscapers? MR. ARNOLD: Wayne Amold, forthe record. The Land Development Code does not define landscape nurseries. What we're going on is basically what the ITE standard calls out for landscape nurseries. And I think -- if you can switch back to the visualizer, Ray, it's a fairly short definition, but we think it clearly encumbers everything that Mr. O'Donnell's nursery operations include, which is it's growing materials, it's managing materials. It's providing wholesale materials. It's not a general retail sales open to the public. And to build on what Leo said, if I could take a moment. The PUD was very explicit as to what commercial uses are for this PUD. None of those commercial uses are permitted under this FP&L easement. There are three uses permitted under the FP&L easement, and I agree with Mr. Salvatore, they are sort of quasi-agriculfural uses. It says you can have storage yards, maintenance yards, and landscape nurseries. It doesn't say I can have commercial uses otherwise, but it does say I can have a landscape nursery, and that is exactly what Mr. O'Donnell's doing. So we don't think it's ambiguous, and we believe that it's very clear that this PUD contemplated that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But was that a landscape nursery for only internal use by the Grey Oaks community for replacing landscape material, or did it imply that it could be a wholesale business? MR. ARNOLD: Ive seen nothing in the record that would imply that it was only for Grey Oaks'use. And, in fact, it wasn't developed by Grey Oaks, and the Collier family sold the land separately. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But I guess to use the term, Joe Public can't pull in there and buy two trees? MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. That's our interpretation. It's a wholesale mrsery. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Again, would it be just a commercial entity that would pull in there and be able to buy wholesale? MR. ARNOLD: Yes. Mr. O'Donnell is one of those entities. For instance, he grows and maintains landscaping. He installs landscaping. And this was primarily for his use. I wouldn't want to say that he's Page 10 of49 November 1,2018 going to prohibit another landscaper from coming in to buy some material from him, but it's not open for you and me to go purchase landscape materials on Sunday moming. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. So -- but it's still open to general landscapers to come in and purchase material? MR. ARNOLD: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I have a question of Mike Sawyer. I want to talk about the history of Livingston Road. I know some of this goes way back, or at least the PUD goes way back long before Livingston Road was extended. Of course, I have the knowledge since - being on staffback in the early 2000s. When Livingston Road was extended, there was some significant restrictions when it went before the county as far as limited access and availability for faffic to move unobstructed with interchanges and intersections. So does this violate anything that was approved by the county in regards to the Livingston Road extension when it was approved and where it now is providing access where once it was deemed there would be no additional access points, or is this any violation of that, or is this in conformance with what Livingston Road originally was, as approved by the county back when it was extended? MR. SAWYER: Certainly. For the record, Mike Sawyer, Transportation Planning. It is not. It does meet our access management. Livingston Road is a limited-access road, if you will, and we do want to protect that. The more access points that we've got, we do have a lowering of capacity that's associated with that. In this case it does meet the reasonableness test, if you will, depending on what the actual use is going to be. We are only required to give them one access poin! however. We do have that ability to limit, if we feel it's necessary, to a single access point. To be honest the TIS has transitioned, if you will, from this project from a wholesale nursery to a second TIS that showed a number of additional uses to a third one that shows simply the wholesale as well as the commercial aspects of the installation crews. At this point our opinion is that because of the length of the property itself, it is, in fact, reasonable to have two access points, and it does meet our access management. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Is the northern access point a full opening? MR. SAWYER: No, it is not. Neither of them are actually a full opening. The northern access has a right-in, right-out, left-in access. It does not have a left-out. So in that case, it does not have a full opening. The second southern access is simply a right-in, right-out. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So no -- I don't want to say -- there's no intent or at least doesn't appear to be any intent for any future signalization at the northern opening? MR. SAWYER: No, certainly not. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I think it should prohibit any attempt to have any signalization there. MR. SAWYER: Commissioner, I would have to look and measure that ou! but I'm not sure that would ever -- number one, I don't think it would ever meet warrants or distance. We do have a signal that is just to the north ofthis access. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: North. MR. SAWYER: And we had actually explored that with the applicant. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And I think, Norm, you wanted to add to that? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. Well, Mike hit it on the head. Again, Norm Trebilcock. But the proximity to the existing signal would prohibit us. And, also, one of the rationales here was to really have this access down so that we don't really infringe upon, you know, the existing residential developments there at Wyndemere and also Grey Oaks. So that was part of the other is to really kind of keep us, you know, out of that are4 and that was something that really had come up from the residents, and we thought this was, you know, a good measure to help out there, so... COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So with this, with the left ou! if you're having a left turn out - MR. TREBILCOCK: No. We don't have a left-out. We have a left-in. The left-out is left out. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correction, left-in. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. Page 1l of49 November 1,2018 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The only other way, then, if you didn't have a left-in, you'd have to go to the light and do a U-turn? MR. TREBILCOCK: Exactly. So what we want to do is kind of keep ourtraffrc away from the communities there, and so we thought this was a, you know, good measure. And, again, the other one to the south is where there is an existing driveway cut that had been used historically for construction access into Grey Oaks. So, you know, we try and work with driver expectation and, again, we would improve any safety measures that are required by the right-of-way manual so that it doesn't impact the capacity of the roadway. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's all l've got. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions ofthe applicant? Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Are you going to add additional lighting here above and beyond the lighting that's already out there? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Streetlighting, you mean? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Streetlighting, yeah. MR. TREBILCOCK: That's a good question. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Well, thank you. MR. TREBILCOCK: Well, that is typically an SDP. The staff would look atthat, you're right. They'd look at just an entrance. It would just be an entrance, some lighting, and there's also restrictions with Florida Power & Light. You can't be any higher than 14 feet. So the only thing I believe we would have is kind of minimal site lighting, but it would allbe in compliance with FP&L criteria which really minimizes the height as well. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: So if you were on the other side of the street you probably wouldn't notice any additional glare above and beyond what's already there? MR. TREBILCOCK: No. It would be less than the 40, you know -- they're not 4O-foot height lights there, but it would be less than the current streetlighting that's out there, correct. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yeah, we'd be limited in height. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions ofthe applicant? Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I just have one. Mr. Amold, you mentioned that there was nothing in the record with respect to the original uses of this sliver of a parcel, but a letter was submitted by Jean.Foster. I don't know if you've seen that. It's now part ofthe record. MR. ARNOLD: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And in it it says, "It's my understanding that the property was never zoned for commercial use but was to be utilized for staging landscaping materials for the build and nothing else." Do you have any evidence to contradict that? MR. ARNOLD: I don't have any evidence to support what she says. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Or to contradict it? MR. ARNOLD: Orto contradict it. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. MR. ARNOLD: But we don't believe that was ever the intent, to limit the use to only Grey Oaks' staging. CFIAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I have quite a bit of questions, but I'm hoping that staffwill resolve many of them and I won't have to ask them. So I'm going to go to the staffreport next, because my questions will be predominantly from staff. I have talked in depth with the applicant. They know my concems. I'm going to see where staffcan go with the questions that I have. Page 12 of 49 I November 1,2018 And so, Nancy, do you have a -- let's start with any comments you have. We have your staff report. Do you have anything you want to add, explain, get into with the staffreport? MS. GUNDLACH: Good morning. For the record, Nancy Gundlach, principal planner with the zoning division. And I don't have anl.thing that I want to add to the staffreport. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the past I've asked you, does staffhave a report. We have the report, so that was kind of - over all these years, I've finally figured that probably wasn't the right question to ask you. So we've got your report. Does the staff have anything they want to add? And your conclusion in that report was a recommendation ofl MS. GLINDLACH: Recommendation of approval, and it is approval with the recommendation that the land use is limited to the wholesale nursery only. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And did you review this PUD for the traffrc entrances? That's what the application was for, so that's what you're really referring to in your recommendation is one entrance for landscaping nursery only; is that correct? I'm just trying to understand, because there's been multiple reports, and there's over, I think, close to what, 6- or 700 pages involving all the reports we got. So I'm trying to nail it down. What is your final recommendation from stafl MS. GUNDLACH: I'm going to defer to -- I'm going to ask Mike Bosi to come and testify. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did Mike Bosi write the staffreport? MS. GUNDLACH: He's the director that reviews the staffreport. CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I know that. But did he write the staffreport? MS. GLINDLACH: No. I wrote the staffreport. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you don't know if you've -- what you're recommending in that staff report? MS. GTINDLACH: Well, we've had several changes with the memos and with statements made at the hearings this morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's confusing. Go ahead, Mike. MS. GLTNDLACH: It is. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. We had provided a recommendation within our original staffreport and we defened to transportation and the access management plan. Two access points met the criteri4 and we deferred to -- we deferred to the department which administers our policies regarding access points. We had revised our recommendation to - based upon the TIS and the TIS calling out -- and our perception, or our understanding, was a landscape nursery and additional landscape subcontracting. And we saw that as two distinct uses that were allocated within the TIS. And based upon that -- based upon those two distinctions, we recommended - we've revised our recommendation to limit it to one access poing but the purpose of why we did that is because we wanted to get the use question out in the open. We still defer to the access management plan and the Transportation Department in terms of where is the appropriate access points for this use. What we were trying to do with our revised recommendation was to put the use question so we could describe what are the activities that are associated with a landscape nursery and what are uses that would not be so we can make sure that we are consistent with the PUD's -- the uses as prescribed by the PUD. So that is the reason why we modified our recommendation to one access point. But it wasn't based upon the access management policy. It was based upon the recognition from staffthat there was a question towards the uses that were allowed and being proposed within this property, and that's what the recommendation was to put that forward and promote the discussion with the Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So in summary, you're recommending approval for one entrance point with a limitation of wholesale nursery and 12 trips; is that a fair statement? MR. BOSI: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then let's clariff the -- Page 13 of49 j November 1,2018 MR. BOSI: Staff is recommending approval of the requested PUD amendment per the recommendation of Transportation related to the access points with the clarification that the only use that's allowed for on this property is a landscape nursery. MR. KLATZKOW: Are you recommending one or two access points? MR. BOSI: From staffs perspective, from what I heard -- MR. KLATZKOW: This is -- the Chairman asked what's the staff report. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm still tryingto getto - yeah. MR. KLATZKOW: So staffs -- MR. BOSI: Two access points. MR. KLATZKOW: The applicant is asking for two access points. Do you agree or disagree with that? MR. BOSI: From staffs recommendation, yes, two access points. MR. KLATZKOW: Two access points, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Go ahead, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Then in recommending two access points, has stafftaken into account the potential for safety issues on Livingston? MR. BOSI: Once again, the Zoning Department coordinates the reviews for staff. The staff perspective from transportation review -- MR. KLATZKOW: Mike's notthe right guy forthis question. MR. BOSI: -- met two access points. We are putting forward the recommendation that has come from staff collectively. The application of the ingress and egress points will be transportation right-of-way based upon the access-management policies. They've satisfied -- they've indicated that the spacing between the access points satisfies the access-management criteria; therefore, they're recommending two access points. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Will somebody be able to speak to the safety question? MR. BOSI: I am sure that Trinity or Mike can, but I believe that that is inherent within every review of any ingress/egress permit that would be issued by this county that safety is a consideration. It is always an underlying principle : MR. KLATZKOW: Mike, you're the land-use guy. The transportation person's Trinity. MR. BOSI: Okay. MS. SCOTT: I'm sorrSr. I was in the hallway this morning. Could I get sworn in. Sorry. (The speaker was duly swom and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. SCOTT: For the record, Trinity Scott Transportation Planning manager. Yes, we will take safety into consideration when the access points are finalized during the Site Development Plan process. They will do further analysis, further operational analysis. Currently, if - this is where it's a little confusing. If the TIS, the last TIS that we received, holds true, which includes a wholesale landscape nursery along with the contractor services, the two access points certainly meets our access managemen! and we could support that. MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. Hold on. But that's based on a land use that Mr. Bosi disagrees with, correct? MR. BOSI: No. There's been no disagreement from staff. Staffis trying to allocate that the use -- MR. KLATZKOW: No, no. She -- MR. BOSI: The uses permitted by the PUD is a landscape nursery. What we're trying to clarifo and what I think we're trying to get from the applicant to describe within that box of a landscape nursery what are the activities that traditionally would be associated -- MR. KLATZKOW: You two are talking two separate uses. Mike, in your opinion, what's the approved use of this parcel? MR. BOSI: A landscape nursery. MR. KLATZKOW: Trinity, based on a simple landscape nursery, one or two access points? MS. SCOTT: If it's shown as it is in the TIS -- MR. KLATZKOW: No, no, no. Page 14 of 49 November 1,2018 MS. SCOTT: -- a wholesale nursery - this is what I have to go by -- (Multiple speakers speaking.) MR. KLATZKOW: No, no. You guys are talking two separate things. You're basing your opinion on a land use that Mr. Bosi doesn't necessarily agree with, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, didn't -- Mike, hold on, please, for just one minute. Didn't -- I think we - Trinity, I believe when I spoke with you and maybe Mike at one meeting, you guys had notified zoning staffof a concern over the use that these entrances were going to be used for. First of all, is that true or not? MS. SCOTT: ln our review comments in our first round of reviews -- and Mike Sawyer could come up. In our first round of reviews, we asked for a developer commitment to limit this to a wholesale nursery because that was the original TIS that we received. And then through our reviews, as Mike indicated, Mike Sawyer indicated previously, the land use changed within the TIS. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. SCOTT: Got broader, it kind of scaled back, but it never went back to what the original TIS said, which was a wholesale nursery. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I think the question we're trying to clari$ is, is Transportation staff looking at this as that use that generates the traffic, and is the ZonnglComprehensive Planning staff looking at it in the same manner? Is that a fair question for you guys - can you guys be on the same page there? MR. BOSI: And that's what I was trying to convey. The question - and I think we haven't gotten to the question -- what is the activities that are associated with a landscape nursery? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have been trying -- ye&, we've got a lot to get to yet, but that's going to be one of the things we'll get to. MR. BOSI: And I dont think -- we're @ing to make a decision before we've had the relevant facts that describe what those activities are. So I think from a -- from a zonrngperspective, the anticipation of today's hearing was to ty to define specifically what those uses are in agreement amongst the Board, amongst staff, and amongst the applicant as to what those are, and then a determination as to whether those are consistent with the landscape nursery as it's specifically provided for in the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. As we go through this, I have a methodical way of questioning today so - and I don't mind the tangents, but I'm going to keep going back to where I started or each time where I Ieft off. So with that, I think the - I had asked if there's any further questions of staff, and Nancy provided you as an opportunity to talk about the recommendation. I'll tum to the Planning Commissioners again, is there any further questions of any of you for staff at this point? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'll only say that I'm looking for clarity that I don't have yet, but maybe it will come out in your questions. CIIAIRMAN STRAN: Boy, I hope so. A thousand pages of documentation, or 800, is an a$firl lot of documentation. So, Nancy, I think we've got a very muddy picture of what you've recommended. But the questions I'm going to start with are pursuant to the PUD, and as the applicant's attorney had made a note, you know, the PUD is the document that their client would have reviewed. So let's start there and figure out where this happened. So if we Iook at Section 2.03, land uses of the PUD -- and it's on Page 9 of the PUD, which is Page I I of the second staffreport that we received. Oh, no, it's not. It's Page 07 -- it's Page I I of the PUD. I had to pull that out of CTS, so I don't know whether it is in your packet. MS. GI-INDLACH: I have it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On Page 9 under 2.03 land uses, it says, Table I is a schedule of the intended land use types. Total dwelling units, acreage and total square footage indicated, commercial square footage indicated. Can you show me on that master plan, which is Map Hl, where this is indicated to be a commercial operation? Page 15 of49 November 1,2018 And, first of all - maybe I'm jumping a little bit ahead -- does staffconsider the landscaping contracting use that's proposed as part of the wholesale nursery a commercial operation? I mean, well -- and we'll back up even one more. Did staffreview the intensity of a use that's being proposed here in relationship to the application that was just to move two entrances in? MR. BELLOWS: Forthe record, Ray Bellows, zoning manager. The application that we reviewed -- and it was my understanding when I was reviewing this project is we were dealing with a wholesale nursery as the uses stated and allowed in the PUD. A landscape nursery -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You reviewed the PUD then? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then let's focus on that as a starting point and then we'll get into the other issues. ln the reviewing of that PUD, did you find issues allocated on Table 1 of the PUD as referenced in 2.03,land uses, of the PUD? MR. BELLOWS: We're seeing it in Section 4. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Table I is not Section 4. MR. BELLOWS: You're reading from 2.03. We see it now. CHAIRMAN STRAN: If you go to Table 1, you've got a series of residential units, commercial total, office and retail, hotel, golf course recreation/park right-of-way, and that's referring to 54 holes. It doesn't say anything about any kind of nursery or any other commercial operation. Lake, water managemen! conservation. That's for the city - that's for the county part of it. Then there's also a breakdown for the City of Naples paft of it. I'm just wondering, do you see this particular operation in that table, or would you have been able to infer that was an allowed use as a result of that table? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. Staffwas looking at this as a permitted use. CFIAIRMAN STRAIN: Is it in that table? MR. BELLOWS: I don't see it listed there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So 2.03 of the PUD, you don't frrrd that listed in the reference to Table 1 in that location. Two paragraphs down on that same page under 2.03, it talks about subdivision review. At the time ofsubdivision and review approval for each subdivision phase, the location size and configuration ofland-use tract shall be identified along with the assignment or permit of residential and commercial land-use types. Now, I'm sure the subdivision they're referring to is the platting process in Collier County. I did pull the plats up. I found no reference to this. In fact, I find it as a Tract E, and I can't even locate what a Tract E is, but I don't find a reference to any kind of commercial activity on this portion of the PUD in the subdivision plans. Did you guys look at the subdivision plans? MS. GLINDLACH: No,I have not looked atthe subdivision plans. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We have a Table2.Table? indicates by project yearthe estimated absorptions of units and commercial square footage. Did you see any reference to this kind of operation in the absorption schedules on Table 2? lmean,I didn't, but maybe you guys looked at it and saw it differently. MS. GLTNDLACH: We don't see anything. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The category ofthe residential land use in the PUD, Section 3 -- actually, there's a reference there that I don't need to bring up. It's been answered, so we'll move to Section 4. First of all, do we have a separate residential and commercial component section to this PIID, a listing of the commercial uses allowed, and a listing of the residential uses allowed, and in Section 4 we've got the commercial golf course recreation and park right-of-way uses allowed. So, Nancy, is there commercial -- is there a separate commercial section in this PUD? MS. GUNDLACH: Yes, there is. It is Section 6. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Is the golf course -- I mean, not the golf course -- but the landscape operation listed as an allowable use within that commercial section? MS. GLINDLACH: We'll double-check. Page 16 of49 November 1,2018 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There's a garden center, but I didn't see a landscape nursery operation. MS. GI-INDLACH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it is listed, as the applicant says, as a landscape nursery under golf course, recreation/park, right-of-way. Now, that section of this PUD primarily deals with the golf course, clubhouse, driving range, rights-of-ways, dedicated easements, and utility corridors. These are all developer/development-related issues. You go down the list of principal uses, golf courses, tennis clubs and facilities, open space, recreational activities. Knowing that's a gated community and knowing that the club is membership, I believe -- I mean, I don't know if - I can't even get through the gate. So I don't see how any of the uses in that category would have necessarily been intended in the eyes of the people reviewing this in 1990, and certainly as we review PUDs today for those categories, necessarily looking at a commercial use. I would not have known that was a commercial use. And if I was a buyer, the first thing I would have done is picked up the PUD master plan and said, gee, this is a commercial use. Can I put my commercial use on Livingston Road? Irt's see what it says in the master plan. Do you know what the master plan says? Does it say commercial? Is it labeled commercial? MS. GUNDLACH: No. CHAIRMAN STRAN: I've got a couple more to go to on the PUD, then we're going to -- I've got to look at some questions about Comprehensive Plaruring. Under Section 7.03, environmental, does staffknow or does someone - maybe our Pollution Department would know. I assume they use fertilizers there and chemicals that are used for the plants. Are any ofthose considered hazardous? Does anybody know? Wayne, would you know if your applicant has any hazardous use of -- do they use fetilizers? MR. ARNOLD: Hi, I'm Wayne Arnold. I don't know specifically what fertilizers are used, but I'm assuming that any landscape maintenance facility does. I would assume, too, that the Grey Oaks golf course maintenance facility also utilizes fertilizers and other chemicals for use on the golf course. It's within the same PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAN: I don't doubt it either, but I thought this was an interesting clause. Under the section of - the environmental section, 7.03.4 - maybe staffcan tell me if it applies or not. "The developer must receive all appropriate state approvals for storing and handling hazardous materials prior to construction of the golf maintenance facilities" which, by the way, in the PUD, it Iooks like that's one of the uses you could have on this location. "All hazardous materials will be stored in a cenffal location removed from the Gordon River headwaters or Golden Gate Canal." "Removed from," I'm assuming that means a distance. "There will be no storage of hazardous materials that is in excess of two days' supply at the satellite facilities," and then "with the exception of petroleum storage." So I'm not sure how that applies, but did you as stafflook at the potential for fertilizers and operations at this location in regards to the hazardous materials that will be produced there or used there if there were any? MS. GUNDLACH: We didnot. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Did you question, at all, the applicant? MS. GUNDLACH: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the questions I have out of the PUD at this time. I do have some questions of Comprehensive Planning. Hi, David. MR. WEEKS: Good morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you for attending today. I asked Mike -- I figured you have a long history in Collier County, so if anybody would know what's going on with some of the questions I'd have, I was assuming it would be you. Just so -- and I don't know if Mike -- or you looked it up or Mike talked to you about it, but back PagelT of49 November 1,2018 when this project was originally approved in 1990, there was a debate by Comprehensive Planning staff and -- not a debate, a statement said: The distance of the Orchid Run apartments to the south side of Golden Gate Parkway where it was going to be a commercial component was inconsistent with the Growth Management Plan. They listed four or five different reasons why commercial couldn't be there. Now, the result of that was that in the end, I assume, that was part of what the commissioners at the time, the Board of County Commissioners, weighed in on, including Commissioner Saunders, to say, you know, we stipulate there will be no commercial on Livingston corridor. Can you tell me if the Comprehensive Planning staffwas correct in their analysis at that time and if that analysis has changed by current conditions of Comprehensive Planning. MR. WEEKS: I can. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WEEKS: I'm David Weeks ofthe Comprehensive Planning staff. Commissioner, there were only -- the first answer is yes, I agree that the staffwas correct at that time. The Comprehensive Plan or Growth Management Plan had just been adopted in 1989, ayear or two prior to this petition, and it only had three provisions for commercial uses. One was within our mixed-use activity center, which that Orchid Run site as well as the subject site are not within; secondly was a PUD commercial provision which was limited to the intensity of uses, and it was correlated to the amount of residential units and the size of the PUD; did not comply with that provision; and, thirdly, it was for what's called an infill commercial provision, which it clearly would not apply to as well. It would have to be abutting commercial. So in summary, again,I would say yes, staffwas correct in their analysis in 1990 -- yes, 1990. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And did you notice also they were concerned - I think they actually referenced a strip or linear zoning as another concern they had if the commercial was over on Livingston corridor. Actually, I highlighted that, if I could find it. MR. WEEKS: That makes sense, because with the adoption of the 1989 Comprehensive Plan, that included the creation of these mixed-use activity centers. And one of the main purposes of that was to try to concentrate commercial at major intersections and to avoid the strip or linear pattern of commercial. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I did find it. Whatthey said is the commercial components are designed in a strip pattem and are considered isolated tracts. So that was their basis for, again, an inconsistency. Okay. So you believe they were correct in their findings. What would have been your findings today in relationship to commercial or -- well, first of all, I know you don't get into uses, but just general commercial uses along Livingston Road at that location, or the location to the north that we're talking about specifically. MR. WEEKS: Right. Neither the Orchid Run site or the subject site would qualifo under today's Comprehensive Plan for commercial zoning, and that is the perspective of evaluating a petition for consistency with the Future Land Use Element. As you just said, we don't look at an individual use. We look at the zoning district that would be required for that use, and then we determine if that zoning district would be consistent with any of the commercial locational criteria in the Comprehensive Plan. So the starting point is to look atthe Zontng Services staff, defer to them to determine, is this a commercial use? That is, is it a use that requires commercial zoning, and if it is, then we will evaluate whether that commercial zoning is consistent with the Future Land Use Map and Element provisions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's -- that answers the questions I had, David. Thank you. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I may have more, but if you don't mind sitting here to listen till the hearing's over, that would be helpful. Ray, now that we've understood from the component of Comprehensive Planning, do you know what a zontngverification letter is? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How many of those do you do, say, within a week or a year or a month? I see quite a few of them, but do you do a lot of those? MR. BELLOWS: A lot. Page 18 of49 November 1,2018 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And what do people use those for? MR. BELLOWS: To get assurance from the county in writing of confirming zoning requirements and use as well as other zoning-related questions. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Can you provide me with a zoning verification letter for this property in question? MR. BELLOWS: I will have to look for it. I don't have it on me now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know if one was done? MR. BELLOWS: I don't recall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If one was done, Nancy, would you have put it in the packet? MS. GUNDLACH: Of course. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do you have an official interpretation since this has become a level of concern as far as how it applies? Did anybody request an OI, official interpretation? MR. BELLOWS: No. CHARMAN STRAIN: Okay. Nancy or Ray, have you had the opportunity, since the question of the application was for entryways and it was a PUDA in which they could have, by the way, asked for zoning certification or verification in this location - they chose not to. They just simply recommended - suggested they already have that even though the section of the PUD that that is under is generally a section applied to community amenities and community-related factors; at least that's how I've always seen them. It's a little interesting that we have a commercial use that's not in the commercial listed components, and it's not on the master plan listed commercial, and I asked the applicant yesterday to produce any documents they had that showed this use to be have been discussed historically for that location. There aren't any. And I think the idea that it's the tip of the tail wagging the dog, okay, maybe no one saw that as an issue. My concem was that at the time there were other PUDs looking at landscape nurseries. Some of those - but it was mostly, the ones I found, the Vineyards being an example and I think it was Audubon, were for developer landscaping nurseries, developer, so the developers, is if they had a long project, will grow some of their own material, and they would move it onto the project. And I don't know how this should be classified from an SIC code. I found four dif[erent numbers. Have you guys done any of the research to figure out what the SIC classification of this was supposed to be or should be? MS. GUNDLACH: I did do some research. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And did you come up with any conclusion? MS. GLTNDLACH: Landscape contracting is listed under contracting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it would be SIC number what? MS. GLINDLACH: Hold on a second. I have it in my notes. I haveitl799. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know what commercial or what - where that falls in the MUNI code, for what zoning district? MS. GUNDLACH: Yes. It falls under C5 and industrial. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I did some research, too, trying to figure out how it fit, and sometimes I went to NAICS as a conversion because they're more detailed than SIC. I found several different categories: 0782,0783, and 5193. All three ofthose are allowed in industrialwith the exception of 0783, which is allowed in C4. And 0783 is titled omamental shrub and tree services. I don't know all of Mr. O'Donnell's businesses, so I'm not sure what he is classified as, but based on the submittal and being that landscape contracting is part ofthe wholesale operation, I wanted to understand how this actually fits into our code and to what zoning district it would be. So there's no commercial designation on the master plan? MS. GUNDLACH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's no discussion of the nursery as a commercial operation in any part of the PUD other than showing up under the amenities -- more or less amenities section of the PUD, which is golfcourse, recreational, and the rest ofit. Okay. I'm still, then, at a loss. I asked the applicant yesterday to produce any documentation they could to show where this was discussed as a commercial operation or an operation outside of, let's say, the Page 19 of49 November 1,2018 developer's program or even in the developer's program. I can't find any, and I don't believe they have. Maybe they can offer that up at rebuttal or when we come back to them a little later. But I don't have -- that's the last question I have, I think, Nancy, of you at this time. So I appreciate your time. I'm going to move through some other things just to be sure I've asked all the questions I have. I think -- no. Does anybody else on staff(sic) have any questions while I'm looking through the rest of mine? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAN: Nancy, in the administrative code, does the administrative code apply in the situation we're dealing with here today? MS. GUNDLACH: Yes, it does. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The administration code requires the master plan to show the offrce, retail, commercial, and residential components of a PUD. Did they offer any new master plan with this application, or we -- I don't believe we've touched the master plan. MS. GUNDLACH: The master plan shows the new access points. The new master plan does. CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I thought. And it was submitted for the access points, not for the use. MS. GLINDLACH: Correct. CI{AIRMAN STRAN: Okay. There are other sections ofthe PUD ordinance, PUD code that requires the sites within a PUD be referenced by residential community facilities commercially planned. I don't see this one industrial and a few others, mixed use. I don't see this one isolated out on any plans for the intended use that we're discussing today. I understand the language argument that the applicant's made, but my concern overall is that if this has not been isolated out as a separate and distinct use in regards to how it would apply to that property outside of the developer's application, I still have found no evidence to get us there, and that's what I've been looking for. I don't know if staffwould have come up with a different analysis if they were able to have reviewed this as an application for a rezone, that might have been the better solution, because then the restrictions on a rezone could have been instituted that would have brought in lighting and walls and buildings and site plans to show where things were going and buffers around the trucks that were going to be in and out. We don't have any of that in this application because it didn't come in that way. And that's been the frustrating part for me, so -- and I'm not used to having seen one like this. This is the first time this is approached. Under 1.03.01 of the LDC, it says the following: "ln construction, interpretation of the language of these regulations, the rules established in this chapter shall be observed unless such construction will be inconsistent with the manifest intent of the BCC as expressed in the Collier County GMP." Now, I believe we've got to - already acknowledged that there's a problem with the GMP in regards to potentially this use depending on how stafflooks at this use from a zoning matter. So I would think you don't have that answer -- you don't - do you have an answer on that today, or you're going to go with the limited research you've already done, or you feel that's enough on the SIC? The staffs concur this is a commercial use, a use that's allowed, or how have you -- MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. When staffreviewed this application, it was first thought of as a wholesale nursery, which is allowed in an agricultural zoning district, and that type of use is not deemed commercial use. A retail nursery is allowed in the agricultural zoning district through the conditional-use process. We did not feel that a landscape contractor, which is more of a commercial operation, was a permitted use, and that's why staffrecommendation was for the landscape aspect and not the contractor. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I want to clear up one thing on the agricultural use. When this PUD came in, they came in to change the zoning from ag to PUD, and in the uses allowed in the PUD, they don't list ag. So how would this have been contemplated as an ag use? MR. BELLOWS: They listed a use which is allowed in the ag district, which is wholesale nursery. Page 20 of 49 November 1,2018 CHAIRMAN STRAN: But is this an ag district? Is it an ag district? MR. BELLOWS: No, it is not. CFIAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Also under 1.03.01, it talks about interpretation, and it says - the last line, and I'm just paraphrasing pieces of it. The provision imposing the greater restriction or regulation shall be deemed to be controlling. Now, I know the applicant's position on this. I don't find anything to show that there's been -- this was allocated as a commercial location unless staffs got something to offer. I don't know how to get there. And then the provisions of the regulations that are - should be consistent with the GMP, and I think we already know that. And that's, I thinh the last item I have to discuss on this matter. Let me make sure that I had -- I got everything out of our Comprehensive Planning staff Hang on just a second. Okay. Does anybody else have any other questions? Go ahead, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I do. And I guess this is maybe better asked for the applicant. Maybe I should wait until redirect; however, let me just ask it anyrvay. Have you been in touch with the Grey Oaks Property Owners Association? Are they taking a position on this? MR. ARNOLD: Forthe record,Im Wayne Amold. The applicant has been in discussions with the Grey Oaks Property Owners Association management, and we had a letter supporting the project from that manager. MS. ASIIION-CICKO: Let me clarify the record for you. The letter of no objection came from the country club. We did not receive anything from Grey Oaks Estates Homeowners Association, lnc., or Grey Oaks Properties Association, lnc. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. And I assume that they were all notified, for instance, of the NIM by reason of their proximity to the - MR. ARNOLD: Yes. We notified everybody internally and extemally to the PUD that we're required under the notice requirements. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So nothing from the POA? MR. ARNOLD: We have no objection from them and I guess no support from that entity. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: We have nothing in writing from them. MR. ARNOLD: Mr. O'Donnell - CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. O'Donnell was swom in. MR. O'DONNELL: As I understand -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you identify yourself forthe record first. MR. O'DONNELL: Yes, Al O'Donnell. As I understand it, Jim Ink (phonetic) wrote the letter, and my understanding at the time was he was in charge of all of the community POAs and the golf course. MS. ASI{ION-CICKO: I did a corporate check, and he was not listed as an officer. He had no authority. I didn't receive anything on either of the HOA, only the country club. I asked for it repeatedly, and I did not receive anything. MR. O'DONNELL: At the time, I understand Jim Ink was the general manager of the whole project, all of the associations and everything. Maybe John English can speak to that. Yeah, I'm sorry, Jim Butler. He's not in that position anymore and -- MS. ASI{ION-CICKO: He was not listed as an officer or CEO. I was not able to get any information, and the letterhead indicated it was the country club. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions of staffor the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Then with that, we'll tum to public speakers. Ray, do we have any registered public speakers to start with? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. We have two speakers. The first one is Les LaBov and followed by Bill Confoy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And ifyou'll - Page2l of 49 November 1,2018 MR. CONFOY: Can we reverse the order? CHAIRMAN STRAN: That's fine. Just use one of the speakers. Identify yourself when you come up, and we'll be glad to hear from you. MR. CONFOY: Good morning. Thanks for letting me talk. This is Bill Confoy. I am on the board of the homeowners association at Wyndemere. And we are, like Grey Oaks, two distinct operations. The country club is one, and the homeowners is another. And we have separate issues outside of theirs, for instance. That's the homeowners. And in listening to this, it seems to me that Jean Foster's letter, I guess, which you guys all received, outlines some of our basic concerns. The master plan, I hear from you, is really not zoned for commercial use. And we have objections to the intended use which showed, if I read it right, was 50 trucks a day, five passengers per day. That's 250 vehicles operating on a gateway road with no cutout for entry or exiting. And that is a tremendous addition to the traffrc on an already-busy road. If you come out of Wyndemere and tum left at seven in the moming, that's about all you can go in the winter. And you just -- traffic is backed up all the way to Golden Gate Parkway. So adding in tmcks and 250 vehicles is going to cause some hazards, and we think that's going to cause accidents, or it will be an accident waiting to happen. We don't see it as something that we could live with because I, personally, am 500 feet from there. We only have a l0-foot wall. And any lighting that's 14 feet or higher, we're ceftainly going to see it like a circus, lit up. No fencing, no -- there may be even trailers put in there for all we know. There's been no mention of any trailers, because they're going to have to have some facilities for people that are - that are working there. So we don't -- we're not in favor ofthis particular use, especially if it's that kind of vehicle use on that particular road. We've had the police, by the way, come into Wyndemere and tell us that Livingston Road average speed is now 60 miles an hour during the peak period. And I know it shouldn't be, but it is. So we're going to have vehicles stopped and block traffic, and I could just see it, our first rear-ender, which is not often, if they go ahead with this. We have Mr. LaBov, by the way, is our president of the homeowners association, and we had addressed some issues that we would have if, God forbid, anything goes ahead. And I will cede that particular position, but we hope that this is not going ahead with their original petition, because it's very misleading. I took pictures of the signs out there. If you Iook at the signs on Livingston Road, there is no way you would envision any operation happening on Livingston Road other than putting in two driveways. It's been very misleading. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Confoy, is that your name? MR. CONFOY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Would you please educate me on Wyndemere? Are there any other points of ingress and egress down on Livingston? MR. CONFOY: Just at the light. Oh, no. We do have -- a little bit farther north we have a special enhance for trucks, commercial vehicles. COMMISSIONER FRYER: But everlthing is offLivingston? MR. CONFOY: Everything is offLivingston. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Next speaker, please. MR. LaBOV: Hi. I'm Les LaBov. I'm the president of the Wyndemere Homeowners Association, the president of the master association. Within Wyndemere we have 16 separate residential associations and one master that presides over the whole thing. I happen to be also the president of the GIen Meadow Association, which is one ofthe subdivisions. I'm basically going to reiterate everything Bill said. We have some very serious concerns. Our only Page 22 of 49 November 1,2018 entrance for the residents is directly across from this property. We're concerned about the traffic, the congestion, the safety. And then if this does go forward and you approve ig we would be very concerned about the aesthetics that goes with it: Signage, fencing, the lighting, like Bill said. If we're talking about 14 feet lighting, 14-foot lighting, it would - the entire Livingston Road residences will be looking at some bright lights. We're very concerned about that. So I would hope that you would take a very close look at this and make sure some of these concerns, that you consider these as you go forward. So thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And I have a question as a followup. If the applicant were to sit with you to try to figure out how to manage some of the concerns you have, is your position that no use whatsoever should be there, or the use that's being proposed either is not clear enough or it appears to be more intense than you wish it to be? MR. LaBOV: I think more the latter. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that's kind of the frustration I've had. I have two thresholds. That was one. And had this come in as a PUDA with the use as part of that request, we would have gotten a site plan, and all the things that you're talking about could have been addressed. It's hard to do it now because staffdoesn't analyze it that way, and we don't have a staffreporl reflecting a site plan or that analysis. So that's been part of the frustration I've seen in the way this was approached. But at the same time, too, my other frustration is the precedent-setting nature of this use being pulled out of the -- more or less, a community-related amenity section of the PUD and become a commercial use when it wasn't designated specifically as one, so I'm a little -- I havent figured out how to overcome that yet. But the second one that I had was the one dealing with questions like you're asking, and that the applicant might be able to, with some time, sit down with you and figure out a solution where everybody could be happy in that regard. MR. LaBOV: We agree with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I wanted to know. Thank you, sir. Anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any members of the public here who wish to speak who have not? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Go ahead, Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Based on all the testimony and questions, I'm now confused. Is the use considered commercial, or is the use considered an ag, or is it - it's considered * I know what it says in the PUD, but does staffbelieve this is a commercial use, or is it a use that's allowed in an agarea? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. The zoning ordinance for Collier County lists wholesale nurseries and retail nurseries as uses allowed in the agricultural zoning district, but they are also listed in some commercial zoning districts as well. They're also related to other similar operations, such as a garden shop, supply store. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I mean, I -- the nursery offof 951, is that on Palm, Sabal Palm Road, I mean, that's ag. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's strictly restricted to wholesale. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I can't drive in there and buy trees or bushes. MR. BELLOWS: Most of them are wholesale. There are a few that get the conditional use and can operate as a retail nursery in ag zoning. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But that, at Sabal Palm and 951, that's an agricultural zoned district so it's allowed in that site. Would this - this is in a PUD. Are you deeming this to be an ag use or a commercial use? MR. BELLOWS: Well, I think that's the purpose of the discussion today. Ceftainly, it's listed in the PUD as a permitted use - Page23 of 49 November 1,2018 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: As a permitted use. MR. BELLOWS: - on that subject property as depicted on the master plan; however, was it contemplated historically with the approval of the PUD to be limited to the development of that PUD? There seems to be some record, as presented today, that would support that concept. But that wasn't what staff analyzedwhen it came in. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And if you were asked to do a zoning verification letter or an official interpretation, you would have to do the research now to verif that. MR. BELLOWS: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm not going to ask you whether -- what you would deem it to be, but -- MR. BELLOWS: I just received notice staffdid research, and there has no (sic) been a zoning verification letter dealing with the landscape issue. CHAIRMAN STRAN: There's been none? MR. BELLOWS: There have been many done for this PIID but not dealing with this issue. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Have you done aTYL on this properly, then, knowing that would be - is "no" your answer to that, too? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I was trying to figure out. If you guys have had some time to analyze the use, it would have been helpful. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. We have only in the context of reviewing this petition. CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Go ahead, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Following up on Commissioner Schmitt's question, by vitue of adopting the PUD, they lose the benefits of agricultural zoning, correct? MR. BELLOWS: Unless the PUD makes concessions or allows certain agricultural activities. It is not unusual for a PUD to carry over some limited agricultural activities until certain tracts are developed or allow cerlain agricultural uses as part of the PUD as well. COMMISSIONER FRYER: But there's nothing inherent in the fact that it used to be agricultural but it gets to enjoy those benefits unless they're specified in the PUD? MR. BELLOWS: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRYER: All right. And then that fact, coupled with the motion that Commissioner Saunders made back in 1990 that this property would not be able to enjoy commercial usage, I'm not able to see how this use is appropriate under either designation. MR. BELLOWS: And it's an interesting point. I don't think we reviewed the historical context of the language that's in the PUD. We just reviewed the PIID that said that use is allowed, and that use, in my opinion, is an agricultural use as well as being listed in certain commercial zoning districts, but it is also allowed, a wholesale nursery, as an agricultural use at that site. So that's the context I was looking at this particular - COMMISSIONER FRYER: Just because the County Commission action goes back to 1990, it's still fully valid today. MR. BELLOWS: That's true. And the thing is, is this a commercial use or not? And that gets back to the question is -- a wholesale nursery is an ag use. Certainly, we would allow that ir, *y agricultural district without having any public hearing. A public hearing is required for a retail aspect of a landscape nursery. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: MiKe? MR. BOSI: And just to clariff, that Section 4, which talks about the open space and the easement area where the FP&L area -- the area we're talking about, those uses in that - in that section have a commercial component, and even the accessory uses says there are allowable commercial uses in this quadrant. So as we make these statements that there's no commercial or any commercial activity in this are4 that's not a factual statement. There are provisions for some uses within that section that reference Page 24 of 49 November 1,2018 commercial. So we have to understand -- we have to understand that statement that was made, I believe - I believe they were referring to none of the shopping, the commercial uses allocated by this PUD were going to be -- were going to be appropriate at this location. But at that location, they listed some uses, and even accessory uses, where they talk about commercial uses. Just so we're clear on the record, so we're making factual statements. That's all I wanted to provide. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But Mike, if you want to be clear on the record, then under permitted uses and accessory, )ou've got three categories. One you're talking about pro shop, practice drive range, cart barn, customary accessories, and it doesn't say much - it just lists a bunch of them, golf course, range shelters, et cetera. Then number two, small commercial establishments including gift shops, golf and tennis equipment sales, restaurants, cocktail lounges and similar uses intended to serve the patrons of the golf course or other permitted recreational facilities. So there was a caveat in that commercial use. MR. BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that's the piece that needs to be - MR. BOSI: And I wanted -- that caveat is appropriate, but the statement that there's no commercial uses allocated into this area is -- on its surface, is not correct. CHAIRMAN STRAN: But see, that statement falls to the premise that ['m having the conflict with. If this was intended as a commercial use open to the public, it would have been under the commercial section or it would have been "C" on the master plan. Now, I don't know how to then now come back and say, okay, this restricted language means you can do commercial uses there or uses outside what's allocated for the community under basically community-orientated components. And I'm wondering where that's going to go, because it says, "storage, maintenance yards, and landscaping nurseries within the FP&L easement." So you could take that to another step and say, okay, FP&L's got the power lines here. There's a couple arezr over here where they donl kind of like Hiwassee up by Pine Ridge Road and Livingston. We can put storage facilities there. I don't think any of that was ever -- that was part of the intent at the time. And those are the pieces we've not clarified because of the way this was submitted. Just like the problems that the people over in Wyndemere are having. The way it was submitted doesn't help us and provide an avenue to start getting into some of these things. And the -- I'm worried about what's going to happen to other PUDs that have this language in the same locations if that exists. MR. BOSI: And I would agree with you. And what we -- our perspective was, that that wholesale mrsery still fits within that category, because those are recreational uses. A golf course is considered a commercial operation. It's a golf course. COMMISSIONER FRYER: But they're accessory to the Grey Oaks people. MR. BOSI: It could be construed to be, but it's not obligated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, back up then. So from now on every PUD that comes in that has an amenity section, we are to look at a TIS incorporating a public use of that amenity section? Because that's going to change countywide the traffic components that come to us for approval. Traffic caps and everything else will be involved. So before we go there, we want to make sure you're -- because, I mean, I heard Norm say something yesterday that shocked me. In this particular case, the ITE manual isn't the right thing to use because these -- in so many ways he said that the ITE manual having one nursery to use didn't necessarily fit our area, so his argument was there's some adjustments that need to be made. And I'm paraphrasing, but I certainly intended Norm to come up and clarify that. But right now I know Jeffs anxiously waiting to say something. So, Jeff? MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. You know, look, the elephant in the room here is what uses are allowed on this propefty. I mean, this was a simple application for an access point but that's not the real question here. If this was a PUDA, we could have gone through the process, and I think the applicant would have been -- at least have full assurance of what he could do. Page 25 of49 November 1,2018 My concern here is that ultimately we're going to get a code complaint probably from the adjoining residents, and that's when the issue's going to come, after the applicant has expended considerable resources in developing this. And that's not fair to the applicant. It's not fair for the residents. That's not fair to anybody. One approach here, because staff is your staff, is to ask stafffor a zoning verification, what can they do on this property, and come back to you, and then you can come back and form a decision on this. Just one approach. I know the applicant's not going to be all that happy with that, but we need clarity as to what this thing could do, and I've heard nothing that gives me any assurances that we have any clarity as to what they can do and what they can't do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a good point, Jeff. Thank you. And I have one other question of you, though. It involves my second concern. I think your statement just now would have addressed the second concem that I've spoke to with the Wyndemere folks, because we would have had all that on the table, and we could have then looked at it as a site plan, and here are the things we need to do to make this site plan compatible with the adjoining neighborhood. We didn't get that opportunity with the way this thing was submitted. But my second concern was precedent setting. ln that same paragraph it says, storage facilities -- storage and maintenance facilities and landscape nurseries in the FP&L easement. And I'm worried more -- I saw a statement, I think it was in the NIM or something, made by one of the applicant's representatives, that they have a right to do storage and maintenance. Well, obviously, I think they're thinking they have the right for that because of that language because of their -- they want to have trucks come in, and they want to have people working out of there. But on the further strategy, down the road someone could say, we have a right to do storage facilities here. Now, that's a C4 and 5 use. I don't see how -- I want to make sure that if this has found a way to exist as a restricted operation for a nursery, that we don't later on open a can of worms to say, well, you allowed it for this. Now storage facilities and maintenance facilities have got to be allowed. Have you -- can you -- have you thought about that? MR. KLATZKOW: If you elect to ask staff to come back with a zoning verification, you could ask them, as part of that, to address the issue that you just raised. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Good point. Okay. And then that letter would stand against the property for future -- MR. KLATZKOW: And there's a process there. If the property owner disagrees with it, there's a process to get it to the Board of County Commissioners and ultimately a court for final -- you know, the decision, you know, there's no process here. If all we're going to do is say yes or no to an access point, then the property owner develops and they say, wait a second, that's not what we meant during a code case, that's just -- that's a recipe for an unfairness. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Just to clarify, we are not -- if - a vote of "yes" for this petition, we are not approving the use. We're just approving the access points. MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. And my concern is that we're going to go down this highway, they're going to start developing, the residents will make a code complaint, and next thing you know we've got significant litigation with significant risk to both the county and the applicant. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. So a zoning verification letter, if in fact, Wyndemere wants to appeal, there's an appellate process. MR. KLATZKOW: There's a process to it, and before anybody invests even more money into this, we would have clarification, final clarification of what you can and cannot do with this parcel. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Wouldn't a PUDA also resolve the problem? MR. KLATZKOW: It would do the same thing. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. A PUD would resolve it. The more expedient approach would be a zoning verification letter because then that would determine the use. COMMISSIONER FRYER: PUDA, I think, would take it out of the potential litigation, would it Page 26 of 49 November 1,2018 not? MR. KLATZKOW: Both work. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Both work. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One works differently than the other. A PUDA would then take all of the concerns of the neighborhood and the concerns we normally look at for compatibility, and we could address them through a site plan with characteristics on it like we always see when we look at uses of intensity levels. MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. But you can't ask the applicant to recast this as a PUDA. You can ask staff to come back with a zoning verification. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, if they come back with a TtrL and say it's in the applicant's favor, that's fine, and we've resolved that point. But then how do we fx the other things tha! now tha! okay, you can have that use there, it wasn't contemplated before, and the neighborhoods around it -- just like the applicant said, their buyer may not have seen this. How would we expect the people in Wyndemere to know this could have been there? MR. KLATZKOW: I don't disagree with you, but you can't force the applicant to ask to amend the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. I just wanted to understand the differences. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Again, we are being asked to do nothing more than to -- MR. KLATZKOW: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- locate two entrance points. Il in fact, we approve that, it's at the risk of the applicant that they may face further litigation or - MR. KLATZKOW: Exactly. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- other avenues that Wyndemere may take to oppose the use. They may have the access point, but they may not be allowed the use. MR. KLATZKOW: I concur with that yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And I think, for clarity, again, though we may dispute the use, that's not part of the petition. The petition is, in fact, the access poin! unless the Growth Management Plan amendment has an issue with implied use as well. MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I don'tthink it does. MR. KLATZKOW: With the proviso that your decision as to one or two access points may ultimately ride on what the ultimate use of this property is. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: We could do that as a, yeah - MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: How much time nowadays does a PUDA take? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I'm a little confused because the petition before you to do is a PUD amendment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But it's not forthe use. It's fortraffic points. MR. BELLOWS: Okay. So that's where -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So now what we're suggesting is if there was ability to get a PUDA to contemplate the use with proper - with site plans and all the other things, then everybody could weigh in on, including the people across the street and including the people within the development who may not realize the potential here. That was something that's missing for at least my review of it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It appears to be then -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: If they were to submig like, right now, how much time would it take? MR. BELLOWS: Well, I would recommend a continuance so we could analyze the information presented today and the historic application, or the intent of the PIID when it was first approved, because the application before you was deeming the uses allowed because it specifically says it's a use allowed on the properly. But the question is, is this meant for internal use only to the PUD, developer and residents, or is this something that was intended to be allowing an outside wholesale landscape nursery to operate? Page27 of49 November 1,2018 COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: But you're talking a zoning verification. I'm asking -- MR. BELLOWS: Well, that's an interpretation I would -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: - if they submit a PUDA right now. (Multiple speakers speaking.) MR. BELLOWS: - interpretation ofthe code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Guys, one at atime. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Stan's question, I think, is, is that if the applicant voluntarily withdrew this application today and tomorrow filed the more conventional type of PUDA, how long would it take from that point, roughly, to completion. MR. BELLOWS: I would say around -- we're basically dealing with a month or two or month and a half, because everything is done. I would recommend a continuance, and we just -- if you want them to go back and hold a new information meeting, we can do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we'll get to that in a minute. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I think it's up to the applicant. If they want to take the risk and proceed with this amendment it closes the amendment and it basically either would approve or deny the relocation of the access points. If they wanted to go into now another change, it would be another PUD amendment, correct? MR. BELLOWS: Another fee -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: If they withdraw now -- MR. BELLOWS: We're starting over again. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: -- or say continue but we want to deal with the use as well, it's just a continuance. Staffwould have to go back and probably would involve a readvertisement, which they would do anyway if it's continued beyond, what, two weeks, I believe, and may have to do another neighborhood information meeting. But I think the risk that the applicant's taking is, yeah, we would approve this, and then they'd be in another situation if, in fact somebody files a -- through Code Enforcement or another instrument, or Wyndemere can actually file for and request azoningverification letter. They could ask for it to determine whether the zoning is allowed. MR. KLATZKOW: By the way, if there was a code case, the first thing my office would do would go to Mr. Bosi and say we'd like to get, you know, staffs decision as to what the zoning is before we do that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct, either an OI or -- MR. KLATZKOW: Exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We are 10 minutes past our normal break time. I was thinking this was going to wmp up quicker, but I think we ought to just take a break right now and come back in l5 - 14 minutes, which would be, what, five minutes to 1 1, and resume at that point; give the court reporter a break. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. lf everybody will please take their seats, we'd like to resume the meeting. We were in conversation about various options and things that could be done. Before we go any fuither with the - going to rebuttal, I have a couple more questions I thought of. One of our stafi Trinity, if she could come up for a moment and answer a question, and then one of Norm Trebilcock, who's the traffic engineer for the applicant. MS. SCOTT: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Thank you, Trinity. And it's apparent today, but it's been kind of apparent in the past, but I really haven't figured out how to fix ig but I think I've got a solution. It's about the ways TISs are done. Norm's is a typical example. Wholesale nursery landscape contracting, and then he puts his traffic counts. And he uses the TIS -- the ITE reference, 818, I think he used in this case. Is there a way that your deparlment could request that when the methodology is done and they do their TISs that they include the code that this board and the Board of County Commissioners is knowledgeable of, which is the SIC codes? I mean, if we had an SIC code to the uses in Norm's tuaffrc TIS, it Page 28 of 49 November 1,2018 would certainly have been helpful for us to understand how it was coming together, because he described it to me yesterday -- I'm going to ask him to describe it again in a few minutes. But it would have been a little clearer if I wasn't seeing an ITE 818 but I saw an SIC whatever. It would have helped. Is that something that's realistic to - MS. SCOTT: We could certainly request -- we have a standard methodology form. What I would do is also like to then include the planner in on that so that way we're kind of closing that loop as far as the SIC codes. Because we don't deal in SIC codes. We deal in ITE codes. So that would allow us to maybe close that gap with the planner as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I hate to -- there's somewhat of a disconnect at times, and this would - you guys would be on the same page. The Zoning would then say, yep, Transportation's looking at it from the right code perspective, and the ITE reference that Norm uses then would be tied to something. And it, I think, would help us all if you would consider that. MS. SCOTT: What we could also do as well is -- because not always is an ITE code -- sometimes the descriptions are a little different. So if there was anlthing different, perhaps we could work with the applicant to have more of an explanation. That way it would kind of bridge that gap a little bit for you as well. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Which Norm provided yesterday in a meeting which I want him them to articulate today. Anybody else? Ned. Trinity, hold on just a second. COMMISSIONER FRYER: There's been some talk about whether one ortwo uses here. Am I correct that if there were -- well, one use, the wholesale nursery, apparently would justiff just one point of ingress and egress. Did I hear that correctly? MS. SCOTT: We don't look at uses. We look at what the TIS says, so -- of what's permitted or not. So if this came in as just one line in the TIS as wholesale nursery with 12 p.m. peak trips, while, yes, the access-management policy would allow them to have multiple access points based upon their frontage, from a staffperspective, if it was limited to those l2 p.m. peak trips, we would also look at their daily trips and make an assessment at that point. But if we're limited to a very small amount of trips, we'd look at the operations around, and most likely it would be one. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. And so even though a second point of ingress and egress might not be unreasonable, nonetheless, it's also not necessary, is it? MS. SCOTT: Our access-management policy -- I'm actually going to pull it up so I can quote it. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: But basically, just because you can doesn't mean you should, though. MS. SCOTT: Exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. SCOTT: And that's what our access-management policy, in laymen's terms, says. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah, yeah. And I take it that you have not -- although, perhaps, it goes without saying, that with each additional point of ingress and egress on a road like Livingston, it's going to be just a little bit less safe. I think we could probably take some kind ofjudicial notice of that, could we not? MS. SCOTT: I wouldn't necessarily say that -- there are -- when we looked at this particular petition, knowing what type of vehicles that they were going to be utilizing at that spot a left-in going northbound on Livingston makes some sense, and the reason it makes some sense is because all of the landscape trucks, presumably, with trailers, would have to go up to the next intersection, which is the Grey OaksAMyndemere intersection, and make a U-tum to come back to make a right into their location. Every time someone makes a U-turn, particularly with the longer vehicles, that takes green time -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: I understand. MS. SCOTT: -- to be able to do that. And if they start backing out, then we have to start cutting that southbound. And from a county perspective, we want that through movement to be moving. And you've seen possibly at some of our other public meetings that we've had where we're talking about some modifications that we're proposing to Pine Ridge Road where we're taking the lefts out of the main intersection, and you're making those lefts before you get to that main intersection, because it allows us Page29 of 49 November 1,2018 to, essentially, double the through time and make those intersections work better. So when we looked at this, we looked at,thatthat left-in was pretty important. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Trinity, one thing I don't know if you had considered, the left-in going north for this particular opening, considering that it would have the applicant's TIS said 50 trucks, that means they're most likely trucks with trailers and most likely being what, 30, 35, something like that, long, the stacking, because they'll all be coming and going and at basically the same time, because that's the peak-hour traffic they were talking about at some point will you guys take a look at the stacking potential for that kind of a rig compared to a simple small car? MS. SCOTT: Absolutely. When they come in for their Site Development Plan, they would be required to do that analysis based on the type of vehicles and essentially what they would be stacking, and they would -- Norm would design a turn lane to accommodate that, and our traffic engineering staffwould review that. It would be done via right-of-way permit. There may be sight-distance triangles that need to be cleared based on the existing landscaping out of there. It would be coordinated through our landscape operations group to make sure proper sight distance is there, and our traffic engineering for proper stacking. CFIAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. After listening to Trinity, I'm thinking the northern of the two entrances is strictly for the safef of the left-turning vehicles, because you don't want them to go up to the light and make a U-turn there, and the southern entrance is already there. So I don't see a problem with two entrances. CHAIRMAN STRAN: The southern entrance is already there? MS. SCOTT: There is an existing access point that is there, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Is that the one shared -- is that the one shared with FP&L? MS. SCOTT: No. It's actually just north of the FP&L. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Is it in use? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nobody's in there. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It's a construction entrance. MS. SCOTT: According to the applicant, it was a construction entrance previously. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Is it in use? MS. SCOTT: It's open and available today if someone wanted to drive in and go nowhere. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: It shows on Google Earth. MS. SCOTT: Yes, it's there. CIIAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Thank you, Trinity. Norm? And I -- MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rather than try to restate what you talked about yesterday, you had indicated, I believe, yesterday that when you did the 12 trips, it was from the ITE manual but it was relevant to one submittal that was received for that category, and you explained why that wasn't necessarily the best way to portray what your applicant was doing. Could you explain that again, please? MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. Sure, yes. So we use the ITE, and ITE, they're land-use codes and they suggest process-wise, too, when you have a real small sample size, sometimes you have to be cautionary on the trip generation from that, because it may not be completely representative as opposed to if you had20 samples that were used to generate that ITE number. And so when we did originally submiq staffhad broughg you know, concems questioning the overall trip generation and uses. And so then the submittal was modified, and it included some other uses that staff then had deemed, said, hey, listen, these retail uses you were planning to do are not consistent, and they need to be removed, which they were. And so then what we did is then we stuck with the wholesale nursery use, which has been provided. Page 30 of49 November 1,2018 But in using my judgment as an engineer, a transportation engineer, I looked atthe 12 peak-hour trips and understanding how these uses and as lve provided to you with the depiction of, say, the Square site this was mentioned too, where they have landscape contracting as part of their wholesale operation, I deem that - in talking with the applicant, that we should have a conservative number, which I mean as a high number, of potential trip generation especially in this era of having trip caps on projects. So based on that, we created this empirical number for the project, based on that aspect of it. But the whole idea is that really boils down to, in this last submittal of the TIS. This is the wholesale operations. And when you read the ITE land-use code, it does specifically state that this is a part of a wholesale use: Contracting and landscape services. And it's also consistent as what I've seen and observed of similar operations that I also provided to you this moming as well. So that's kind of where we came from. So there's -- the issue with ITE is their own recommendation. When you have a small sample size, you need to consider beyond that, and that's what your staffhad indicated to us, too, and that's why we provided this, and I got with the client to come up with an empirical approach. We feel it's a much higher number, quite frankly, but I think it's, you know, incumbent on us to do that. And it was mentioned about the concerns with that northbound left, and we have, and I provided in the traffic study to you, you know, that existing turn lane out there is 550 feet long. That's a very long northbound left-tum lane. As staffsaid, we will evaluate that in the SDP, but it's a very long tum lane, and in our opinion and belief, it would be sufficient for this project as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Norm, in the one sampling that was used in the ITE manual, are you saying, then, that they probably did not do the off- the trailers and trucks and employees that your applicant's proposing? MR. TREBILCOCK: Well, it's -- that -- I feel that that may be an area that it may not have been included. I didn't have the specific details on that particular study, but it was a 6-acre site. This is a larger site. And then, again, with the understanding and sitting down with the applicant that runs this wholesale type operations, I was able to better understand. And I thought to myself, well, this is probably one area that maybe that was shy on. And when I ran the numbers -- and you can see it's a much higher trip generation that we had so, you know, I felt like, okay, well, maybe that -- we need to include that to, again, be conservative on the high side so that when we have these facilities, we know we're adequate and we size our turn lanes, because that's been a point ofsafety and concern. I mean, mentioned today about the traffic flow at 60 miles per hour. Well, quite frankly, when you put additional accesses in, that can help the operating speeds, because when you have -- you know, I-75 is -- flows as fast as it does because there is no friction. You want to introduce a reasonable amount of friction, and that's why we have access-management criteria, and that's why your staffevaluates that, and it helps us, but that can help lower your operating speeds and increase safety. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Norm, you're going way beyond the answer to my question. MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. I'm sorry. But there were a lot of extraneous comments, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just sometimes when you ask - MR. TREBILCOCK: Sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- when you answer with less verbiage, it sure helps a lot to understand what you're saying. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAN: So let me get back to where the question was. MR. TREBILCOCK: Sorry about that. CHAIRMAN STRAN: So the 12 trips, you zrssume, then, maybe that qualifies as a small number of entries into the ITE manual; therefore, based on the language that they allow, you modified it by doing something more regionally located here in Collier County. Is that -- just yes or no, is that a fair statement? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. I used my professional judgment to do that yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You also said, I believe, yesterday that part of the reasoning was because we operate 12 months ayear where sometimes they don't. MR. TREBILCOCK: I did not make that statement. I believe Wayne had mentioned it. I mean, you're -- Page 31 of49 November 1,2018 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And Wayne's not a traffic engineer, so I can now dismiss that as a traffi c-engineering viewpoint? MR. TREBILCOCK: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. That's what I was getting at. Because if you said that, we would have a lot of fun going forward on every PUD you brought in because, basically, my argument for a long time has been that our manual may not be sufficient for our cases -- our situations here in Southwest Florida. But I understand now. That's okay. MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. Yes, sir. CI{AIRMAN STRAN: I don't need -- MR. TREBILCOCK: Having fun. CFIAIRMAN STRAIN: That's all I need, Norm. Thankyou. Does anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thankyou, Norm. MR. TREBILCOCK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Unless the Planning Commission - go ahead, Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Looking at Google Earth, and the left-in here, I understand the reason -- well, there's, I guess, a U-turn. But why did they put a U-turn north of that? Does anybody know? I mean, I don't see any reason for it? The southbound U-turn on Livingston, there doesn't seem to be a reason for it. Why is it there? MR. TREBILCOCK: The southbound -- oh, south of the entrance. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: North of your -- MR. TREBILCOCK: Correct. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Leftturn in, there's a southbound U-turn. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yeah. Itjust-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: What's the reason forthat? MR. TREBILCOCK: It just may have been, you know, that -- I don't know. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. I can't figure why. MR. TREBILCOCK: That's the best answer. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I can't figure -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, Bill, you can't speak from the audience. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: It just doesn't make any sense that it's there. MR. TREBILCOCK: Sometimes, though, Stan - or Commissioner, they'll do opposing lefts and that -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Stan will do. MR. TREBILCOCK: -- is the case here, you know, that they saw that -- you know, having this north or southbound of the intersection. In particular, I don't know if there's a prohibition at Golden Gate to do a U-turn or not but if there is, this would have been a good location for somebody that is traveling down, you know, that didn't make the left at the - COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: That forgot to rnake the left at Wlmdemere? MR. TREBILCOCK: Right. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. That's the only reason I could see. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yeah, I think you're right. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Norm. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: That takes us to the applicant wrap-up or rebuttal or whatever you decided to do. I'm just going to suggest to you the issues that I had have not been resolved, and so I'm still perplexed on some of the outstanding issues that we talked about yesterday and that I brought up again today. Page 32 of 49 November 1,2018 So with that, Wayne, or who's going to do the rebuttal. Go ahead, Leo, thank you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mine are not either, Mr. Chairman. MR. SALVATORI: For the record, Leo Salvatori. Thank you again for your time. We discussed at the break and, with all due respect, here's how we would like to proceed. Well first before I get into that, I respect your point of view. I understand your confusion. The confusion I'm having, though, is that we do have one clear statement in the PUD ordinance which says what this property can be used for. That term happens not to be defined, thus the exhibit that's behind me. I understand what you're saying, but using an analogy, I also looked under commercial, there's no golf course -- excuse me, there's no commercial designation on the golf course where the pro shop is. Pro shop is a commercial use. Last time I was there -- I know it's a commercial use. I clutched wallet and my chest, not necessarily in that order. My point is, though, when you have only one statement in the PUD as to the uses of this property, that happens to be under that recreational use, but that's where it's located, and it does incorporate the map in terms of where it's supposed to be. I think that's the zoning, but I don't think that's the issue that's here before us. I understand the issues that you have, and that's an issue that, I think, goes beyond our petition. How we would like to proceed is to, respectfully, request that - a vote on the petition that's before you. We did speak with the Wyndemere folks at the break. We're more than happy to work with them, because I think a lot of what I'm hearing is concerns over the unknown. Our -- which I appreciate. Our clients are more than happy to work with Wyndemere. They'll reach an agreement I'm sure, with Wyndemere. They're reasonable folks; our clients are as well. So I think we can resolve whatever issues they have. The issues that I think you're having of a precedent setting and all that such, I think that's beyond the scope of our petition. I think that's something you may have to work on intemally and would appreciate your doing so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thankyou. And with that, we close the public hearing. And I don't have any stipulations for the application as it exists today other than supporting staffs position on a recortmendation, if there's a recommendation to approve. So I think we'll start out with discussion to see where this board wants to go. I mean, does anybody -- go ahead, Tom. MR. EASTMAN: If you're considering a motion for approval, I think it may be redundant, given Mr. Klatzkow's point earlier, but I think you should point out that this is strictly for the access and you're not approving any type of use on the site. The applicant would be proceeding at their own risk in the development of the site relative to its viable uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Tom. Anybody else? Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I would agree with exactly what Tom stated. I'm inclined to support this as written. It is a PUD amendment to move the access points and only the access points. The approval, at least from my perspective, does not, in any way, allow or condone or otherwise approve any type of use. That is up to staffto determine either through some other -- either official interpretation of the PUD or a zoning verification letter or the applicant reapplying for an amendment to the PUD. Bu! as written, I'm inclined to approve it solely based on that, and it does not, in any way, in my vote indicate approval of the commercial use. It is -- again, it's strictly just for the access. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I don't believe the case has been made for two points of ingress and egress. ln fact, I think, to the contrary, the case has been made that that is not necessary. Perhaps desirable for the owner of the property, but not desirable for the folks who travel on Livingston. And I don't -- I don't accept the concept that having people tuming offof Livingston in any kind of a volume will slow traffic down. I think it could just as easily promote traffic accidents. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Stan? Page 33 of49 November 1,2018 COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I don't agree with Ned. I think the case has been made for two points. That northemmost point is the left. And I looked on Google Earth, and it's a 550-foot storage lane, decel and storage. And you would use that to -- you wouldn't use that as a U-turn. You would use that to turn into the project. And the southemmost entrance is already there. Why take it out when you could use either entrance to leave? So I respectfully don't agree with you, but... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: That's why we're here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I respect you, too. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Of course. The fact that there is an existing road there doesn't mean anybody's traveling on it, but when you put in the improvements that are being talked about, people will travel on it. And so there are going to be people coming in and out of two roads the way this has been requested. So the fact that one is already there but not in use doesn't really seem to -- certainly doesn't influence me in my decision. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: But - CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: -- you're talking one car, and whichever exit he uses, it's the same effect. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Who's to say one at a time, though? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I think -- COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I was going to second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait. Just let Karen, then Patrick. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Two access points are saferthan one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I was just going to second that I respect Stan, too. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I respect everybody, just so you know. CHAIRMAN STRAN: I have a series of comments that I'm going to make: First of all, I agree with the petitioner's counsel that the best argument is in the section of the code he referenced, and the best argument is that that section of the code is for the internal improvements and amenities on the project and those items related to those and not for open commercial wholesale -- commercial operations, as was suggested. In fact, even under the accessory uses, it talks about regulated to the residents or members or something to that nature. So I agree that there's language there, but I don't agree the language is narrowly intended for outside that Planned Unit Development. Also, there's no evidence that this was ever contemplated as a public use. I've asked repeatedly for such evidence. All I find is evidence to the contrary. The master plan does not show it as commercial. And you know, as Planning Commission members, we have always had labels on the master plans that we've stuck to. In fac! changing a letter from S -- from an R to a C or something else requires arezone. That's how hard that's been. This does not show C for commercial. The BCC in 1990 specifically excluded commercial from this corridor. We heard testimony from the Comprehensive Planning staffthat such an operation would not still be allowed at that site, but it needed clarification, and that was suggested amiably by the County Attorney as maybe a possibility. The applicant has suggested they don't want to go that route. And during the initial PUDI and DRI review they found -- well, that was - the comp plan inconsistent. Staffdid not review this, by the way, today as for the use but only for the trvo entrances. For us to put blinders on -- after all the years I've been doing this, I've never put a blinder on. Everybody can tell you that. I bring in all kinds of information to understand a project better. I don't see why we can possibly put our blinders on today and say, oh, yeah, just because they want Page34 of 49 November 1,2018 two entrances there, that's okay, and not address the use. I think that would be derelict in what we're here to do, and I cannot go along with that train of thought. And the ITE manual issue that was explained to us was noteworthy bu! again, they modified the ITE number to basically follow along with what the actions are consistent with the applicant's intended use. I'm not sure that's the right way to go. I'm not saying it couldn't be described, it couldn't be discussed further, but with no opportunity to get into the issues of whether or not -- how the buildings, if there are arty, are going to be, what kind of - the security lighting, the heighg the ty.pe, what the site plan is, the hours of operation, the fpes of fences and color of fences, as the one lady pointed out in the email, where the vehicle parking's going to go and how the - is there going to be limited access to Grey Oaks Drive? All road systems are different. We didn't get into why these two entrances might be applicable on other types of roads like Airport and Golden Gate Parkway. So I'm -- there's too many things that have not been addressed here because of the way it was submitted. I think it was submitted inappropriately for what's being -- what has been since discovered in regards to uses. And if the applicant has refused to go there, then I would be in no position to recommend approval for either one of these to the Board. And that's my discussion. Anybody else have any,thing? Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: One followup - and I certainly appreciate your analysis and certainly can't argue. My only question is, I have to ask why the staffdidn't raise these issues in its review process, and if they did, was the applicant advised of the issues? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It was raised - and this is not for - I know you're standing there to take notes, Wayne. We closed the public hearing. I can tell you it was raised by the County Attomey's Office. I was told at one point Transportation raised it. I know I raised it. It's disappointing it still got this far without the applicant stepping back, but they -- I met with the applicant. I raised it with them. So it's been raised. Now, I still - it's still here, so... COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Wouldn't that be justification for staff to recommend denial? That's where I'm -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think they're looking at how the application was put together. It was an application simply for two entrances. And staffs obligated, I believe, to analyze it as the way it came in. So it's kind of like, when Trinity was up here, just because you can doesn't mean you should. And I'm looking at it like that; okay, they can ask for more entrances, but for what? If you don't need them, why ask for it? And in this case, if the use is questionable and there's a discrepancy on how we can regulate that use to be compatible in this location, at least from my perspective, and the precedent-setting nature of this whole thing, all that bothers me. I can't get past that with what I've heard in discussion today. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, I think it's valuable that all of that be part of the record to go before the Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So at that point, we've had discussion. Is there a motion from anybody here on the Planning Commission? Anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, if you're not going to make a motion, I will. I make a motion -- I recommend denial based on the various items I've just articulated into the record. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by. Ned. Discussion? (No response.) CI{AIRMAN STRAN: All those in favor of the motion to deny, signi$, by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CFI{IRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? Page 35 of49 November 1,2018 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'm opposed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Two opposed, four approved the recommendation of denial. So it will go to the Board with that recommendation. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mr. Chairman, can you reread the ballot count? I voted in favor with you and Ned. So I think that was three opposed. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Well, approving the recommendation of denial. It was four -- she was in favor of it as well, right, Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Karen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it was four of us in favor of denial, two of us against denial. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And the only reason I voted not in favor is because of the way the petition was written. I think it's -- and ttre way it was advertised. But I think it's very valuable to bring all of the other issues to the Board. That's why we get paid the big bucks and we get the opportunity to serve at the pleasure of the public. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And I think it's safer with two entrances. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't disagree with some of tha! but I just can't get past the use issue that has to be brought into it. It was certainly discussed in various documents we received. So it's open for discussion. I'm not going to leave it -- I'm not going to pretend it's not there, so... COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. With that, thank you-all for attending on that issue. We will now move on to the next item on our agenda. Oh, I'm sorry. We've got to take a vote on both, the DRI and the PUD. The motion maker was myself. That motion was for the DRI, and second -- does the second accept that; Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the next motion will be for the same, a recommendation of denial for the same reasons we stated previously for the Grey Oaks MPUD. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by -- Ned seconded. Is there discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Anybody opposed? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Two opposed, four approve the motion of denial, both cases. Thank you. '***That takes us to Item 9A3 on our agend4 and it's the discussion of the proposed affordable housing density bonus revisions to the ordinance. And this is legislative in nature, Jeff; we don't need disclosures and all that then, do we? Okay. With that, we'll move right into the discussion, and I think staffs here to make a presentation, at least they better be. MR. JOHNSON: Good morning, Mr. Chair. For the record, Eric Johnson, principal planner in Zoning. This LDCA, Land Development Code Amendment, is basically -- there's many changes but basically, to summarize, it's changing the definitions of the Land Development Code as well as increasing the maximum available affordable density - housing density bonus from eight dwelling units per acre to 12 dwelling units. Page 36 of49 November 1,2018 Your cover sheet shows that the item went before the DSAC in September, the DSAC LDR in August, and here we are before you today. We anticipate that this would go sometime in January. The cover sheet says that it would be December I 1th before the Board of County Commissioners, but we have to do a request to advertise for that particular hearing. What we tried to do is -- throughout the process we make changes, a number of changes, and in an abundance of caution, we brought the item before the DSAC LDR a second time. It's the subcommittee. Unfortunately, they didn't have a quorum. But one of the changes that -- or we were highlighting the substantive changes. We highlighted the conditional use on Page 7 as a substantive change, but we didn't follow through with the other instances of conditional use. Either way it was underlined in their documents, and it didn't seem like they had an issue. On Page 7, with respect to the affordable housing density bonus table, if you-all could look at -- I'm sorry, Page 10, Page 10. What I wanted to bring to your attention is that in the "very low" category, in the "very low" category under l0 percent, you'll find that there's an NA there. That needs to be changed from NA to 7, okay. So NA to 7. And I think -- and I'll defer to Cormac on this, but I think he brought it to the attention of the - either the subcommittee or the DSAC. MR. GIBLIN: I did. It was a scrivener's error at the time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you identiff yourself for the record first. MR. GIBLIN: Forthe record, Cormac Giblin, your Housing and Grant Development manager. That was a scrivener's error in flipping around the charts that I noticed at the DSAC meeting, and I brought it up then. It just didn't make the change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. JOHNSON: So that was basically my presentation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we'll start with questions of staff, who are the only ones here today. So, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: On Page 2l -- 124 of the packet. This has to do with Section 1.08.02, and specifically Sub B, I believe there's a logic error in the drafting here. A, you've got extremely low income households whose incomes do not exceed 30 percent of the median; then B, very low income households whose incomes do not exceed 50 percent. I think what you need is the language "are greater than 30 percent but do not exceed 50." MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Commissioner, is that on Page 3 ofthe document? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yeah, it's there. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Is it? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: It's new -- it's underlined, 1.08.02 definitions in Line 19. MR. JOHNSON: Line 19, okay. So you're suggesting different wording. How? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, I think you need to just follow the wording that you used in C and D. ln other words, whose income is greater than X but not greater than Y, for the first one. For A you don't need to do that because the baseline there is zero. But after A you need to have a spread of it -- needs to say, households whose incomes are greater than 30 percent but do not exceed 50 percent. MR. GIBLIN: That's not exactly correct. We have two definitions -- two uses for this definition. One is how we apply it programmatically, which is when we get into the density bonus provisions and other. There is - simply pu! there's no category in the density bonus chart that you'll see later for extremely low income. It's just very low income and less. So 50 percent and less. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Why do we have A in here, exfemely low income? MR. GIBLIN: That's for definition purposes only for other types of things that we do for planning purposes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So the way this is set up, for whatever those purposes might be, if someone has 30 percent they are categorized in both as extremely low and very low? MR. GIBLIN: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRYER: It doesn't make sense to me, but - does it make sense to the County Attorney? Page37 of49 November 1,2018 MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, we raised that as an issue that we preferred deletion because it is not referenced anywhere else in the section. Staffwanted to keep it. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well -- CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- and we can -- MR. GIBLIN: I can follow your logic, and we could do the 30 to 50 and then 50 to 80. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, that would certainly take care of the logic, but if you're not using it anyplace else -- MR. GIBLIN: We use it in several places for other reasons than land development. COMMISSIONER FRYER: All right. Well, I was looking at it just from the point of view of draftsmanship. So if you can accept my - MR. GIBLIN: Sure. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Then -- let's see. On Page 132 -- MR. STONE: Excuse me, Mr. Commissioner. Scott Stone, for the record. lf you were to create a category from 30 to 50 percent, then you'd also have to make several changes within the amendment itself because then you'd have a category between 0 and 30 percent that wasn't covered anywhere else. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. Well, that's a substantive point. I'm not raising that, but I understand you have, and it sounds right to me. MR. STONE: So you can either delete extremely low altogether, or if you choose to have very low be 30 to 50, you'd have to go throughout the document and make changes to reflect - to add in extremely low everlrwhere that it would be applicable. MR. GIBLIN: I think that would be the preferred method. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Why don't we restate it so we all understand it. So on A, how would you change A? COMMISSIONER FRYER: A would not change. MR. GIBLIN: A would not change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So how would B change? COMMISSIONER FRYER: B would say very low income households whose incomes are greater than 30 percent but do not exceed 50 percent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the rest of it would stay the way it is? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Would stay the same. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. And you're gong along with that? MR. GIBLIN: We can go along with that. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. If you guys are agreeing to stuffas we go along, I need to know so we haven't got to stipulate it. That's all I'm saying. If you're going to do that, you're on record, so that will take care ofit. MR. GIBLIN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. GIBLIN: And the other associated changes throughout that would remain consistent. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Good. On Page 132 of the packet this has to do with LDC2.06 -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 132? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Ofthe packet. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It's the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. There's only 22 pages to this whole thing. That's why I was -- wow. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, you can refer -- you can find it if you do a search for 2.06.04, because it has to do with that. Let me see if I can give you apage number. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's okay. I'll - COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It's I 1. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Is it l1? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Page 11. Page 38 of49 a November 1,2018 MR. JOHNSON: Yeah, Page 11. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And I'm not saying that this needs to be changed, but I want to be sure we all recognize what this says and what it doesn't say. The way it's crafted, there is to be no role for the Planning Commission in AHDB development agreement approval processes. Is that -- was that your intention? MR. GIBLIN: That is not our intention. Can you speci$ the language? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. I think my point is made by the fact that there is no reference to the Planning Commission step along the way, and we typically do not -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, we typically do not - CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: No, they are attached. When somebody's relying on affordable housing density bonus as a condition of more density, they are attached. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It's atLached to the petition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But we're approving the petition. We're not approving the density bonus. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, this really has to do with the development agreement, I guess. And I'm not advocating one or the other position. I'm just saying that right now there is no role for the Planning Commission in the approval of the development agreement. MR. GIBLIN: Commissioner, if you look at Page 7 in the packeg No. 5, it's a paragraph entitled "Review and Recommendation by the Planning Commission." COMMISSIONER FRYER: Page 5. I'm on Page 1 l, so I need to go back six pages? MR. GIBLIN: Page7. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Go back four pages. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: While you're doing that Ned, just in the paragraph I think it's inherently included, because under 2.06.04.4 - and it says - I'll just truncate here, BCC pursuant to the public-hearing process. CCPC is part of the public-hearing process. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: The Planning Commission reviews the application and approves the application, but not the agreement. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And if that's what people want I'm not advocating an),thing else. I just want to be sure that we understand that we're not going to be part of that process. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. It's typically included with the rezoning, but it's the Board that actually approves the agreement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'd be relieved if we aren't part of that process. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. And a case can be made for relief on that, but I just thought it should be pointed out. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Letthe Board do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER FRYER: All right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Otherwise, I want a pay raise. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Let's see. I go to Page 136 of the packet, which is LDC 2.06.05.8.1 through 3. It's a -- well, it's a three-step process for income verification and certification. And before going over these points, I wanted to say that my comments are not intended as criticisms of the affordable housing program. On the contrary, I get it. I understand the need for it particularly with respect to workforce needs. So I'm raising issues having to do with the detail of the language, not the overall affordable housing program. But having said that I think that some points do need to be made. First of all, we're asking for an income certification. Should we not also be asking for an asset certification? MR. GIBLIN: Yes, sir. And an asset verification and verification of income from assets is part of Page 39 of 49 November 1,2018 our income certification. I brought with me today the - COMMISSIONER FRYER: That actually doesn't address -- you can have a million-dollar asset that's not earning any income but considered a wealthy person. MR. GIBLIN: I'll show you the next page as well. I just wanted to point out that - I'll put on the record that yes, we verify assets, and we veriff any income from those assets. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Do you veriff assets that not necessarily -- MR. GIBLIN: And if there is no income taken, then we impute income from them. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Oh, okay. MR. GIBLIN: That's on this next page here. CHA.IRMAN STRAIN: But I think the point is, it needs to be in this language so it's clear. You don't have it here. MR. GIBLIN: It is staffs position that it is -- part of our routine income certification includes that. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Then you wouldn't have any problem including it in this language, right? MR. GIBLIN: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had the same concern. In fact, it appears a couple different times in this document. And when I was -- before you were here, when I was with a different agency, these issues came up, and we found instances where people owned nice assets. They didn't really need to be getting the aflordable provisions they were getting because the assets weren't reported. That's the clarification I was looking for, and Ned's already latched on to. MR. GIBLIN: And if they do, in fact, own assets that are not generating any income, as we've said -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: It's imputed? MR. GIBLIN: -- it's imputed. COMMISSIONER FRYER: But you'll put language in there to reflect it as well? MR. GIBLIN: Yes. We'll reference the way that we do it and that it does -- or we can just add verification of household income and assets. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That would do it for me. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's a great addition. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Yep. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. MR. JOHNSON: Is that acceptable to the Commission? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, we're all on the same page. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And to clarify, assets to -- and not -- to include non-income-producing assets. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Exactly. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: The next question I have -- and, again, I'm not suggesting that there would be a tendency toward commission of fraud, but you have to look at situations and be sure that the diligence you do is -- measures up to a reasonable level of diligence, and I'm thinking here about verification of income. It would be, I think, pretty easy to gin up what looks like a tax retum without having to, let's say, offer an affidavit. And I don't know what your certification form looks like. If it takes - if it uses language like "under penalties of perjury" and it's signed in front of a notary public, that would be an additional piece, rather than just nakedly providing the second page or the first two pages of a 1 040. Could you clarify that for me, what you do? MR. GIBLIN: The income certification in terms of this process can take the form of a tax retum. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Without a - without a statement made by the applicant that the attached retum is true and correct to the best of my knowledge? MR. GIBLIN: No, that is part of the application. COMMISSIONER FRYER: It is part of the application? MR. GIBLIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: All right. Is that - I'm just curious, is it done before a notary public? Page 40 of 49 November 1,2018 MR. GIBLIN: I don't believe it's notarized. COMMISSIONER FRYER: All right. And I don't know whether that's necessary, but just - I want to tee up the concem, the level of seriousness that somebody -- if they were to submit a false return, would know that this would be the equivalent of perjury. MR. GIBLIN: And there is language in there. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. All right. Let's see. What happens -- and, again,I'm not suggesting that anything should, but I just believe this should be talked about. What happens if the buyer's income increases thereby placing him another category of affordability or capability? MR. GIBLIN: The lien would remain with the land. And if -- they are allowed to increase their income as they own their property. It simply would remain intact. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. On Page 137 of the packet -- and this continues the income certification or the overall certification issue. The word "family" is being changed to "household." And the County Attorney, at a couple meetings ago -- or I guess when this first came up in September -- made it clear that, really, it's impractical and ill-advised for us to intrude into the question of now what constitutes a family, and the household is sort of a more generic word, and I get all of that. But do we need to address beyond just the occupancy permit or the number of occupants that may lawfully be in a dwelling unit? Concems about, A, an excessive number of people. How do we -- I guess we -- is there a way of policing that? Probably not as a practical matter. What about people who come and go with frequency, that the household definition changes as somebody comes in and somebody else goes out? Is that something that we should be concerned about? Is it, again, impractical to be concerned about it? And how do we keep up with the certifications? I understand from the material that we ask all occupants to make an income certification and now an asset certification, but is there a way of keeping track of who the occupants are from time to time and that we have the appropriate certifications from the appropriate people? MR. GIBLIN: There's two distinctions to be made. If it's a for-sale product, there's a one time check at time of closing. They can have a family member move in, move out. If they get overcrowding conditions, that's a code enforcement issue. They're subject to the same review and laws of any other residential unit. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. MR. GIBLIN: In a rental situation, there's a yearly monitoring -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: I see. MR. GIBLIN: -- where all persons in that household are checked and monitored on a yearly basis. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Again -- and not being critical in any way. I just want to be sure I understand. The word "household" is meant to include people who are not related to one another at all. I mean, by affinity, consanguinity, nothing, right? MR. GIBLIN: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Those are the questions I had. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Mr. Chair, we just need to revisit the definitions section that you just discussed and modified with respect to extremely low and very low, because with the change you made, there needs to be changes throughout the document to now separately categorizn the extremely low category throughout the document; otherwise, you're excluding the bottom 30 percent. So I just wanted to make sure that you understand that that change will be made, and it will reflect the same numbers as the very low, correct? MR. GIBLIN: Correct. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: But you have to add another category. Do you understand what I'm saying? CHAIRMAN STRAN: I don't. MR. STONE: So there are several provisions that - there are several provisions that have a list of the categories were -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But let's start with the one we're correcting, and tell me what -- how A's changed by what we did with what we're suggesting. Page 41 of49 November 1,2018 MR. STONE: It's not the definition. It's subsequent provisions. For example, Subsection 2.06.01.D.2.D. It's on Page 6 of the amendment. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Because you just changed the definition of very low to be 30 percent to 50 percent, the prior definition included 0 to 50 percent, and so now you've broken it up. So either you drop the definition of extremely low and staffwill have to look elsewhere for that definition or now the 0 to 30 percent has to be identified - COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, let's say that we eliminate the concept of extremely low. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: We support that, County Attomey's Office. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. So there's no other place in here where we need extremely low -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- as a differentiator from very low? MR. STONE: Not in this section, and not in the LDC, as I'm aware. MR. GIBLIN: Not in the LDC. But as I mentioned, we do - for state reporting purposes, for federal reporting purses, we do use that category of extremely low income. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: But this is our Land Development Code so, you know, he can look to state law or federal law for those distinctions. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I would say, then, we should remove the reference to extremely low and you report it the way you need to report it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I would agree. If it's not needed in the LDC, remove ig and - you have other reporting requirements; that's fine. You can track that for reporting requirements, but if it's not part of the LDC, it's language that's not needed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So I think to correct the problem, then, Heidi, we just eliminate that one sentence. (Multiple speakers speaking.) MS. ASHTON-CICKO: That's correct and I agree with that approach. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MR. JOHNSON: So on page 3, you would eliminate A, and everything else would be A, B, C, D? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. MR. GIBLIN: And then no other changes would be needed throughout. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's fine. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Otherthan the one change we discussed regarding assets. CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then -- we're not done yet. We're not nearly done yet. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm just tracking those two for right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Cormac, did Eric brief you on the various issues I brought up -- MR. GIBLIN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- for a meeting you didn't attend? MR. GIBLIN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then let's start with those on 1.08.02 definitions, affordable housing. The first sentence says, "Housing is deemed affordable when the cost of a residential dwelling unit does not exceed 30 percent of that amount which represents a percentage of the median annual gross income for the household." And I suggested adding at the end of that sentence, "for those individuals within the affordable income range," because we can have multi-millionaires in Port Royal who are living above their level and still be considered cost burdened, and I really don't want to mix that up if we don't have to. Do you have any problem adding that language? MR. GIBLIN: It's just a matter of definition that affordable housing is a personal definition no matter what your income. If you spend less than 30 percent of your monthly income on housing, you are Page 42 of 49 November 1,2018 living in something that is affordable. What we've done is state that in the Paragraph 1, and then the next paragraph that's B -- now A through D speciff the income categories that Collier County will consider when assisting or implementing any affordable housing policy. So those folks in Port Royal who choose to live unaffordably would not be part of our concentration of efforts, but those people who live in Port Royal and do spend less than 30 percent of their income on housing are living in affordable housing that is affordable to them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And I just want to keep that category out of the defrrition. Do you have a problem with that, since you're doing it anyway by what's down below? MR. GIBLIN: That would be okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's the bottom line. Then it goes on in that -- MR. GIBLIN: I'm sorrlu, sir. I think that you -- when you added your -- the language, you used the word "individuals." Would it be a problem to use the word "households"? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, whatever category. I just was trying to get the gist of it there, and household would be fine. The second sentence, "The calculation of such costs shall include the monthly rent and utilities, (for rental units) or monthly mortgage payment, property taxes, special assessments, insurance, and other required condominium or homeowners association fees and assessments (for owner occupied units)." Now, I have a couple issues. First of all, I have been involved in what's included in homeowner association fees and condominium fees and assessments like that. They include -- Joe's a typical example where he lives. They have bundled cable. They have Internet. They have a guardhouse out front. They have guards doing all kinds of things for them. And I'm concerned that by putting that here, the costs of those become part of the cost-burdened calculation that really isn't something that should be considered as part of an affordable need. So how are we separating that out? How does this make that not happen? MR. GIBLIN: Two things. Number one, this was a specific addition by the Board of County Commissioners when they heard this item in February. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So they want to include cable television, lnternet connections, and guard security and other -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: CDD expenses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, all those. So they want to include those as part of the affordable -- MR. GIBLIN: What they wanted to do was capture the true cost of ownership. And if those are mandatory in that development, then they wanted to make sure they encompass the true cost of ownership. CHAIRMAN STRAN: But that's artificially inflating the number of people who are going to be cost burdened for things that should be optional in the real world. So why do they choose to live in a place that's above their means? I mean, I don't get the benefit of having those on my -- when my mortgage holder reviews it, they look at expenses for electricity and stufflike that. But if I tell them I want my Internet included in my mortgage, they're going to laugh me out of the unit. So why is that reasonable? MR. GIBLIN: I think it would be reasonable in terms of if you were to do a property search now of condominiums for sale, you might see a number of them for sale here in the Glades community that are -- at purchase price, look reasonable. They may even be less than $100,000. But when you add in all of those mandatory fees, you quickly determine that those fees outweigh even their cost of mortgage and insurance to make that home unaffordable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then they buy a different home. Because why are we encouraging people to qualify for a cost-burdening level to get grants and other things to help them with a new home with items like I've just suggested? I don't understand that. MR. GIBLIN: Maybe if I flipped it around it would make more sense. You cannot -- what we're saying with this language is that you should not consider a $100,000 condo in the Glade affordable if it comes with it, as mandatory, $1,000 a month in assessments. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Some subdivisions also include country club memberships that are mandatory. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct, mandatory club and spa fees -- Page 43 of 49 November 1,2018 COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. Grey Oaks probably does. MR. GIBLIN: What the Board was saying was that there was more to the cost of ownership than just the mortgage. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mr. Chairman, could I say one thing? CHAIRMAN STRAN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I feel like today, for some reason, I feel like I'm in a twilight zone. But I feel like we're saying the same things or similar things. What they're really trying to tell you and reiterate is that shouldn't even be a topic. If someone is looking for affordable housing, those type communities that have clubhouses and tons of amenities or bundled golf, et cetera, that definitely have very high fees -- which, by the way, we're in Naples, Florida, there are high fees all over the place in these HOAs -- that shouldn't even be in the same conversation with affordable housing because it defeats the purpose. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. But they're considered cost burdened. That was my concem. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: fught. It shouldn't be in there. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Oh, okay. So we're on the same page? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: A hundred percent. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Oh, okay. Joe, then Karen. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: One of the reasons I thought why we - this was something even on the Affordable Housing Committee, wanted to include all of these things is because you can go to the MLS and say, well, golly -- use my community. Fiddler's Creek, there's a condo for $150,000. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Fees, though, a thousand a month. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And you can say, well, look at all the affordable housing, but it isn't affordable when you add the CDD, the club and sp4 cable, all the other things that's -- it's not affordable. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So that's what I believe, Cormac, we were trying to capture that, yes, it may look affordable if you just look at an MLS, but it's not affordable to the homeowner who is trying to purchase it and meet these requirements. And when you do an analysis, you look at the total cost of the - to put that person or that family or that -- CHAIRMAN STRAN: You're missing the point. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- amenity into the house. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we're going offon a different point than I was trying to make. By that calculation, we are artificially inflating the number of people that are cost burdened. That is going to be, then, the number used to say, oh, we have this huge shortage of something because we've artificially inflated the cost-burdening calculations. It's a different angle of what you're talking about, and that's the piece that I'm concemed about. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I do agree with you. If you include all those as part of the costs, then you're inflating the cost-burdened calculation. You're correct. MR. GIBLIN: I'll state for the record that we get our cost-burden numbers from the Shimberg Center for affordable housing at the University of Florida. Their methodology does include HOA fees, so they're already in our cost-burdened numbers. Now we're putting it into our definition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it doesn't mean it's right. I'm just telling you I would -- I don't have cable television, and the reason I don't is because Comcast jacked it through the roof, and I'm not going to pay them, so I don't. So, you know, the fact that I don't have it -- I can live without it. I think other people can live without it. [n fact, the world might be better if we didn't see all that violence going on half the time anyrvay. Stan, I'm getting offinto one of your tangents now. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I just can't see acknowledging that as a criteria that ends up being used to determine a larger quantrty of the public pool that is suffering because they've got these high level of expenses when some of those are nonnecessities like I've just suggested, and that's the piece I haven't figured Page 44 of 49 November 1,2018 out how to get around that yet but it's one of those that concern me. Jeremy? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mr. Chairman, I was just saying that you're hitting on a bigger, broader topic which is society today and Naples today, people are living beyond their means, but to categorize that like you're saying into this, it's going to sway those numbers and public perception of man -- but it is what it is. There are so many properties that look on paper in MLS, affordable, under $200,000. But when you drill down, that percentage of available properties gets very minute from an affordability standpoint because of bundled golf extra fees, CDD, et cetera. MR. GIBLIN: And, Commissioner, I think that's exactly why we have recommended this language is to acknowledge that. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: But what the Chairman's saying is, though, but then all of a sudden we're going to say, okay, but then those statistics are going to be used to say, wow, we've got so many more people that can't afford their properties. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. It's the way the calculation then applies to the broader picture that I'm concemed over. MR. GIBLIN: But we don't make that calculation. CI{AIRMAN STRAN: But that's the calculation everybody uses. That's where all the arguments are all over. We've never got a true status because of things like this. And I'm just trying to make sure that when the Board has to make a decision -- and they're hard decisions to make, because you've got people on both sides constantly -- they've got a really validated number, they can deal with iq and this artificially changes that cost-burdening number in my opinion, because it's nonnecessities that we're getting into, and that's the piece that I'm -- and I was concerned about that when I was on the Affordable Housing Committee and I voiced that same concem then. It's not changed. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Is the calculation necessary to be in the definition of affordable housing for the purposes of coming up with the density bonus? MR. GIBLIN: I would think so, because someone could utilize the density bonus program and offer houses for sale or rent but then have excessive fees that - so on the face they're offering affordable housing by the definition if you don't include those mandatory fees. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: And, Mr. Chairman, in all fairness to what he's saying now is - what you're saying is absolutely right. The same thing can be said on the flip side is all of a sudden now everybody's going to be saying, oh, we have affordable housing when the reality is people can't affiord $1,000 a month in fees when it's more than their $800-a-month mortgage. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: So there's a flip side to that. I mean, it could be misused on both sides, the information. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But see, what drives everything in the affordable understanding in Collier County, it seems, is the numbers. You have political stances on both sides, and those numbers are critical, and the numbers aren't as real, I think, if we're including the nonnecessities in the cost-burdening calculation that then calculates the need. That's the piece I was arguing about when I was on the Affording Housing Committee, and that's the thing I'm still suggesting today. I don't -- COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I totally get it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I can't sit here and tell you a solution. I'm offering it as a concern that I don't know how to get around, but I think it's falsely stating some of the people that are cost burdened concerned to what we want to do with aflordable housing. I'd rather get to the real true need without this kind of stuffand then focus on how do we get there, because even, I think, the true need in the county is going to change somewhat than what we keep hearing. I mean, this essential service and gap and workforce, I mean, that's the high end of the affordability. The low end of the affordability probably has got an issue we haven't addressed as much, so -- and this is not going to help any of that. Im just concemed with it. So I'm -- I don't know what else to do with it. Cormac, I wanted to let you know what I said when I was on that committee, and I still am concemed about it. Page 45 of 49 November 1,2018 MR. FRANTZ: Commissioner, if I could offer an opinion. Jeremy Frantz, for the record, LDC manager. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Yes. MR. FRANTZ: So this language was reviewed by the Board previously, and that's why we brought it forward the way it is now. We tried to stick to what the Board reviewed as much as we could. They reviewed that language, I think, without a recommendation from the Planning Commission, so it may be that when they see this amendment again they need to see your recommendation regarding this -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm curious, when the Board focused on iq did they consider that this language would result in inclusion of what most people would consider luxury items? Was that discussed or contemplated? MR. GIBLIN: When the Board saw this, it did not have the associated mandatory-fees language with it. They added it on their own as part of their motion. COMMISSIONER FRYER: But was there discussion with respect to mandatory country club memberships -- MR. GIBLIN: The question was capture the true cost of ownership of mandatory fees. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Tom? MR. EASTMAN: Just to complicate things, not only are those fees related to luxury items like golf and clubhouses and spas, but they're also related to hurricane insurance and roof replacement and things that people would really feel are essential. There's no doubt that including them at some point at the margin is going to inflate the number, but I think it's a good point that you can use this in both directions. CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: But the insurance is listed as a separate item here, and I'm not questioning that one, Tom. MR. EASTMAN: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, I don't -- insurance is a given cost. You can't have a mortgage without the insurance. It becomes a monthly factor. You can have a mortgage without Internet. MR. EASTMAN: Absolutely. CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: Let's move on. I had questioned with Eric the idea of including a reference to the - and it carries throughout the document. The maximum density should be allowed pursuant to the GMP instead of stating 16. And Heidi was not atthat meeting. She subsequently talked to me about it, her and Scott, I understand it better now, so as far as Cormac, I won't be having to get into that here. So that's going to take away quite a bit of the issues. Oh, then we get into - this is on Page 1 I of my document. It's under -- it's right after the tables that designate the maximum allowable density bonus. So it's the page after that. It's Number C. "The minimum number of affordable housing units that shall be provided in the development pursuant to this section shall be 10 percent of the total housing units." And my question at that time was, give me an example, because it appeared from computations, say, taking a 50-acre tract that ifyou decided to do more gap, you'd get a higher bonus than you would by using that computation. And I'm wondering if that was really helpful or hinder - if it creates more affordable housing or reduces the amount that we could require for the density bonus that would be provided. And I asked if he could - if you could bring an example. MR. GIBLIN: Let me clarify your question. Is it on Paragraph C? CHAIRMAN STRAN: Yes. MR. GIBLIN: Why are we changing to 10 percent rather than 10 units? CHAIRMAN STRAN: Yes. MR. GIBLIN: I think the first answer to that is if you look at the chart, 10 percent is the lowest category. There's nothing less than 10 percent. If someone came in and said they wanted to do a development at 6 percent affordable, there's really no corresponding number on the chart we can go to. So 10 percent is the de fact (sic) minimum in any category. CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: And it only applies to that -- it only applies to that first category. So, I mean, you can do more, then you get more bonuses, but the minimum now you can do would be l0 percent Page 46 of 49 November 1,2018 instead of l0 units. MR. GIBLIN: Correct, and that's the change here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's fine. That helps. Thank you. Eric was kind of trying to fill in your shoes, and he was -- we were -- MR. GIBLIN: I did bring examples on how you can use the chart if you have questions on how -- its use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. The next question is on Page -- MR. STONE: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. STONE: Since you're on the chart right now, I just wanted to point out a clean-up issue. On the chart that's being struck through, the very last row, which is very low, it doesn't appear to be struck through, and I think that should be struck through as well; is that correct? MR. JOHNSON: That's correct. MR. GIBLIN: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Thank you, Scott. The next question is on Page 14, a few pages down. We were on I l, so -- for those of you following along. And it's the top of the page. It actually starts on Page 13 . It's No. 1 9, it talks about rental units. And we're extending the agreement to be deed restricted or restricted for 30 years instead of 15, and this document I thoughq was supposed to encourage affiordable housing. That's a huge discouragement. How come? MR. GIBLIN: Again, that was specific direction by the Board of County Commissioners. They've recently seen a number of these 15-year commitments expire, and so we have a constant battle of affordable units expiring and rolling offthe rolls and allowing their rents to increase. So it was a dhection by the Board to move to 30-year restriction. Staffdoesn't see too much of a problem with it specifically because it is only -- it is on the rental side. Most rental developments, most affordable rental developments that are developed, are going to incorporate other funding mechanisms, grants, state housing tax credits, which typically bring along with them 30- to 50-year commitments, so we didn't see this as going - necessarily asking the developments that are targeting for this to do anything outside what they would otherwise be required. But again, it was specifically - (Multiple speakers speaking.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, it goes - it does the opposite of incentivization. So I just didn't know if anybody was aware of that. Okay. On Number C on that same page -- oh, that's the same question. That's the same -- yeah, we just got done with that. Same question I previously had, so... And you've got the asset report and -- oh, on Page 17,just before -- the paragraphjust before 2.06.06, you talk about "The developer shall be deemed in compliance with the AHDB agreement if the developer has complied with the tenant eligibility and qualification requirements of the Florida Housing Finance Corporation by providing the county community," which I'm not sure what the county community - is that the new name of your division, county community human services -- MR. GIBLIN: The county's Community and Human Service Department. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. "A copy of the Annual Florida Housing Finance Corporation Compliance and Program Reports." What is the Florida Housing Finance Corporation Compliance and Program Reports? MR. GIBLIN: Florida Housing Finance Corporation is an agency of state government, and they're the ones who administer those grants and tax credits I just mentioned. The yearly monitoring for those properties is quite intense. And what this paragraph does is say that if we have a density bonus agreement with a development who is also monitored by the state, we can rely on those state monitoring reports for the yearly monitoring and qualification of tenants rather than needing to duplicate efforts and do it ourselves. There's actually a state statute that authorizes that as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That helps. I wasn't -- I couldn't figure out what that was. Page 47 of 49 November 1,2018 And that's the last question I have, so... Anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we're -- now, we left off- we asked for some clarifications that you've monitored, modification of the percentage ofthe af[ordable level, then omit the extremely low. Asset certification, including non-income-producing, and the other discussion we had was the issue of cost burdening. And I just would hope that you would relay that communication to the Board as far as getting it out on the table exactly what it is that that includes. I mean, I may not have been as clear that Internet fees and cable fees and all the -- all those other fees were part of it. I understand your argument, but at least maybe the Board, if they hear it, they might take a second look at it. So anybody else have anything? (I.{o response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It about sums it up. Is there a motion to send these recommendations to the Board? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Make a motion to send the LDC amendments as -- with - including the changes we discussed to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded byNed. Discussion? (No response.) CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKJ: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CI{AIRMAN STRAN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. We're still at6 --yeah,6-0. Okay. Thank you, all. That takes us to new business; there's none listed. We previously discussed with staffabout coming back and scheduling a meeting for sea level rise. Miketsosi's here, and he's heard that. There's no old business listed. Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. Just quite - several, several months ago when we had -- emergency management had an issue about the number of cots that they had to provide. It was an assisted living facility, and I'd asked for emergency management to come back and discuss that. That has yet to have been scheduled. I missed the opporhrnity during the AUIR to ask Dan Summers, and I still think that he owes us an answer as to the methodolory that he used and justification for that exaction that really had no justification. And I asked for something to clarif, in regards to that. Though we did approve il it seemed to be an exaction with no justification. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that something that can be done with you and - COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: - Dan instead of the - COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I think it can be done separately. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi again, Planning and Zonngdirector. And we had a brief conversation with Mr. Summers after that, and he was aware of your concems and request for that. We just haven't continued that moving it forward. I can contact Mr. Summers and coordinate with you, Joe, specifically for that information. Page 48 of49 November 1,2018 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. Send me a note. And I think if we're going to do that in the future, there ought to be something in the - codified in our LDC that lays out that criteria. CFIAIRMAN STRAIN: That would be great. Thank you. There's no members of the public here for public comment. So with that is there a motion to adjoum? COMMISSIONER FRYER: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So moved byNed. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Patrick. All in favor, sipifu by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI : Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: AYE. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. We're out of here, 6-0. Thank you. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Hey, Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: This guy scrivener makes a lot of errors. I think it ought to be reflected on his employee evaluation. CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: That would be a really good idea. Oh, Stan, you add the levity that's needed. *****t* There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:10 p.m. COLLIER COLINTY PLANNING COMMIS SION ATTEST CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT & COMPTROLLER These minutes approved by the Board on l?.-b'lF , as presented or as corrected L/. - TRANSCRIPTPREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT,INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. Page 49 of 49