Loading...
CCPC Minutes 04/18/2019April 18,2019 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETTNG OF THE COLLIER COLINTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, April 1 8,2019 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Stan Chrzanowski Patrick Dearborn Karl Fry Edwin Fryer Karen Homiak Joe Schmitt ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V. Bellows, ZoningManager James Sabo, Principal Planner Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney Tom Eastman, School District Representative Page 1 of85 Collier County Planning Commission Page 1 Printed 4/10/2019 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission AGENDA Board of County Commission Chambers Collier County Government Center 3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor Naples, FL 34112 April 18, 2019 9: 00 AM Mark Strain - Chairman Karen Homiak - Vice-Chair Edwin Fryer - Secretary Patrick Dearborn Karl Fry Stan Chrzanowski, Environmental Joseph Schmitt, Environmental Thomas Eastman, Collier County School Board Note: Individual speakers will be limited to 5 minutes on any item. Individuals selected to speak on behalf of an organization or group are encouraged and may be allotted 10 minutes to speak on an item if so recognized by the chairman. Persons wishing to have written or graphic materials included in the CCPC agenda packets must submit said material a minimum of 10 days prior to the respective public hearing. In any case, written materials intended to be considered by the CCPC shall be submitted to the appropriate county staff a minimum of seven days prior to the public hearing. All material used in presentations before the CCPC will become a permanent part of the record and will be available for presentation to the Board of County Commissioners if applicable. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the CCPC will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto, and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. April 2019 Collier County Planning Commission Page 2 Printed 4/10/2019 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Roll Call by Secretary 3. Addenda to the Agenda 4. Planning Commission Absences 5. Approval of Minutes A. March 21, 2019, CCPC Minutes 6. BCC Report - Recaps 7. Chairman's Report 8. Consent Agenda 9. Public Hearings A. Advertised 1. ***This item is being continued from the April 4, 2019 CCPC meeting.*** PUDR PL20180002020: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance No. 2009-21, as amended, the Esplanade Golf & Country Club of Naples Residential Planned Unit Development, and amending Ordinance No. 2004-41, the Collier County Land Development Code, by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of an additional 10± acres of land zoned Rural Agricultural (A) to the Esplanade Golf & Country Club of Naples RPUD; by amending the PUD document to revise a Development Standard Table footnote relating to setbacks; to increase the minimum required preserve area for the PUD; to update the Master Plan to label the additional PUD acreage as a Residential/Golf tract and show additional preserve area on that tract; to revise the PUD legal description; to add a deviation relating to environment; to modify development commitments relating to planning and environment; and by providing an effective date. The property to be added to the PUD is located just west of Collier Boulevard, approximately two-thirds of a mile north of Immokalee Road, in Section 22, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, with the entire PUD consisting of 1,668.3± acres. [Coordinator: James Sabo, AICP, Principal Planner] April 2019 Collier County Planning Commission Page 3 Printed 4/10/2019 2. PL20170000768: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance Number 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from a Rural Agricultural (A) Zoning District to a Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) Zoning District for the project to be known as the Baumgarten MPUD, to allow construction of a maximum of 400 multifamily and/or townhouse residential dwelling units and up to 140 hotel/motel rooms and up to 370,000 square feet of commercial land uses at the southeast quadrant of Immokalee Road and Collier Boulevard, in Section 26, Township 48, Range 26, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 55.66+/- acres; and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner, AICP, PLA] B. Noticed 10. New Business 11. Old Business 12. Public Comment 13. Adjourn April 18,2019 PROCEEDINGS CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the April 18th 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 STRAIN: Thank you. Will the secretary please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chrzanowski? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: MT. Fry? COMMISSIONER FRY: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm here. Chairman Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Vice-chair Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Schmitt? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Dearborn? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Present. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Chairman, we have a full house. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Addenda to the agenda: The only thing I'd like to discuss with the Planning Commission is how long we will intend to stay here today. We usually try to work until -- on this meeting at least until about 4:00. I don't -- it doesn't matter to me. Does anybody have any preferences? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What we'll do is we'll assess the situation at 4 o'clock and see if we can wrap it up and finish it. If not, we'll just go on to another day. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I have to leave at 3 o'clock. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll still have a quorum. Thank you. Planning Commission absences: As it stands now, we don't have a meeting on May 2nd; is that correct, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the next meeting would be May l6th. Does anybody know if they cannot make it to the May 16th meeting? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAN: Ned's got a new toy, so he's going to be playing with it today. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'll be embarrassed all morning. Sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Approval of the minutes: We were distributed electronically minutes for the March 2lst meeting. Does anybody have any changes? If not, is there a motion for approval? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Ned. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signiff by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. Page 2 of85 April 18,2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. The BCC report and recaps? MR. BELLOWS: On April 9th, the Board of County Commissioners heard the rezone for StoreAll; that's the one on the East Trail. That was on the summary agenda; it got pulled. It was heard by the Board of County Commissioners and approved 5-0 subject to the CCPC. CFIAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. That takes us to the chairman's report, and I don't really have a chairman's report, but with as many people as I see here today, I thought I would take an opportunity to explain the process. I don't know -- first of all, thank you all for coming out. We are here to hear the public, and all of those of you that want to speak today, we certainly are here to listen to you. The process that's going to happen, we have two cases today. One is on the Esplanade Golf & Country Club, and the other one is on Baumgarten MPUD. It's where the old Pelican Nursery used to be. I don't know who's here for what, but they'll both be approached the same way. When we get to the item, everybody's sworn in who wants to speak. You'll be asked to stand up to be sworn in if you want to speak on that particular item. Then we hear a presentation by the applicant. It will take anywhere from 40 minutes to 45 or sometimes an hour. It just depends on the details involved. After that, the staff -- the Planning Commission will be asking questions of the applicant. We will then go to what's called a staffreport. We'll ask questions of staff. When we're finished with the applicant and the staffand we've finished asking questions we have of those two, then we go to public speakers. And when you speak, we ask that you limit your time to five minutes, and please don't be redundant. Sometimes something simpler is just as well understood as something more complicated. So if you just agree with the person in front of you or who spoke ahead of you, that's fine, too. For those of you who are representing groups, we do have latitude for more time. We just ask that you be considerate of time for the amount of people that have to speak. When we get done with the public testimony, then we have the opportunity for the applicant to do what's called rebuttal. They have some time to address some of the issues that were raised if they want to. And I have no idea how long today's going to take. We will try to break later in the aftemoon. If we do, this will be continued to another date. ['m not sure what date it will be continued to, but it will depend on the intensity of the things that come up as a result of today and what the applicant or staff have to do to respond to the reasons for the continuance. And we'll just go from there. So with that, we'll move right into our next item on the agenda, which is our public hearings. 't<**The first one up is the advertised public hearing for the Esplanade Golf & Country Club. It's PUDR PL20180002020. All those wishing to testifu on behalf of that item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. If you're going to speak to the Esplanade item, please stand up raise and your hand. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. With that, we'll start disclosures. We'll start with Tom over on my right. MR. EASTMAN: No disclosures other than those that are in the public record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. Correspondence and a phone conversation with Mr. Yovanovich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: KaTI? Page 3 of85 April 18,2019 COMMISSIONER FRY: Emails and a conversation with Rich Yovanovich. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Emails. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Mine was the same as Tom's; I've received some emails and correspondence, all ofwhich have been forwarded to staffand part ofpublic record. Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I spoke to Mr. Yovanovich and emails. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Same; spoke to Mr. Yovanovich and several emails. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Patrick? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Various emails, and they were forwarded to staff. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. With that, we'll turn the process over to the applicant. MR. YOVANOVICH: Good morning. For the record, Rich Yovanovich on behalf of the petitioner. Once the visualizer gets on I can show you where the project is. But let me introduce the project team. With me today, not all intending to talk but to answer any questions you may have, is Drew Miller with Taylor Morrison; Alexis Crespo, Lindsay Robin, and Jeremy Arnold with Waldrop Engineering. They're the planner and engineering firm for the project; Jim B is our transportation consultant; and Tim Hall is our environmental consultant. We're here to amend the Esplanade Golf & Country Club PUD by adding a 1O-acre parcel that's adjacent to the PUD and to the east, which is identified on the visualizer in red. Some of you may remember this as the old Mirasol PUD that was approved several years ago. What we're adding to the project is this I 0-acre piece of property, and on that 1 0-acre piece of property, we can construct up to 34 single-family homes, and that's clearly outlined in the PUD document in front of you. The original project was approved. It's a little over 1,638 acres. Part of it's urban. Part of it's neutral. It was approved originally for l,l2l units. There was a previous amendment to add almost 20 acres. The previous amendment was also in red, and it was known as the Delilo (phonetic) parcel, and the PUD required that the 112 units we were adding to the PUD at that time be constructed on the Delilo parcel. Only 47 units actually got constructed on the Delilo parcel. So what you have before you today are basically two amendments to the existing PUD. The first is to actually reduce the overall project density from the currently approved 1,233 units to 1,184 units to be consistent with the projected buildout of the original Mirasol project. It's a little less than the 1,121. The -- we did less than the number of units originally authorized by the Delilo project, and we're adding the 10 acres and the 34 units. So when you do the math, you'll see that we're actually reducing the overall project density through what we're proposing. I'm going to put the master plan up to show you. This is the 10 acres that we're proposing to add, and access will be through the extension of this roadway right here. So all of the access to this project will be -- it's an internal access to the property that we're adding. And I'm not sure I'm going to say it right, but I think it's Torre Vista East. Close to Torre Vista. That's the properfy or the street that we're going to be extending. Also, as part of this amendment, we'll be providing a.8-acre preserve. Although we exceeded the original preserves for the original project, we did agree to do a little bit more preservation on this parcel. I think you've either received a letter or will hear positive feedback on our agreeing to do that additional preserve. And we're adding one -- it's not a deviation, but a change to a footnote to allow for a rear setback to go down to zero feet next to a lake maintenance easement. That's the short and simple about what we're proposing to do. Your staffs recommending approval, and we're hopeful that the Planning Commission will recommend approval to the Board of Page 4 of85 April 18,2019 County Commissioners. And with that, we'll answer any questions you may have, or we'll wait until after the public speaks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Questions from the Planning Commission. Does anybody have any issues? Oh, go ahead, Karl. COMMISSIONER FRY: One question, Mr. Yovanovich. What is the reason for reducing the setback from the lake maintenance easement to zero? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, that's a fairly typical deviation or development standard for the different products that you would put on a piece of properly fronting a lake. So it's really to fit the typical product type that we would want to put on there. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I saw a summary but not a transcript of the NIM. I'm sorry that I didn't see the NIM transcript. MR. YOVANOVICH: There were two of them. COMMISSIONER FRY: Two transcripts? MR. YOVANOVICH: There should have been. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I saw summaries, questions and answer, but I didn't see the -- MR. YOVANOVICH: There were two NIMs that we held on this property. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, I'll ask staff. Were the transcripts -- I mean, the two audios that I got pertain to the second item on our agenda. MR. SABO: The audio was included, as I understand it, with the Accela packet. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I got two NIM audios that were identical. MR. SABO: We'll have to look into that. MR. YOVANOVICH: But, Mr. Fryer, we did have -- we had two separate NIMs. We provided the audios with the summary. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned, do you have anything else? COMMISSIONER FRYER: NO. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: I have a question, but it happens to be of Tom Eastman. Tom, on Page 6 of the staff report, it says, school district. At this time the school district has not provided a staffreport section. I don't know why one would be needed. but I just didn't know if that was a reason it wasn't provided. Were you aware of that? MR. EASTMAN: I was not aware of that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. In this particular case, since they're asking for a reduction in density, would you have a need -- would you have a concern? MR. EASTMAN: There is no need, but we should be providing the report because it's a residential project and will affect school district impacts; however, with the overall reduction of density, there's not great concern. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just so the T's are crossed and I's are dotted, maybe you could get someone on your team to get a report to James for the -- at least when the BCC hears this, they'll that have that then. MR. EASTMAN: Yes, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The rear setback change on the -- going to zero, when we take a look at that in the context of the standards table -- and you have it under the section labeled Table I , Development Standards Table for RG residential areas, and you go down and you find that you have rear setback, Asterisk l, and you've changed the language for Asterisk l; is that correct? Page 5 of85 April 18,2019 MS. CRESPO: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The new language is a portion of a smaller sentence. My concern is not necessarily what that smaller sentence says, but it was the basis of the other sentence that the rest of the project built out on. If you notice, you're doing it under the standard RG page, and that applies to the whole project; is that correct? So that means all the property owners in that project now will be -- must be consistent with Asterisk I compared -- for this new language, not the old; is that how we're looking at it? MS. CRESPO: Yes. And I believe staff was able to interpret the former footnote or the existing footnote is allowing us to have the pool cage atthe lake maintenance easement through architectural bank treatments. They just were uncomfortable with the wording of the footnote as it rests, because it did create some issues at building permit time. So this was something they suggested we correct at the pre-app, but it is consistent with how the existing homes have been built out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let me read what the first -- the cross-out says. "Rear yards for principal and accessory structures on lots and tracts which abut lakes and open spaces. Setbacks from lakes for all principal and accessory uses may be zero feet provided architectural treatment is incorporated into design and subject to written approval from the Collier County Engineering Division." Well, the new sentence is now all crossed out. The new sentence says, "Zero feet. Principal and accessory setbacks are permitted from lake maintenance easements." So if these two are the same, why are we changing it, and why did you come and need the change today? I'm more concerned about, first of all, you've taken out the reference to the Collier County Engineering Department, the reference to architectural bank treatments. Somehow that got there. I remember it from other documents as well, and I don't know why staff would decide it's not needed any longer, and that the summary part of the sentence you added in is now substituted for that. And you're basically changing the properly rights, potentially, on everybody that's RG in that property except for that little square, and I'm just wondering how staff saw that as being sufficient. And if you don't -- if that hasn't really been questioned of staff by you, then maybe I will be -- during staff -- maybe staff can give me an answer on it. MR. SABO: Mr. Chairman, I would defer to Engineering for that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MoLEAN: Matt Mclean, director of Development Review. We have had several residences that have come in within this particular development where they've wanted to utilize the existing pre-crossed out Asterisk 1 setback where it goes to zero at the back, and we've had to work with them to build retaining walls or architectural treatments that butt right up on the edge of that lake maintenance easement. We felt, from a staff perspective, that it was easier and cleaner just to go ahead and allow the zero-foot setbacks so that could be a more traditional slope of a four-to-one coming off the back of that location of these lakes for these locations. So that was why we agreed to put the new language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But why does a four-to-one slope eliminate the concerns -- the possibility of having architectural treatment? It doesn't necessarily mean a retaining wall is the only answer. I thought that might be some kind of buffering provisions, vegetation, any number of things. I also am worried that by taking that out, we may have inadvertently put a nonconforming position for someone else on the property who -- because there's a lot of lakes and the property already developed in there, and I don't know if this is necessary to remove when others relied on it. I mean, there's I 1 -- what, over a thousand units that have already been built that may have relied on some of that language. Did anybody check to see if anything else could be changed by just summarizing it and simpling allowing zero feet? I just don't know why we're -- Matt, if it's not needed and it says the same thing, why are we Page 6 of85 April 18,2019 changing it and disrupting potentially things that have been approved over the past 10 years, say? MR. McLEAN: We've always struggled a little bit with this language when it comes in, just what is the definition of an architectural bank treatment? And so we've been working with staff when they come in at the building permit time frame to try to delineate that out. For us, we felt it was cleaner if it was just down to a zero-foot setback; then we could rely on the Land Development Code to have the traditional bank slopes which we see within those lake maintenance easements of four-to-one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How do you put a lake bank slope in if you've got a pool that's relying on a footer that's going to take it up to a higher elevation than the bank's four-to-one would start at 20 feet back from the water's edge? MR. McLEAN: They're going to have to be flush based off the proposed new language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're going to have to be flush meaning? MR. McLEAN: Flush meaning at grade. No would be -- (Simultaneous speakers speaking.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then you can't have a stem wall -- okay. Out of the 1,180 units or number of units that have already been built, do any of them on the lake have stem walls or other architectural treatments that now would be inconsistent if we were to put this as a straight four-to-one slope requirement? MR. MoLEAN: I don't know the answer to that question, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then I'm not comfortable taking that language out. MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I ask a question? As you know, Mr. Strain, math's not my strong suit at times. But these properties that exist are already built at a zero setback. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: And if we're asking for a zero setback, I think those properties would be consistent with the new language because they're already at zero through an interpretation. As staff is saying, they're a little concerned about maybe the interpretation. So this, I think, takes away an ambiguity for existing homes that might currently exist, and going to the zero -- a straight zero,l think, might actually provide more consistency. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If you have -- go ahead, Jeff MR. KLATZKOW: And one approach, Mr. Chair, would be making an alternative, so keep the original language, which prior people have developed on or, in the alternate, then the new language so that the existing people have their current language, the new people could rely on the zero-foot setback. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I am worried about what's been done existing. And to explain what I think is the issue, Rich, is if you've got a water's edge, your control elevation, from -- back from the control elevation for South Florida Water Management, we have a 20-foot maintenance easement that's set at four-to-one. It's for accessibility, for people's safety, and every other thing, not necessarily, though, are pools built and their decks at the point where that four-to-one touches the upper side of the area around the lake. So that means they've got to be up out of the ground. That exposed area up out ofthe ground could be rough concrete slab; could be any number of things. I think the intent here was that it would be something architectural; it would be something that -- more than just rough concrete. And I don't know how staffs looked at it, and that's the only thing I'm concerned about. And I thought -- I don't see where that's bad if you're right up against the lake. I don't think anybody's going to do anything different than what that sentence already says. MR. YOVANOVICH: I think this is a lawyer trying to interpret. So it's kind of a physical appearance look. It could -- it could be -- the architecture could be what you look at that looks nice versus just plain old concrete. We could -- we're okay with the existing language, and we don't want to create any issues. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Well, if you're okay with it, rather than take the chance that some other Page 7 of85 April 18,2019 property owner's going to be damaged by it, why don't we just leave it like it is? MR. YOVANOVICH: That's fine. And we're fine with that. We were just trying to follow advice we were given. If it hasn't created problems for us, it won't create problems in the future. I think there's a record established that that's really what was intended, to allow for these types of zero feet, and we'll move on, if that's okay with the Planning Commission. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: It works for me, and we'll weigh in when we do a stipulation. If you go to Page 31 of the staff report, which is just past the master plan, I believe. And it's a colorful aerial, and it shows the subject property, Esplanade Golf & Country Club. Actually, it's Page 32. It's after the language change in Exhibit F, which is the ordinance. It's fourth page after the ordinance. James? MR. YOVANOVICH: Could someone put -- CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: James, it's this page right here. MR. SABO: Oh. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Just a cleanup issue. If you could drop that on the overhead. MR. YOVANOVICH: I've got the color. CFIAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Is this it, Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, lower right-hand corner. Do you see anything out of the ordinary? Not on the -- no. Go below the picture. There you go. See that little blue box? I think you really want that changed, don't you? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thanks for the memories. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I didn't see that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that is the -- took a while. You just saw it, huh? MR. EASTMAN: I was looking at Rich's face. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the last question I have. So you would put the old language back in play and take out the new language on the footnote, and you would correct the note I just showed you on the color page. MR. YOVANOVICH: If that's the worst thing that happens to me today, I'm in really good shape. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. But it's these kinds of things that could mess up down the road, so we've always got to fix them. Okay. I don't have any more questions. Is there a staff report? MR. SABO: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Staff finds that the project meets the Land Development Code. We recommend approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions of stafP (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAN: James, do you have any problems correcting that -- putting that -- leaving that footnote as it was and striking the new language? MR. SABO: I do not. CFIAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, is there any members of the public here who want to discuss this particular item? Seeing none -- MR. SABO: I have two speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Oh, I'm sorry, for Esplanade? MR. SABO: Yeah, two speakers for Esplanade. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I just asked and nobody raised their hand. Go ahead then. If you'd call them up. Those of you that want to speak, please come up to either one of the mikes, and we'll be glad to listen to you. MR. SABO: So Dave Boguslawski representing Esplanade, and Nicole Johnson representing the Conservancy. Page 8 of 85 April 18,2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, sir. And, sir, if you could start by stating your name and spelling your last name for the court reporter. MR. BOGUSLAWSKI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. My name is David Boguslawski. I'm a resident of the Esplanade community. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you spell that last name so the court reporter gets it accurately. MR. BOGUSLAWSKI: B-o-g-u-s-l-a-w-s-k-i. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. BOGUSLAWSKI: I assume you wanted me to spell the last name. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's right. She picks up first names real well, but those last names get complicated. MR. BOGUSLAWSKI: I'm going to be speaking to you this morning on behalf of many of the residents of the community. We put together a PowerPoint presentation to make it easy on me to keep track of things and move among in a quick pace and also to help you-all maybe see what our concern is. I'm going to run through these slides very quickly. The outline I'll be using is shown here. We talk a little bit about who we are, what the goals of our presentation are, what our challenges are within the community that relate to this expansion, the commitments Taylor Morrison has made to us and our asks of you. We've also included an appendix with additional information, which I do not plan to cover today, but we put it in there because it could be helpful should you have questions. So who are we? For those of you here from the Esplanade community, could you just raise your hands. Now, we could have had more people show up today. We're coming off peak season. Some have already left for the summer season. We are approaching Easter weekend. My wife and I have never spent Easter without our family. This is the first time in our lives. We felt this was impo(ant enough to be here. I know others feel the same. We're residents of the community; about 700 homes closed to date. We all bought our homes since 19 -- or in the past five years when the community started. I'm not here speaking for the full community, but I believe and those of us in the room believe we do represent fairly the community's views. We have worked hard with Taylor Morrison to try to work through our issues. And I stand here today wanting to thank and praise Drew Miller who works for Taylor Morrison as their director of land planning. Drew and I have probably have had about a dozen phone calls and other interactions together during the last month or so, and he has worked hard. Every time we had a conversation, he had homework and I had homework, so it was a strong commitment from both sides to work together. We're here really concerned about making sure that Taylor Morrison follows through on its commitments. The phrase of the day from my perspective is "trust but veriflr." Ronald Reagan's the one who made that saying famous. It's also attributed to others, but that is what you're going to hear me say a few times. Our goals: We're trying to make things easy for you. We want to make sure that we spend enough time to help you understand our concerns at a very high level. We're providing you more detail in the appendix. We're going to run through very quickly, again, the Taylor Morrison proposal. And their proposal was submitted to us, you know, sort of as an ultimatum. You know, we're going to win anyway. This is in the bag but, you know, if you don't stand up and support this, you're not going to get all these pieces ofcandy, and that turned a lot ofpeople off. And we went back to them, spent some time, talked about our concerns. They added to the list, but it's still an ultimatum. The other thing that happened is right at the tail end ofthis process, after Drew and I had reached conceptual agreement on terms such that you-all and the Board of Commissioners would incorporate our agreements into the approvals that were received so that you would have a monitoring capability, one of the lawyers got involved, and Drew got back to me and said, sorry, the lawyer says these guys really don't Page 9 of 85 April 18,2019 have any authority to monitor and enforce what they approve, which I actually thought was rather ridiculous, which is one of the reasons I'm here today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, when he said that to you, he said we don't have the authority, or the county doesn't have the authority to monitor and approve what they approve, was he referring to the fact that this language got added that you wanted to as a special agreement, then we'd have problems monitoring and approving that -- or reviewing that? Is that -- MR. BOGUSLAWSKI: I believe that was the case. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that is an accurate statement. It's because we are here purely for two documents: The Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Code. We do approve PUDs subject to those two codes, and we enforce it subject to those two codes, but a lot of communities have private restrictions and private agreements that are outside the purview of the ability for the county to go out and -- if you took -- there's 450 PUDs in the county. Every one of them has private agreements, private HOA deals with -- as far as deeds, and we cannot enforce those, and we do not enforce those. That's another matter. So if that's what you're trying to do is get a private agreement incorporated into the PUD, I can understand why they probably told you that. MR. BOGUSLAWSKI: This might be something that we delay until later in the presentation, and we can talk about some of the things that, you know, we were hoping that you would monitor. And, you know, the gist of it -- I'll get right to part of the issue. A lot of the agreements have to be done in2019, according to Taylor Morrison; they will be done. To me, it's a very simple review to take a look at the list and say, were they done or not, before granting any approval. CHAIRMAN STRAN: That's probably a turnover agreement is what you're talking about for your HOA? MR. BOGUSLAWSKI: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. BOGUSLAWSKI: So I will come back to that, and maybe we can discuss that a little bit. Next, our challenges. I have a few slides here. We're really feeling the challenge of death by a thousand cuts. We have a highly congested amenity center, which is where our common facilities are, you know, parking for golf, the dining area, sports court, et cetera, and we're only 60 or 70 percent built out as a community. We also have an amenity center that has absolutely no room to grow. So if the parking lot is too small, there's no place to go. You can't add more cars. Hatcher is not the first property Taylor Morrison has added. They've added the Delilo property as well, added 47 homes then. Parking was already too small before that was added. They're now proposing the extra l0 acres and 34 more homes. And our issue is not with Taylor Morrison adding to the properly per se. It's with what happens to the congestion in the community that already exists. More homes basically means we've got more parking problems, more challenges sitting around the pool, not enough chairs, sports courts get filled up, fitness classes get filled up, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. When Taylor Morrison designed this community, they designed it for a certain size, and the more homeowners you add, the more congestion you have in the community. We've brought a couple photos of the parking situation. These aren't the greatest things in the world. We didn't have a drone to fly over the whole parking lot, so we took pictures from a couple of angles. Pictures speak for themselves. Full parking lot on a Wednesday afternoon, March 27th. First time somebody went through and just shot some pictures. Staff suggested we come in with some pictures; I thought it was a good idea. This is another day, April 7th. Now, on this day it was Sunday afternoon; there was an event going on, and events are going to tend to get very crowded. But here's an example of where people didn't have any room to park whatsoever. The other shot showed a full parking lot, too. But here we've got a Page 10 of85 rI April 18,2019 full parking lot where people were turned away from the parking lot. There was no room to park. So what about inadequate car parking? Why is it a challenge? Everybody drives. Everybody drives their cars to the place. If you want to play golf, if you want to play tennis, if you want to play pickleball, bocce, you want to swim, you want to work out, you want to dine, you want to attend meetings there. It's become a challenge at 60 or 70 percent of the homes built - with 60 to 70 percent built. We also have nonresident golfers which will decline over time as more homes get built, so there is a little bit of an offset there, and staffare rising. And as we add more homes, the amenity center gets used more and, you know, without more remote pools, people are going to want to use the pool there as well. And the bottom line is there's only 2 1 0 parking spots, and some number of them, pick a number, 30, get used by staff that work there. So we've really got 180 parking lots (sic) for 1,184 homeowners and 30 staff people. And as we all know, this is a great place to be in the wintertime. We are a seasonal community, largely. Everybody comes here at the same time. Everybody wants to golf in the nice weather. Everybody wants to play tennis in the nice weather. We all want to use the parking lot at the same time. That's the challenge. And the solution space is very limited. The whole campus is surrounded by either water, golf course, or preserves. We cannot grow it to add more parking. Some related things. We aren't a walking community at all. This community is spread out over lots and lots and lots of acres. There's no direct access whatsoever by bicycle or golf cart. You have to go on the roads, and the roads were granted deviations making them very narrow. And we've got a lot of traffic on the roads right now because of construction as well. But there's traffic on the roads, streets are narrow, and people tend to want to drive their car rather than bike or golf cart. The parking deviations were additive. There was a 40 percent deviation and a 50 percent deviation. That's part of the problem. The other part of the problem is fewer remote pools have been built than were originally promised by Taylor Morrison in meeting after meeting after meeting. I'd be happy to provide evidence of that if you'd like, meeting notes that they took. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, sir, are we getting close? Because we've been moving -- we're at almost l5 minutes now. So are you getting close? MR. BOGUSLAWSKI: I am. If you would like people to raise their hands again, cede me their time. I'm almost done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's fine. I'm just asking to move forward. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Mark, I would like to express my profound appreciation for all these people not wanting to talk. I'll put up with him for another 15 or 20 minutes. MR. BOGUSLAWSKI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAN: That's fine. I'm just trying to keep to the rules, Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Oh, no. I know. MR. BOGUSLAWSKI: So these are the commitments. I wanted to get to, because maybe we could have our dialogue about, you know, what's enforceable, what's not. One of the things we agreed on with Taylor Morrison is a hard cap on future growth. Hard cap means not only will you have to approve it, but we the members of the community would have to approve it. Anything beyond 1,1 84 requires a member vote. Taylor Morrison abstains from that vote, and members would pass it. The same holds true for golf lots -- or the golf memberships. We've set that limit at 850. Taylor Morrison has agreed to build the remote poolthat it had originally promised. And we've agreed there are places where we could add a few parking spots, about 3 I car spots, 45 golf carts. Everything on this list is to be done in 2019 except for those things that are asterisked. They have also done some things around the poolto expand the pool deck, the bocce courts, and Page 11 of85 April 18,2019 they've identified some things with us that we could do as the project is being built out to set us up for possible future enhancements at the club by doing some prep work now, basically putting in some underground -- some underground stubbing out for bathrooms and so forth. And they've agreed to move with us to allow members to use golf carts on the course around midyear. That, I think, will take a little pressure off the parking in the near term. So our asks of you are very simple. We wanted to make sure that, you know, our presentation and Taylor Morrison's commitment letters to us and presentations to the members became part of this proceeding. We also wanted you -- and ask you to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that Taylor Morrison's commitments to residents become part of the PUD and implement them as any other commitments, namely monitor them. Again, you know, trust but verif,r. So this is my last slide. We stand here today supporting the 34 homes and the addition with our commitments from Taylor Morrison added to the PUD. That's an "if' statement. We don't speak for the whole community, but we have a pretty good handle that we are representing them. We very much appreciate your assistance, the assistance of your staff. They've been great to work with, and I just thank you very much for the opportunity to spend the time I did with you this morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And before you leave, we're probably going to have questions, so if you don't mind answering some questions. Anybody on the team? Go ahead, Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I fully understand your issue, but much of that -- of what you're asking is far beyond our capacity to enforce as a Planning Commission or zoning board, and even the Board of County Commissioners. So you're asking us to amend the PUD and put in specific language to enforce some of these standards that are -- is really nothing more than an agreement between the residents and the developer. It has really not much to do with zoning. So I'm really not clear -- or maybe it is clear from what you're asking. You're asking us to add what are essentially an agreement between you and Taylor Morrison and to make that somehow enforceable in the PUD amendment which, essentially, is amending the Land Development Code for the Esplanade. Is that basically what you're asking? MR. BOGUSLAWSKI: I'm asking on behalf of the residents for your help. I am unclear how all the rules work with this commission and with the Board, but it does seem to me as though there's a timeline here that kicks in. Your approval comes, the Board's approval comes next, probably late this year, by then Taylor Morrison expects to have pretty much everything on this list done except for maybe two items. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: What list? MR. BOGUSLAWSKI: The list that I just covered on the last couple slides. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Why don't we back up to your two slides where the lists were. I think they covered two slides. We could start talking off them. At the same time I'd like to ask someone who represents the developer to, at the same time, comment on these as they come through. This case that's being in front of us today is not necessarily about items outside of the reduction of density in the parcel that they want to add but it -- the developer's going to be part and parcel in anything that happens, so why don't we get their take on it as we go through this. And the frst one is impose more stringent limits on future growth. They're looking for a cap of 1,184 homes. That's what this is doing today. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAN: The PUD change today would reduce the number of homes to 1,148. Now, that doesn't mean, like anything else in Collier County, they couldn't come in later at some future date and ask for more density if they wanted to. But right now the cap will be -- I believe it's 1,148; is that correct, Richard? MR. YOVANOVICH: I believe that's what I said on the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. As far as the golf memberships, the hard cap on the number of golf lots with member approval, that's a subdivision issue, and that has to correspond to never exceed Page 12 of85 April 18,2019 1,1 84 homes. I'm not sure what that specifically is about. Do you know any more specifics? MR. YOVANOVICH: If I may, just general comment. Mr. Strain, the developer has committed to these changes within the community. These are not -- many of these things, other than the density cap, those are not zoning-related issues. And I just -- like, I think one of the pages there's a number of chaise lounges. You know, we just don't want to get into every zoning hearing that we're involved in from this point forward we're going to be negotiating homeowners' association related issues. These commitments have been made. And I just want to clarifr one thing. Some of these commitments will be made regardless of whether we get approval today, and some won't because we won't be able to make those commitments. But that's what we're talking about. And -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where I was going, Rich, is that some of these may be under our purview. First of all, the differences between this board and the next one, we are here for one reason, and that's to make sure the Growth Management Plan and the LDC, the Land Development Code, are adhered to. Our restraints are those two codes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: There's -- a lot of the things that you're bringing up here are outside the ability of us to do anything with those two codes. It may not be outside the ability of the Board; that's up to them. But on our side, we just recommend to them based on our code readings. Now, Joe, did you have something you wanted to add? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. I'm just trying to understand, the 850 golf lots. This is a bundled community, so you're asking us somehow to say to the developer you can't sell more than 850 homes that are part of the bundled golf course? We can't do that. That has nothing to do with zoning. MR. BOGUSLAWSKI: At the root of this issue is a person or an organization or a corporation's actions determine whether people trust them or not. We are living in a community where we've been promised a lot of things a lot of times. And I won't bore you rattling several of them off. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I really need you to answer the question that I asked. MR. BOGUSLAWSKI: At the root of this issue is one of trust. And we are being told by Taylor Morrison they're going to do these things, and we are looking for a means to hold them accountable. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, I would say that you'd have to hire a private attorney to deal with some of these issues. I mean, when you talk about the golf cart, is it a golf cart community? Can you drive your golf cart through the community? MR. BOGUSLAWSKI: You can drive on the roads. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So you have the ability to do that. You've got an approval through the county? MR. BOGUSLAWSKI: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It's a private community, and you can drive your golf carts? MR. BOGUSLAWSKI: We drive on the roads, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Some of these things I don't understand. And then you're asking -- the number of pools really have nothing to do, again, with zoning. Those are issues between the homeowners' association or the foundation or the management entity and the community. I don't know -- I really understand what you're asking here, but it's far beyond -- Mr. Yovanovich is clearly correct that it's far beyond any zoning issue. These are issues that you're in dispute with the developer over certain promises and commitments that we really can't enforce, nor really can the Board of County Commissioners. I guess they could, but then it would raise an issue that the attorney would seek legal action against the Board. MR. KLATZKOW: No, they can't. It's a private agreement. The only way we could do that is somehow initially -- and we're past that point -- these commitments were put into the PUD ordinance. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. MR. KLATZKOW: Butthey weren't. Page 13 of85 April 18,2019 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: They were not. MR. KLATZKOW: And why would they? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me go on with the issues you've had here. The parking spots, you said that you need 3l more car spots at the amenity center. I pulled up the latest Site Development Plan I could find for the amenity center, and it was dated in 2016 as far as the way it was laid out. At that time it shows 204 spaces, like you've already -- I think you've already stated that, but they were only required to put in 173. The difference is 3 I car spots. The requirements that were allowed to -- allowed them to do only 173, there was only one deviation, and it was in the PUD that allowed them to reduce the parking spots for one -- for the pro shop, the cart barn, and the wellness center from29 down to 20. So they got a credit, let's say, of about nine parking spaces for that. The other elements are already part of our Land Development Code that we're here to enforce. They met those requirements. It would be hard for us to say now you've got to provide more when the requirements have already been met from the Land Development Code. So that one -- that's why I asked to take a look at some of these. Some of these clearly are outside the limitations that we have, and that would certainly be one of them. If the developer were coming in for this PUD and at that time there was an argument that they were agreeing to do more parking spaces because they were going to design it that way, we could have put it in then, but I don't know of any way to go back retroactively and now say you don't have enough even though you've got approval from permitting which meets the code. MR. BOGUSLAWSKI: So we are not in disagreement with the developer at this point. We've actually worked these things through. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. MR. BOGUSLAWSKI: So the ask was very simply to build a test into the process to see whether they've done what they said they would. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This process is a demand. MR. KLATZKOW: We're not here to enforce your private agreements. As a matter of law, we can't. They are what they are, private agreements. We're the county, all right. I mean, we enforce laws and ordinances, not private agreements, not private covenants, not private deed restrictions. That's why they're private. We don't get involved in people's contracts. We don't get involved in that sort of thing. And, oh, by the way, the developer has rights, too. Now, if you're not happy with the developer, there are all sorts of things you can do: Civil disobedience, signs in your windows, "don't buy here." I mean, seriously. But, you know, you're not the first homeowners that I've heard that the developer hasn't lived up to their promises. But that's not for us to do anything about. Those promises weren't to the county. Those promises were to you. MR. BOGUSLAWSKI: I guess the thing that is confusing to me is when I go on your website and I look at what your charge is. It implies, certainly, that you are the sounding board for people who live here, and, you know, you might want to think about changing that charge, because I'm not really hearing that you are. MR. KLATZKOW: No, no, no. We are a sounding board, which is why we have this room filled with people. I'm just telling you, for this particular problem, your fight is with the developer, and you've got the ability to fight. You can hire a private attorney as, you know, Mr. Schmitt has said, or you can do what I do, just a little act of civil disobedience, signs in your windows, don't buy here, all right, because that's the only real power you have at this point in time, because once that last home is sold, you'll never see the developer again. MR. BOGUSLAWSKI: Right. And, you know, not to be belabor. I can understand you taking that position if we were in here in opposition; we're not. We're in here in agreement, and -- which is why I'm actually quite surprised. I've dealt in regulatory proceedings for a good part of my career. MR. KLATZKOW: We don't regulate. MR. BOGUSLAWSKI: I understand -- all sorts of different regulatory agencies, and oftentimes Page 14 of85 April 18,2019 when something like this arises, they can get a little creative and work with the parties to get some checkpoint into the process so there's verification. If that is not the case here, I hear what you're saying. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Pat, I think you had something. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: The world's not coming to an end. You guys are in agreement with the builder. We're just trying to figure out a way -- you're trying to figure out a way to make sure they're held accountable. And, again, all we're trying to tell you is, as the board, Planning Commissioner board, we can't. Whether we wanted to or not, we can't. We're not tasked with that. But the solution's right there in front of you. As a homeowners' board, there's ways to withhold funds at their turnover process with the builder. There's ways to update your HOA rules, covenants, and all those things and make sure those things are ironclad and locked in there. Get an attorney, represent your group. And, obviously, you have a great group here. The builder's in agreement. I'm sure you-all can get that in writing, ironclad, and lock it down, and then the problem's solved. MR. BOGUSLAWSKI: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you want to turn to the next page, we'll be glad to take a look at it. If there's anything on there that we can add that's consistent with our code, fine, but at first blush it didn't seem to be. And I'm not trying to say no to everything, but I don't know how we can say yes. That's the hard part. We have to strictly go by the code. Number 4 certainly is well beyond anything. So is No. 5, 6. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Seven. MR. BOGUSLAWSKI: Well, stubbing out the utilities is part of the Hatcher project. I would be surprised, as a Planning Commission, if you don't get involved in that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which number is the utilities? MR. BOGUSLAWSKI: Number 7 is one, and No. 6 is a stub-out for bathrooms. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Unless the Utility Department has required that or requested it, it's not something that we would -- MR. BOGUSLAWSKI: They don't submit detailed drawings for the Hatcher properly? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They do at Site Development Plan level. It will probably come through at that time, but at this level, without their input, I wouldn't know that that's a good or bad thing for the Utility Department to do. And, sir, these are just outside our purview, they really are, and I don't know how to get there for you with today's meeting, so... MR. KLATZKOW: You wouldn't want these in the ordinance an).way. I mean, you know, down in the future the developer's going to be gone. It's going to be a homeowners' association that are responsible here, and you want to change your rules for golf carts. Instead of starting July 1st, you wanted to do it May. Now you've got to amend the ordinance for that and go through this process? You're going to want to amend an ordinance for how many chaise lounge chairs you want? These things are not intended to be in ordinances. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You put 38 out there, you're in violation. I mean, those things -- yeah, I agree. I'd have to agree. This is just outside the elements that we deal with. We work strictly with the Land Development Code and the Growth Management Plan, and I don't know how to get to where you want to go today, so -- but I do thank you for making us aware of it, and I think it will be made -- when the Board sees it, they'll know that you were here. MR. BOGUSLAWSKI: Okay. On behalf of the residents -- we've got at least one more resident speaking, but thank you for the disappointment you've given us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other speakers? MR. SABO: Mr. Chairman, I have a second speaker, Tom Coffey, and to help speed things, I'll flip his pages. He's got some pages on the visualizer. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And Nicole as well. Nicole was next, wasn't she? Page 15 of85 April 18,2019 MR. SABO: Nicole Johnson. Pardon me, Ms. Johnson. MS. JOHNSON: That's okay. Thank you so much. Good morning. Nicole Johnson, here on behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida. And I want to speak briefly to an issue that really hasn't got a lot of airplay here today, and that is specifically to the native vegetation committed to be set aside within the 10 acres of the additional property and really to acknowledge and thank Taylor Morrison for working with us so that the native vegetation on that 10-acre site is consistent with what that project would need to do had it been an independent and separate PUD. And the reason why that is important is we see with so many of these large and older PUDs doing some infill projects, you have more lands being absorbed into the overall project. And oftentimes the thinking is to be consistent with the Land Development Code, if we already have an excess of preservation in the existing PUD, we don't have to set anything aside in those addition lands. And I know that's something that the Conservancy has tried to work through with a number of developers and projects. And I really want to compliment the Taylor Morrison team. When we brought this issue to them, their first response, okay, let's see how we can work through this. That, I will tell you, is a very rare thing to happen. So it's a small area preservation, 0.8 acres, but it is important because if you look at what they would have to set aside were this a l0-acre stand-alone PUD, it would be that 0.8 acres. So I want to thank them for working with us and, you know, acknowledge that they did address our concerns. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: One question, Nicole. But that is going to be connected to an existing preserve. It's not going to be an isolated. MS. JOHNSON: It's going to be up in the northeast corner, and I'm not sure what specifically that connects with within the project. I know that there's some flexibility with where that .8 acres is going to ultimately be located, and certainly to the greatest extent possible if it can connect up with some northern preserves, that will be good. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. Again, my concern, that .8 acres, the chance for success is limited. And if it's in connection with an existing preserve, it's of great benefit, but thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next speaker. MR. SABO: Next speaker is Tom Coffey. MR. COFFEY: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, thank you. I heard you loud and clear what's within your purview and what's not within your purview. I'm really here to support Dave Boguslawski's comments and really address the parking issue more than pools or amenities or any other issues, although I agree with Dave. I think the heart of the matter is we have 200 and -- my count is 210 parking spots. It could be off a few. Right now about 30 or 35 are used by employees. When the culinary center is built, which it's not -- it's about a year behind schedule, which I'll comment on a little bit later -- that will probably add another 30 to 35 employees. So of the 210 parking spots, close to 70 will be used by employee parking. And there's no other place for employees to park unless we bus them in from the maintenance facility, and that's realistically not going to happen. All right. So we're left with 100-plus parking spots for a community of now 1,168-plus homes of which there's probably two residents per home, spouses, and they use the facilities at different points. Some people are golfing. So really we have close to 2,400 residents, and it is not a walking community. It's close to a thousand developed acres. I think it's 869 acres or something like that. So it -- we do use the Page 16 of85 April 18,2019 parking facility. And, you know, I would make the comment that well, LDC 4.05.04(9) relative to the golf communities allows for a reduction of up to 50 percent of facilities. We have -- I don't know if we're unique, but, you know -- and that might be nice for a private golfcommunity which is 350 members and people don't live on site and there's not a large amenity center where everlthing's congested; we've built on every square foot ofthe Esplanade community. I don't think one more home could go in. When it gets to a bundled community with an active lifestyle community of 2,400 people with -- considering two spouses, or 2,500 people maybe almost, it reallyjust doesn't work. And on top of that, we gave Deviation No. 5 in the RPUD that allowed them to reduce that -- I think it's - I might - it's 50 percent reduction for the golf communities; 40 percent additional reduction they were granted in the Deviation No. 5. That goes to the heart ofcreating this issue. You might not be able to go back and recreate the -- you know, redo our PUD, but we don't understand, and we don't have the documentation ofwhat was provided at the point in time they were granted the deviation, so we don't know whether the Commission was led to believe at that point in time whether it was a walking community and how it was going to work. It clearly is not a walking community. All right. So, you know, that's my big concem. I mean, we're going to have four restaurants. We have the Bahama bar. We're going to have three restaurants in the culinary center with a capaciq, of 51 I seats. We have the amenity center with 87 seats; l2 tennis and racquet courts; 5,000-square-foot pool facility. All the other supporting facilities, the pro shop, the cart barn, all inaverysmall footprint. Sothosel35 parking spots, ifyou take out the employees, is clearly not adequate for what we have, all right. And I heard what's in your purview, but I was going to add a request to Dave's request, which you already said you can't grant, but -- and I know in the original RPUD you did have a stipulation that the permanent pro shop had to be built when 50 percent ofthe homes were transferred, conveyed. They did meet that requirement. I think they rushed to meet that requirement. It wasn't done ahead oftime, I can assure you. The culinary center was all promised to the residents when they signed their document. There was going to be 1,121 homes in here, and now it's grown to 1,184; that the amenity center will be started when 50 percent ofthe homes were conveyed. More than 50 percent ofthe homes have conveyed, I bet you, close to a year ago, and that the amenity center -- theyjust had ribbon cutting yesterday. I haven't seen anlthing other than that done. So that's our concern as residents, part ofthe broken promises, but also relative to the deviations that were granted under the zoning ordinances has created a major issue for a planned communiry such as ours wilh bundled golf and very acti\ e. fhank you for your lime. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Just one. For clarification, do you support the amendment and the adding ofthe 10 acres or -- because ofthese - all the criteria you've listed saying no, that we have too much now and this isjust unacceptable and we do not support adding the l0 acres? MR. COFFEY: I really don't - the way Taylor Morrison will present it: has presented it is it was originally 1,121 in the original RPUD. They've now -- and I think these are all economic reasons, not to appease us, to be honest. They've now reduced that to 1,103 because they're going to put single-family homes in or larger lots where they make more money, so there's going to be I ,l 03. So net net, my view, is it's adding l6 homes to what - well, if you include the DeLilo property where they had the 47 homes, in that, that 1,168, it's going to add the net of l6 homes. I don,t think that,s the issue, but I do think their commitment to us, which, oh, by the way, their commitment in the letter from Drew Miller is less than the number ofparking spots that they originally discussed with us and was in Dave's presentation, you know, by 12or 14. But 12or l4 start to matter when you're already jammed up. Page 17 of85 April 18,2019 So I don't think I'm going to stop it. I support it because any improvement to the parking will help our situation tremendously, but -- so that's my position. And, again,I don't speak for the rest of the community, but we've been -- Dave and I and others have been active in the community and speaking to a lot of people, so I think we know the general sentiment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? Go ahead, Karl. COMMISSIONER FRY: Sir, I mean, overall your neighborhood has come with conditional support for Taylor Morrison's changes to the PUD. But I'm getting that it's contingent on a signed agreement for these other developer agreements; is that correct? Do you have a signed agreement with at this point with them? MR. COFFEY: We have a letter from Drew Miller. I cannot tell -- you know, I believe their commitments. I am not an attorney. All right. He has represented certain things to us. The parking spots and the golf spots were less than we originally discussed. I think Dave had some concern about the language in the commitment. So I can't really address that from a legal perspective, whether it's a true commitment or it's just a letter of intent. COMMISSIONER FRY: But as -- assuming the developer makes that commitment to you formally, then the neighborhood has issued conditional support for this zoning issue? MR. COFFEY: I would say if the parking spots come up to the presentation that Dave was -- we gave in the presentation, because that was our original understanding. And it's not that significantly shy. It's 10 or 12, and, you know, I think we need to search for those numbers. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Thank you. MR. COFFEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAN: Any more registered speakers, James? MR. SABO: I have none. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, I would like to ask staff one question. In 2014 -- it's unclear up something the gentleman just said. The PLID was amended, I believe it says, to 1,233 units, not the lower number. So that horse is already out of the gate. That was done in20l4. Is that number correct, 1,244? MR. SABO'. l,233,that is correct. CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: 7,233,I'm sorry. Then today's number that they're asking for is -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Less. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, 1,233. They're now saying they want to drop it down to 1,184. So it actually -- they're actually undoing 49 units that they can't get again unless they come through this process again. MR. SABO: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So there is a reduction in units, not an increase in units. It may be an increase over the original, but that was -- that bridge was crossed in 2014 and done. It was an amendment, from what I understand. MR. SABO: That is correct. CIIAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Richard, do you have some rebuttal that you'd like to -- MR. YOVANOVICH: No, I don't think -- I don't think we need to rehash our position. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Could I ask a question? It seems like you guys sat down together, talked everlthing out. It seems like you got everything ironed out. Why don't they trust you? (Applause.) MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, first of all, let's make sure the record's correct. I didn't sit down with anybody. I didn't make any commitments with anybody, so it's not me. This is -- I don't know -- and I'm the zoning lawyer. And as the zoning lawyer, I focus my efforts Page 18 of85 April 18,2019 on what your code says and what the process is. I will tell you that it's not -- Ill just leave it at that. My focus was to be -- to go through the zoning process and add this l0 acres. We meet all the code requirements to add the 10 acres. We think it's a better option for the community to add the l0 acres than have it be an isolated l0-acre piece that's looking for access either east or west, because it's going to get developed at a higher density than what they're being proposed today if it remains a stand-alone 10-acre piece. That's my job. I focused on that job. I've spent zero time focusing on HOA-related issues. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I didn't mean you personally. MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: But I was the guy at the podium, you know. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I know. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Rich, do you know if the project's been turned over to the HOA? MR. YOVANOVICH: I can ask. It has not. CHAIRMAN STRAN: All right. Well, the opportunity for them to have all their concerns more or less on the table is usually during turnover. So if they didn't know that, there certainly is an opportunity there. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm sure they're very well aware, and they have received a letter from Mr. Miller, Mr. Miller stands by that letter, and we'll move forward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Is Taylor Morrison the only builder in that -- is it Stock and others -- MR. YOVANOVICH: They've sold off some parcels to other builders, but they're the developer for the best term. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Taylor Morrison is kind of the lead entity? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions of anyone at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Rich, I'm assuming you're done with your rebuttal? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we'll close the public hearings. Debate -- or discussion and motion, whatever the Board prefers. Anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing no discussion, is there a motion? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I make a motion that we approve the PUD as proposed, the Esplanade Golf & Country Club as proposed, and I did not hear any changes or deviations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there is one, and that's we leave the footnote alone. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Oh, with the one footnote. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Take out the reference to Allura, unless they want to leave it in. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No, I don't think we should leave that in. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's in the backup documents. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Actually, it's right after the Exhibit F, so... COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So with that, I would make that motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Subject to those two things. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made and seconded. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAN: All in favor, signif,, by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. Page 19 of85 April 18,2019 COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. Thank you all for coming. We're going to take a break until l0:25, and at that time we'll resume with Esplanade (sic). It will give the court reporter a breather, because we zrre going to break again at lunchtime. And so we'll go from l0:25 straight till lunch, take a break at that point. Thank you. (A brief recess was had.) CIIAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Everybody, it's time to resume the meeting. If everybody will come in and take their seats. The next item up for today's meeting, the last item on our agenda is PL-20170000768. It's for the Baumgarten MPUD. It's the location where the Pelican Nursery was or used to be. All those wishing to testifr on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. If you're going to speak today, please stand up. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Disclosures. We'll start down with Tom. MR. EASTMAN: Nothing other than what's in the public record. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: The usual; emails and a conversation with Mr. Yovanovich. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Karl. COMMISSIONER FRY: Emails, a conversation with Mr. Yovanovich, and a conversation with a resident of The Quarry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Emails and Mr. Yovanovich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've had emails, all of which were forwarded to county staff, I've reviewed not only this document but many others, and I did get a phone conversation with a gentleman in one of the projects to the north, and that's -- oh, and I had a conversation with transportation staffabout some items. I needed to understand better the Traffic Impact Statement. With that, Karen. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I spoke to Mr. Yovanovich and emails. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I spoke to Mr. Yovanovich andjust briefly spoke with Wayne Arnold as well who, of course, represents the petitioner and received several emails to include those recent emails forwarded by Nancy and the staff, so l've got all of those. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Patrick. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: All the same. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, Richard, it's all yours. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. Good morning. For the record, Rich Yovanovich on behalf of the petitioner. I have several people here to answer any questions you may have on this project: I have David Genson with Barron Collier Companies; Eric Mallory with Metro Commercial. They're representing the developer; Mr. Amold is here with Q. Grady Minor, our professional planner; Dan Waters from Peninsula Engineering is our engineer for the project; Norm Trebilcock is our transportation planner; and Steve Sammons is our landscape architect, and he will be addressing some of the buffer issues that will be coming up. Page 20 of85 April 18, 2019 The order ofthe presentation is going to be me talking briefly, overview, and lay the framework for Mr. Arnold's presentation. Afier him will be Steve Sammons to show you the existing buffer between Tuscany Cove and what we're proposing, and then finally Mr. Trebilcock will be here to answer any transportation-related questions you may have. By briefoverview, I've put on the visualizer the location ofthe property. It's at the southeast quadrant of lmmokalee Road and Collier Boulevard. It's approximately 55.66 acres; currently zoned ag. And we are in asking to rezone the property to a mixed-use PUD. Thirty-six of the acres is currently within Master Planned Activity Center No. 3, which is immediately adjacent to the Tuscany Cove communif. Roughly like that. So two-thirds ofthe Tuscany Cove project, more or less, is immediately adjacent to the activity center. Mr. Amold will tell you how we're actually pulling the activity center away from them to make it rectangular and putting it a little bit further away. So this activiry center predated the Tuscany Cove project, and the Tuscany Cove project was approved understanding that activity center would be developed next to i!. Now, I'm sure you're all aware that what activity centers in Collier County are supposed to be is where you have all your commercial and where you have your high intensity residential development. That's what our Comprehensive Plan says is supposed to occur within this master planned activity center. What I want to do is I want to -- I'm going to do a little - you received a letter fiom Mr. Stuart, and I'm going to lay the framework for little things that Mr. -- some items that Mr. Amold will be addressing, but I want to make sure we have the framework for the public to understand our position and how this all works. As you're all aware, Collier County is required to adopt a Growth Management Plan. We've adopted a Growth Management Plan, and that GroMh Management Plan says this is an activity center. We're supposed to have residential, and it actually says we're supposed to have residential and commercial in these mixed-use activity centers. Historically, they've been developed 100 percent commercial, but this quadrant, this project will have both residential and commercialjust like the northeast quadrant, which is the Tree Farm PUD; has both residential and commercial within it. So this is consistent with the GroMh Management Plan. Now, the county's also required, pursuant to Section 163.3 167, to implement its Growth Management Plan through the Land Development Code. So the county, as you all know, and you've reviewed Land Development Code amendments, they are required to adopt them, and they're required to be consistent with the GroMh Management Plan. And why that's important is tn 163.3202 ofthe Florida Statutes, the land development regulations, which the Land Development Code is, is to regulate the use ofland and water for those land-use categories included in the land-use element, the FLUE, and Future Land-Use Element, and ensure the compatibility ofadjacent uses and provide for open space. So what does that mean? When you adopted your Land Development Code, you, by definition, adopted regulations that statutorily ensure compatibili$ ofadjacent uses. Mr. Amold's going to take you through the Land Development Code buffers, the Land Development Code setbacks, and if we hadjust met those, we have statutorily met our requirement for compatibilio/. And you're going to hear some testimony that we're not compatible. We exceed -- we meet or exceed the Land Development Code requirements so, therefore, there's no question about compatibility because you all have reviewed and approved the Land Development Code consistent with the statutes to ensure that your Land Development Code ensures compatibiliS,. And there is another section, 163.3194, that further hits home the point that your Land Development Code has to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and if we meet those requirements, we're, by definition, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. As I briefly stated, Wayne's going to take you through - had we decided to do this as straight zoning where we had multifamily adjacent to what developed as single-family. we meet and exceed if we Page 21 of 85 April 18,2019 had done this as a stand-alone multifamily rezone under the current Land Development Code regulations. We did not ask for any deviations to the landscape buffer requirements that are in your Land Development Code, and our height requests are consistent with multifamily zoning districts in your Land Development Code. And as we'll show you our setbacks, we're clearly exceeding those setback requirements. We did meet with the Tuscany -- with representatives of Tuscany Cove and their attorney, and we reviewed Mr. Stuart's letter after we received it, and I'll break it down. Although we don't agree that what he requested is required to meet compatibility, we have agreed to some further changes to our development standard tables and some conditions of approval. We were going to do them anyway. We were always concerned about making sure we set this up appropriately, and we'll show you the ERP permit that's going through the Water Management District permitting process right now for the multifamily adjacent to it. But we agreed -- and we believe this is consistent with what Mr. Stuart asked us to do. We agreed to a 100-foot building setback from the southern PUD property line. We agreed, which we believe is also consistent with his letter, to no amplified sound at the amenity area after l0 p.m. We agreed that no lighted recreational facilities other than low illumination ground-mounted lighting after l0 p.m. will be built. That is from his letter. We agreed to do that. And we also had offered that we would pay for the installation of the access gate that would allow for the interconnection and provide the community the security they had asked us for; that it wouldn't be a two-way access. It would only be an access to their property. I bring that up because I think that's above and beyond what you asked -- you were asked to impose upon us through Mr. Stuart's later. That was rejected, and I don't know why. I don't know why our meeting the requirements that were set forth in the letter by their planning consultant is not satisfactory, and it's what you were asked to impose upon us. You are going to hear from Wayne, and then Norm Trebilcock will address the traffic impact for this project. Now, I know people are going to say that traffic is bad already, do not approve anything else, but there are guidelines that are in place that must be followed when reviewing and approving projects. We have a right as a property owner to rely upon those guidelines being applied to us. We have that right. We submitted a Traffic Impact Statement, it has been reviewed by your staff, and your staff agrees that our project meets the level-of-service requirements of your Comprehensive Plan and your guidelines. I'm sure that most people are here to express concerns about traffic at this intersection. So let me tell you a couple of things that are in the hopper that you'll hear from Mr. Trebilcock and how we're going to help that situation through our PUD as well as a separate developer agreement to provide some additional assistance in the county achieving; they're going to have a grade-separated -- I call it an overpass. There's probably a more fancy word these days -- grade-separated -- it's still, to me, overpass. So Immokalee Road, there will be an overpass at that intersection. It's already been built out. They have most of the right-of-way necessary to make that happen. We are going to take, through our project, water management. We're going to design our water management system to accept runoff from that overpass. No charge to the county to do that. We're going to construct three manholes for them to tap into our water management system. No cost to the county. We're going to maintain the water management system with their water coming through us. No cost to the county. We're going to convey 1.3 acres of right-of-way along Immokalee Road to help them have the right-of-way they need to implement this grade-separated overpass. No cost to the county. And we're going to provide a 20-foot-wide FP&L easement so FP&L can relocate their facilities at no cost to the county. Page 22 of 85 April 18,2019 These are above and beyond -- these are not mitigation. These are because we've worked with the county to address what is a concern in the area. Also, we are going to install a traffic signal on Collier Boulevard by the Pebblebrooke shopping center. That's a tough shopping center to get in and out of without a traffic signal. The county has agreed that a traffic signal will go in there, and we will pay our fair share to have that traffic signal put it in place which Norm will -- and your staffagrees makes traffic better by having that traffic signal there. So we are here with a project that you'll hear that is 100 percent consistent with your Growth Management Plan, meets all your rules and regulations, and actually goes above and beyond by these donations to the transportation network. With that, I'll turn it over to Wayne, and if we could go through our three experts before questions, but we'll do whatever you want. Hopefully we'll answer a lot of those questions in our presentation, and then we'll come in and answer any questions you may have, if that's acceptable to the Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'd prefer you get through your presentation first. I agree, it would probably answer a lot of questions. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, thank you. MR. ARNOLD: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Planning Commission. I'm Wayne Arnold, professional planner with Q. Grady Minor & Associates, and happy to be here representing the Baumgarten PUD. As Rich mentioned, we are in Activity No. 3, and in your Future Land Use Element, one of the maps shows that boundary, and I have that on an aerial. So highlighted in red are the four quadrants of Activity Center No. 3, and in yellow is outlined the Baumgarten PUD property. What we're proposing to do, because Activity Center No. 3 is also a master planned activity center, we can adjust the boundary of that through the zoning process, much as we did with Mercato. That was another project that had a rectangular/square orientation. That one only had about2T acres in the activity center boundary. This has about 36 acres of the 40-acre quadrant in the activity center. The balance is made up of right-of-way. So you have a singular owner. We're allowed to do a master planned activity center. So we're reshaping this. And we thought we were doing this really to great assistance to the community to the south ofus, Tuscany Cove. So we're taking the same 36 acres and shaping that. We wrapped it around our project entrance, and then we extended it away from the Tuscany Cove project so that we could only put residential development adjacent to Tuscany Cove, which we thought from a land planning standpoint that made a lot of sense. I think staff, obviously, was supportive of that, and we had hoped that the Tuscany Cove residents would be, too. Before I get into a lot of the Comp Plan discussion, I want to put the proposed master plan on the visualizer. And I just want to walk through some of the key components of the master plan. So we have MU and R designations on our master plan. The MU obviously stands for mixed use. The R stand for R, residential. So anyrvhere we have an R, residential only would be there. Where we have the MU and an R, that could be mixed use or stand-alone residential. And in this particular case, adjacent to Tuscany Cove, we clearly have only our residential I component adjacent to them. Our main entrance on Collier Boulevard -- and it's the only entrance on Collier Boulevard -- is extended away from our southern entrance so that it will align with the Pebblebrooke shopping center entrance so a signalized intersection can occur there. Up on Immokalee Road, we have two access points. The westernmost one will be access controlled in the future because it has the grade-separated intersection in front of it, and then we have main access point that's about the center point of our site. And then also you hear on almost every project potential for interconnections. Well, we actually met with the Tuscany Cove residents or some of the resident association members early on and talked about having an interconnection, because they have a stub-out that they built as part of their community into -- that would extend to the -- what's now the Page 23 of85 April 18,2019 Baumgarten PUD. So we reflect that on our master plan on the lower side in a location that's consistent with theirs. We also proposed one connecting to the east in Bent Creek, not at the internal spine road, but south ofthere, at a location that -- those can be adjusted, obviously, but we have correspondence from those residents that indicate they really do not want to, but we're going to leave that on our master plan as a potential, because things do change. Somebody may decide they want to. We can't impose it on them, obviously, but we certainly can provide for it and will. So from Tuscany Cove, just to show you their plat. They're approved at just under 300 homes that have been constructed there. They took advantage ofbeing in the density band around this activity center to get a density increase above what they otherwise could have received if they were not in the density band, and they also provided for their stub-out, which is in that location, and stubs out to their property line, and they've partially constructed that access point. And I won't show you all of their property, but they have -- and it's hard to read on the small copies of the plat. But on their northern property line adjacent to this particular project, they have a 25-foot-wide landscape buffer easement and drainage easement so -- and that's been planted, obviously, many years ago as part of their initial development, and they now have very mature oak trees along their entire northern property line. There are a few gaps in it, but Mr. Sammons is going to show you a drone video of how extensive that existing buffer is. And, like I said, there are a few gaps. There have been a few damaged trees probably from hurricane and disease, but in large part it's avery mature well-done landscape buffer, and that was done, obviously, in anticipation by the developer that they were adjacent to an activity center and recognizing that they would either have higher density residential or a wide range of commercial uses that are consistent with what your Comp Plan says will be in an activity center. So from a land-planning standpoint and our master plan standpoint, we think we did a good job of land planning this particular property. The letter from Mr. Stuart focused on one specific policy out of the Comprehensive Plan that talked about compatibility and complementary. And I think, as Rich laid out the groundwork in the state statutes for compatibility, the Land Development Code is the document where you establish those things. And I know you've heard this before, but if you have land that's conventionally zoned, say RMF 16, for instance, that's a zoning that would support the density that's achievable in the activity center. We could achieve building heights under the code of 75 feet. That's a zoned height. That's -- there's no actual height associated with conventional zoning, which means, then, you can extend beyond the 75 feet. We also know that from a setback standpoint, the same RMFI6 zoning district requires you to have 50 percent of the building height as your setback but no less than 30 feet. Our PUD that's before you has a building setback of 50 feet in it, which exceeds the other otherwise required setback that would have been applied as if this were conventionally zoned. And, as Rich mentioned, the developer's taken this a little step farther. They've already submitted to the Water Management District for their environmental resource permit, and the plan set that they've submitted to the South Florida Water Management District shows what the developer believes to be the intended type of development. And we created an exhibit that takes the southern portion of that environmental resource plan, and I put it on an aerial photo to show you how we relate to Tuscany Cove. So just to further explain this, in the area that's designated residential on our zoning master plan, we show three residential buildings on the environmental resource permit. The narrower sides of those buildings are oriented to the south, and the minimum distance from the property line for the nearest portion of the building is 100 feet. So we gave the ERP plan to the residents when we met with them a week or so ago and told them that this is it. This is the plan. This shows you that the buildings are 100 feet away and largely separated from you by a lake. The lake system gets -- for water-quality purposes, it gets narrowed and expanded Page 24 of85 t April 18, 2019 and then, obviously, there's a gap between the southernmost portion ofthe lake and the lake to the east of the potential interconnection. But, for the most part, you have lake and landscape buffer separating us from them. And their landscape buffer that they have is an extensive one, and I think through Steve's analysis you're going to see that what we've proposed certainly has no visual impact on our most immediate neighbor. So going through the Comp Plan analysis that staff and we do -- we provide that in our evaluation criteria that appears in your backup material where we analyze all ofthe criteria that's in the Land Development Code and in your application that also has additional material, ard we provide answers to those. Those are supplemented as we go through the review and deal with staffcomments and questions. And we've addressed all ofyour issues of compatibility, and part ofthe compatibility issue was addressed clearly by the orientation ofour master plan that I addressed. And we also have other components ofthe Comp Plan, Policy 7.3 that we talk about all the time on interconnection, we're providing those. You hear from most people that they don't want them. In this particular case, the nice thing about the interconnection for the Tuscany Cove residents is it will give them an opportuniry to get to a signalized intersection and have safe passage to the south on Collier Boulevard. It also creates addition gaps in the traffic volumes on Collier Boulevard, which is going to be ofassistance to them, because currently they're fighting with people making U-tum movements that have come south out ofthe Pebblebrooke shopping center that want to go back north. So it's going to alleviate those turning-movement concems that they have, and that's the benefit of their interconnection. And, as fuch said, that was something that they had expressed early on that they wanted, and we're providing that. But your Comp Plans, you krow, also has other things, and the reason you have activity centers was hopefully to try to manage commercial groMh management so we didn't just have large strips of commercial like we have along portions of the East 4'l Trail where it's just completely lined with commercial development for the most part, narrow, skinny, and this was the concept. It's activity center concept. And it's worked great in some locations. It hasn't worked great in others. This one happens to be large enough you can accommodate both residential and commercial development. We've put forth a variety of commercial land uses. Those are oriented away from our nearest residential neighbors. And we think it's a very good compatible concept that's consistent with the Comp Plan policies that support that. It also discourages sprawl, because we are providing for the density and services in an area that - it's about a mile from your urban services boundary, but we have full urban services here. We're cooperating with the county with regard to water management drainage facilities and also utilities through FP&L and also from the roadway network by providing the necessary right-of-way to the county so they can build and improve the intersection at some future date to accommodate the growth that is occurring in Collier County, that's expected to occur in Collier County. So from my professional standpoint, and your staffs, we are consistent with the Collier County Gro\ath Management Plan. There's no doubt in my mind. We've been determined to be consistent. I think as Rich mentioned, we've addressed and dealt with successfully every key component that Mr. Stuart addressed in his letter representing the Tuscany Cove residents. We've asked for three deviations llom the Land Development Code which I think are very reasonable, fair, and supportable deviations, none of which affect our neighboring property owners. The first deviation we asked for was the reverse frontage road that circulates through our site. We wanted that to be a 50-foot-wide cross-section, so we've asked for a deviation to allow that to be a private road and a 50-foot right-of-way. We also asked for a directory sign at our entrance on Collier Boulevard that's larger than typical a little bit in height and a little bit in square footage because we're separated from the travel lanes by the canal, and we think that's warranted to have a little bit larger signage because cars are so far removed from the sign face. Page 25 of85 1 April 18,2019 And then the third deviation was to allow each of the outparcels that front on our reverse frontage road to have signage both on Immokalee Road and on the internal private road, and we thought that was fair to be able to have -- sorry -- in order to make sure that those folks had signage and a visibility on both of those roadways, and staff has supported those. And, as Rich mentioned, we're also willing to concede the hours of outdoor audible sound and any of the amenity areas on the residential tracts at the request of the Tuscany residents. I think what I'd like to do is ask Steve Sammons to come up and take you through a visual tour of the buffer issue, because I think you're going to agree that what we've provided is very adequate buffer and setback in combination, which I think you'll find that it's clearly compatible. So with that, I'm going to ask Steve to come up and walk you through a line-of-sight process that he did and then, if necessary, I'll come back up and address a few more things. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Will he be also addressing the units that are over in Bent Creek? Because they're actually closer to you than the one to the south. And when you mentioned you were looking at your most close neighbors, you only mentioned Tuscany, but there is Bent Creek. And I drove by there yesterday, so they are built in that location. MR. ARNOLD: There are. I was focusing on Tuscany, because that's who reached out to us and expressed concern. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But we will, as the Planning Commission, I'm sure, be concerned equally about Bent Creek, especially since units there appear to be closer to your property and the activities than the one to the south, so both would be nice if we could have that. MR. ARNOLD: Okay. Sure. CFIAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Ray, these exhibits, especially the one we just saw on that, if it was a slide or a PowerPoint, I have no idea. Can you make sure we get copies of those? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, we will. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Is there any reason why we can't see these before the meeting? You mentioned us getting copies, but it would be handy to have them in advance of the meeting. MR. BELLOWS: I believe we had -- Judy emailed you one PowerPoint presentation prior to this meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When they come in, if they do come in beforehand, just send them to us. That would be handy. MR. BELLOWS: Definitely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A lot of times applicants won't know what they're going to present until they get it completed right at the time of the meeting because of negotiations, so that's understandable. MR. SAMMONS: Good morning. Steve Sammons, landscape architecture with Peninsula Engineering. I'll be talking about the buffers today for the Baumgarten parcel. It's primarily focusing on the south buffbr adjacent to Tuscany Cove. I have a couple exhibits to show you today. The first is this line-of-sight diagram showing the relationship of the building to the property line and the adjacent residentials, and then also after this we have a video that Wayne had mentioned that we flew recently with the drone just showing the existing vegetation and existing conditions. So looking at the line-of-sight diagram here, we show the building at the 100-minimum-foot setback from the properly line, and we also show the 65-foot maximum building height as a representative of the multifamily buildings. In between the buildings and the properly line, there is, along the majority of the property on the south border, there is a combination of lake and/or littoral plantings, and then adjacent to the property line -- and this would be similar to the property line along Bent Creek -- there is a required Type B buffer which is 15 feet wide, trees 25-foot on center, and a 5-foot hedge all at install. We show the trees there at the minimum 1O-foot height requirement, but per the LDC there is a Page 26 of85 April 18,2019 requirement for those trees at maturity to have a minimum of a 20-foot spread. So full canopy trees. Potentially oaks, mahoganies, trees like that. Within the Tuscany Cove property, you see the residences there at plus-or-minus 50 feet back, but there is a 25-foot-wide landscape buffer along the -- along their property line, and some full -- there's quite a few of the live oaks, there are some mahoganies, you know, and we average -- we estimated those at about plus-or-minus 40 feet -- 40 to 45-foot height existing. And there also appeared to be a 5- to 6-foot hedge along a good portion of this property, not the complete length, but along a good portion of that. So you see the line of sight there from a person standing on the rear patio, rear lanai ofone ofthe residences, and you can see the line ofsight going to the top of the building as well as what would be the estimated top floor or residential of the multifamily. So I'll switch to -- okay. So the video that I'll show now, we had the drone set back about the 100 feet where the building would be at a minimum, and then up at about 5O-foot height, which would be about where that top floor of the building would be and flew this along the -- along the west half of the property there. There's some existing vegetation in the forefront, but then you see the darker green are the canopy trees within the Tuscany Cove property. COMMISSIONER FRYER: What direction are we looking? MR. SAMMONS: This is looking south. COMMISSIONER FRYER: South? MR. SAMMONS: Right. This is from within the Baumgarten property about 100 feet back from the properly line. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: And you're saying the height here is ballpark about 50 feet, the drone. MR. SAMMONS: About 50 feet, right, correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: So the rear line of trees is on the Tuscany Cove property, but all the trees in the foreground would be removed as part of this project. MR. SAMMONS: Correct, correct. And we would install our Type B buffer that's looking over at Collier Boulevard towards Publix area there. I'll show one more. This is a picture. Right above the property line looking towards the west you can see Collier Boulevard and Publix in the background, and then you see the fairly consistent mature canopy running down the Tuscany Cove property line there. COMMISSIONER FRY: Where is the property line in that picture? Is it between the dark trees on the left -- MR. SAMMONS: Between the dark and the light, correct. So that's -- okay. So this next video would be at70 feet which would be at the -- you know, up above the top of where the buildings would be, the maximum height. And you see some of the tops of the rooflines, but the line of sight is very filtered even through their vegetation. There's, you know, a couple holes in there, but a fairly consistent canopy. And this is right up against Collier Boulevard. So that's mainly it. It's -- you know, and then you see from both angles there, it's, you know, fairly -- you know, that's a required buffer in there, so we would just be adding to that within our properly. COMMISSIONER FRYER: May I ask you a question about, not the last moving picture you showed us, but the one before that. MR. SAMMONS: The still video? COMMISSIONER FRYER: It was looking west, and it was sort of angled, sort on the bias. Yeah, that's the one. You're familiar with that area. You've been there, you've seen it, understand the relative distances. MR. SAMMONS: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Would you put the cursor at a point that would proximate 100 feet. Page 27 of 85 April 18,2019 You have to do it above because I assume, would you not -- that's 100 feet? MR. SAMMONS: One hundred feet back. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. I want to see where 100 feet is from -- you think it's about there? MR. SAMMONS: Or about here; sounds right. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. So the red cursor is the property line, and the white cursor is 100 feet, approximately? Thank you. MR. SAMMONS: That would be an approximation there. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any,thing else? MR. SAMMONS: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Trebilcock is next. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Do you want to continue with your presentation then? MR. TREBILCOCK: Good morning. For the record, my name is Norman Trebilcock. I'm a certified planner and professional engineer, and I have about over 29 years ofexperience here in Collier County with engineering and planning. And our firm prepared the Traffic Impact Statement for the project. And so my purpose this morning is to walk through some of the highlights of the traffic study that we conducted for the project, really talk about overview -- you-all have the very detailed Traffic Impact Statement that we prepared, but I'll cover, you know, the standards we addressed, the two traffic scenarios that we looked at, our distribution and assignment of traffic, the levels of service impacts, the intersection operational analysis we performed, and then also looking at helping to prepare for the future, and the, really, conclusions from the study that would be helpful. So in the study in terms of what the nuts and bolts of it are is our trip distribution, the land-use codes we use, internal capture, pass-by rates. They're all coordinated with your staff as part of our methodology meeting that we do when we initiate the project, and that is an appendix in your study. The 2017 AUIR criteria standards are used for the planning conditions of the project given when the project was submitted. The ITE Trip Generation Manual latest edition is used. The lOth edition is used for the project. The lOth edition came online in2018, and that will tend to -- the ITE manuals will tend to change every four to eight years, that type of thing, but we are using the latest data. We actually had updated the study as well to use the 2018 AUIR, Annual Update and lnventory Report, traffic data that is provided by Collier County for the analysis. Our growth is, per staff guidance, at2 percent minimum, or the historical rate that is within the AUIR data, and then we also will use the trip bank data, whichever is greater of those growth, to look at what the future traffic volumes will be at the project buildout. The network is based on the conditions that were identified in the 2018 AUIR, and then in terms of any improvements, we'll look at the documents -- planning documents prepared by Collier County as well. We do look at the impacts to the links and also the intersections of the project as well that had come up, too, as a concern for the project. And we do look at the proposed traffic conditions in the future, and then we add our traffic on there to look at any issues that may exist or not exist for the project. The level of -- the significance levels per Collier County transportation guidelines are it's 2 percent level-of-service impact of any links that you directly impact or adjacent links to them and then 3 percent for all and others, and that's the basis of our link analysis as well. When we looked at our traffic analysis for this Planned Unit Development, we looked at two scenarios, and the concept behind that was to look at the different conditions that can be developed in a Page 28 of 85 April 18,2019 project. The first scenario is really a condition where you have a higher square footage of commercial where you actually ma-rimum out the commercial square footage bu! in fact, that isn't your highest trip generator, because you'll have, in this case, like a mini warehouse, 90,000 square feet generates a lot less trips than other uses. So this establishes what we call, like, a square-footage cap for the project. And then the next scenario is the one that really is the intensity in terms oftrips. lt's 201,000 square feet of commercial, but these will tend to be more intensive uses. Now, as staffhad pointed out in their report, there are even more intensive uses thai could be performed, but the developer is cognizant of limiting the intensity ofthe overall development, and that's what's reflected in these scenarios. So it's meant to kind ofunderstand the governors ofdevelopment being the square footage, the uses you have, and even height we klow can limit the uses, and then that trip cap that your staff applies is an important govemor as well, and that's really what we have developed here. So Scenario 2 was the most intensive use from a trip standpoint with the uses we have where we have the residential component, the 400 units, a hotel, medical office, the shopping center, restaurants, a drive-thru, and even a convenience gas station as well, and that adds up to the 200,000 square feet that we have in terms ofthose uses. So when we performed the analysis, the trip generation, we generate that traffic. We also look at -- so at first it's what we call unadjusted, then we have intemal capture between the uses, what we have -- and then we also have what we call pass-by trips. Those are people that are on the road network that may be on the way to work or from work may stop into the site, and that's what we call pass-by trips, and so those are excluded as well. And so we have a net extemal. In the case here, the p.m. peak hour is the peak-hour generation, so that becomes the trip cap, and that's what I have in boid down at the end there, the 1,159, and we do use the cap -- intemal capture maximums that Collier County has established as well, using those guidelines. In working with staff, we look at a distribution ofthe traffic for the project and then translate that into the p.m. peak-hour trips, and then those get added to the background network data. And so then the links that we would look at or we have looked at are based on -- are provided in this table. And looking at the 2023 period of time and we add our trips onto that background traffic that we grew per staff guidance as well, and we look at whether or not the minimum levels of service are met. In either case, the background traffic doesn't exceed the minimum levels of service, and the project doesn't either, is the takeaway from that. There are percentages. There are significant, you know, levels of service in terms of our percentages from the traffic as well that are identified there, too. So when we look at the site access for the project, we're really proposing three accesses. So when you orient to the project, along Collier Boulevard, that's our north-/south road; east/west is Immokalee Road. So we're proposing one full median opening at Collier Boulevard opposite Pebblebrooke Center. So it would line up, and the signal would be proposed there as well with appropriate tum lanes as such, too. Then on Immokalee Road we'd propose a right-in only at that location, and then the second location would have a directional median opening which would be a right-in, right-out, and then a left-in as well. So that's a directional opening. There would not be a left-out movement on Immokalee Road. And that is opposite the existing opening there at Goodland Bay Drive to the north ofus. So those are the accesses, and then we also depict the potential interconnects as well that have been discussed with you, too. We prepared an intersection operational analysis, a part ofyour Traffic Impact Statement as well. And we did independent counts during the 2018 season, and we picked up raw tuming-movement data to evaluate the intersections at Immokalee Road, Collier Boulevard, Pebblebrooke Center, Collier Boulevard, and Collier Boulevard and Tuscany Cove Drive, and then we applied also - the groMh data was applied, and project data was added to these intersections as well. And so the existing signalized intersection of Immokalee Road and Collier Boulevard. the level Page 29 of 85 April 18,2019 of service wouldn't be changed by the project. It's at a, you know, heavy level of service now, but it would not be changed, and it would still be a satisfactory level of service there at that location. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just a clarification, you're saying that this project's going to have no impact on the level of service on that location? MR. TREBILCOCK: It won't change the level of service, no. No, it will not change the level of service in the analysis we performed. You're adding traffic to it, but it doesn't -- your level of service is a grading, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know what it is. I just wanted to make sure I understood what you said. Thankyou. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. A proposed signal at Pebblebrooke and Collier Boulevard would, in fact, alleviate site congestion at Pebblebrooke but it also relieves the heavy turning movement that are current at the intersection of Tuscany Cove and Collier Boulevard where, based on our count that we did, there was 117 vehicles per hour that were trying to turn out of Pebblebrooke that would make the right-out and then do a quick U-turn, and that has a real impact on that intersection for that community by eliminating that. So the signal would remove those U-turn trips. COMMIS SIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Norm? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: For the benefit of the people in the audience that might not be familiar with what level of service is, could you explain to them why this doesn't change the level of service for that intersection? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. Okay. So level of service, you have an A through F rating that you'd have. And for an intersection it's based on your delay. And so within the delay per vehicle -- so a Level of Service D will have, basically, a range that's allowed for a Level of Service D. And so there is additional delay that's added by the project, but it doesn't change the actual level of service itself of the signalized intersection. And similar, adding traffic to a link; that we're adding traffic on a link, but we're not changing the level of service down to an unsatisfactory level of service. But there's obviously traffic being added, just as those that live here add traffic to the intersections. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: You're just somewhere within that range. You may be a little farther toward the next level of service -- MR. TREBILCOCK: Correct, yes. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: -- but you haven't crossed that threshold? MR. TREBILCOCK: Exactly. Turn lane improvements will be provided at all site accesses as well, and we would also coordinate the signal and coordinate the timings of the signals as well to make sure they function well together. The statement of preparing for the future, one of the key points was the grade-separated overpass, very similar to the one at Airport-Pulling Road and Golden Gate Parkway, and we're kind of showing an overlay aerial of this where Immokalee Road -- six-lane Immokalee Road just as Golden Gate Parlcrvay does, will fly over Collier Boulevard and then at grade will allow all the other movements in the intersection to allow U-turns underneath, and the underneath would be a signalized portion. So Collier Boulevard would remain what we call at grade just as if you related it to the Airport Road, just as Airport Road is at Golden Gate Parkway. And so what our project is doing is -- as a separate item, is to allow for the stormwater management. It's really kind of the final piece to make this project feasible to provide the water management for a portion of the road on the east side and then also what we have highlighted in yellow is additional right-of-way that's necessary to make the roadway work well in terms of that design. So that -- again, and our analysis didn't include having this in place. Everything's at grade, but -- because knowing that this is really a future project but this -- you know, one of the key things that, Page 30 of85 April 18,2019 you know, we saw was needed as part of the project to accommodate. And so our master plans accommodate the footprint for all of this work as well. So, in conclusion, the surrounding links will be operating at a satisfactory level of service with or without the project. The project impacts to the roadway network are significant on parts of Immokalee Road, Collier Boulevard, Vanderbilt Beach Road, and Logan. None of them projected to exceed the level-of-service standards with or without the project at the 2023 buildout conditions, and the project does not change the level of service of the Immokalee or Collier Boulevard signalized intersection. The signal at Pebblebrooke and Collier Boulevard will relieve congestion on the site, on the Pebblebrooke site as well, and also improve operations for the Tuscany Cove community as well by eliminating that significant U-turn volume, and our mitigation of impact is really providing interconnections and also payment of significant impact fees for the project as well. And that concludes my presentation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there any more on your team that are going to present? Are we complete with your presentation? MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Strain and members of the Planning Commission, that's the presentation of our team. Any questions you may have, or if you want to wait until after the public, whatever you -- CHAIRMAN STRAN: I have some, but I'm going to wait till my fellow commissioners get done. We're going to start with Karl, then go to Joe, and let's go from there. Karl. COMMISSIONER FRY: This question, Norm, this is actually for you before you sit down. Norm, there's -- as you can see, there's a roomful of people here. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRY: And I imagine -- I haven't heard them speak yet, but I imagine that a good number of them disagree with the fact that this development will not have an appreciable, tangible impact on traffic. So for the benefit of everyone out there and us as well, explain the current levels of service on the roads adjacent to the project and how that translates as letter grades, how they translate into what they're experiencing now and how this project will change that, if you can, to the best of your abilities just in terms of what they actually will experience. MR. TREBILCOCK: Sure. So this summary table, I think, helps explain some of that in terms of what the current capacity is of the various links such as Immokalee Road east of Collier Boulevard has a peak-hour volume of 3,300 vehicles per hour, and that's in the eastbound direction, or it would be any direction. COMMISSIONER FRY: That's a capacity, not actual measurement? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, capacity. Correct. And so our project is estimated to add eastbound 204 peak-hour trips to that link, and with our project, that volume would be 2,823 vehicles per hour. So we're under the capacity of that road segment. So the hand grenade math, we're, you know, in the neighborhood of 2,600 vehicles per hour right now. So we're adding 204 trips, and so that's a 6 percent impact. So we call it a significant impact. That's what it's identified as such, and that's why you look at things that you do as we have done. And so, similarly, they're all identified that way where we show that this middle column shows the amount of nips that we're adding to each one of those links and then what the levels of service are. So that's really the criteria that we are required to evaluate and provide, and this background data that we use is provided from the county. Fortunately, their planning -- Transportation Planning Department provides that information, and then we work with them to identifu what the growth rates would be, what the added traffic will be in that five -- you know, the 2023 window at buildout. So I hope that helps. COMMISSIONER FRY: So if the capacity is 3,300, is that the point at which the road starts to fail above that? It reaches an F grade above 3,300? (Simultaneous speakers speaking.) Page 31 of85 April 18,2019 MR. TREBILCOCK: That would be a point of failure that's identified, not necessarily an F. Sometimes -- it's either, like, a D or an E that the county has established as the maximum that we would allow on the particular roadway but, yes, that would be the capacity point, yes. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: What does capacity look like in the real world? What does failure look like in the real world? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan, it's Joe's turn next. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Oh, I'm sorry. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: When Karl's done. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Go ahead and ask that question, because I'm going to ask a little bit something different. But, Stan, go ahead. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: What does capacity look like in the real world, and what does failure look like in the real world? MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. Well, capacity is at the -- you know, when you reach -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Solid line of cars moving at speed limit? MR. TREBILCOCK: Right. You're going to have a high delay. I mean, what we look at when we analyze traffic is we're looking at the peak period. In the case here it would be the 4 to 6 p.m. peak period where you have most of the traffic out there on the network or on that particular link. And so there would be a fair amount of delay that you would experience in terms of the traffic moving through. And as a community we establish those standards, the link by link, each one of our roadway segments, and that's what we identiff here, you know, what we'll allow in terms of the amount of traffic. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And what does failure look like? MR. TREBILCOCK: Well, failure is one car beyond that point of capacity. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: What does it look like in the real world? More stops? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yeah, exactly, a lot delays -- (Simultaneous speakers speaking.) COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Twenty miles an hour instead of 40? MR. TREBILCOCK: That's a good point. So your travel times would increase, the amount of delay, the amount of cycle times you may experience at a signal. lnstead of one or two, you may go into three, three cycles, that kind of thing, you know, higher amounts of delay. In the case of an intersection, it's a specific time amount per vehicle. ln the case of links in terms of a roadway segment, it's a volume of traffic. But it relates to what you said. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: You still move through, but you just move a lot slower? MR. TREBILCOCK: Correct, exactly. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: You still get home -- MR. TREBILCOCK: Exactly. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: -- eventually. MR. TREBILCOCK: There's just a lot more delay. COMMIS SIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Eventually. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Norm, from a traffic standpoint, I'm going to focus on the interconnects with both Bent Creek and Tuscany. You're recommending for traffic flow that those interconnects exist and that you're recommending that they actually connect? MR. TREBILCOCK: Well, it's a county policy to do those interconnects. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. Conservatively, in our analysis we don't necessarily include the benefits of those so, you know -- because if they don't ever happen, we don't really get the benefits of that internal capture between the uses. Page 32 of85 April 18,2019 So conservatively I don't include that in the analysis, but it, in fact, helps out a lot in terms of taking those cars -- you don't need to get on the network. You can go to the shopping center. That's the whole idea; that's why you-all have that policy to interconnect, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The interconnect for Tuscany, I don't know if -- you may have this information. Maybe Rich or Wayne would. But any research as to why they did the stub-out in -- it was in anticipation of the interconnect? And with that interconnect, where is the petitioner now -- or, correction, where is Tuscany's position now with regards to that interconnect? Do they want it? Do they not want it? And if they do want it, are you going to provide gated access for only Tuscany to use that? I'm -- so just explain to me what the intent is. And if Tuscany doesn't want it, then you're just saying you're not going to do it? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, two things. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. I asked a lot of questions there, so maybe you can -- we'll walk through them. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I'll tryr to remember them all. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: The historic of Tuscany Cove if you'll recall it was immediately adjacent to an activity center. So Tuscany Cove shows on its master plan an interconnection. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That was my thought as well when I looked at the -- MR. YOVANOVICH: They do. They show the interconnection. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- the last petition, that it was, in fact, an intent to connect to an activity center. MR. YOVANOVICH: We have, obviously, shown the interconnection, and as I had mentioned, we'd had discussions with the community that they want the interconnection. I don't know what the community wants as I sit here today with regard to that interconnection. I don't know if they've changed their mind that they want an interconnection or not, but we are certainly making it available for them. And it would -- they have the ability to gate it, so it's not -- one of the concerns they had was would people from our project use their community to get onto Collier Boulevard. I wouldn't think anybody would really want to, but we've always said gate it for yourselves; fine. We want to give you an opportunity to get to that traffic signal so you don't have to try to fight with traffic at your entrance, and that's one of the benefits of the traffic signal and the interconnection. So we've made it available. We'll make it available. And we've had discussions with them about that, and we'll see what they say today. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Have you offered in any way -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, Bent Creek -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- to put the gate up and it's part of an agreement that you would gate it but it would only be used by the residents -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- of Tuscany? MR. YOVANOVICH: We had -- as I had mentioned, we had discussions with the representatives of Tuscany, and we've said we'll install it;you maintain it, but I don't have any agreement on that. But we've said that. Now, we've also heard from Bent Creek community -- and it's split -- but we've heard that they don't want an interconnection. So I can't make them interconnect. But those who want, we've obviously made accommodations or actually planned for that interconnection to occur. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But just to reiterate, Norm, you basically did not in any way in your analysis include the interconnect but, intuitively, you, as a planner -- I'm asking an opinion here, then. It would seem to be obvious benefit for both communities to have the interconnect and to leave as an option, but that would preclude them having to go onto the major road networks if they wanted to access any ofthe services in this activity center? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir; yes, sir. Page 33 of85 April 18,2019 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. I have other questions on the - but I'll reserve some of those. That has to do with the SIC codes, but I'm going to reserve those for later. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Can I do a followup to Joe? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I live in Lakeside. Lakeside is shaped kind of like this, and we just got a rear access for emergencies because there was an instance where we had an accident at our entrance, and nobody could get out for, like, three hours, and we had one entrance. So, you know, you really -- it's nice to have a rear entrance and, like you say, I don't know why anybody would want to gate it from stopping you to go through, because you wouldn't go through. That would be -- well, anyway. MR. TREBILCOCK: There's security. Bu! again, it's intuitive, I would agree. And even from a personal experience, you know, Collier County schools has done a great job of -- my community has a pedestrian interconnect, and it's been quite a benefit to the community. So interconnects can come in different forms and fashion depending on the needs of a community and what they identifu, so yes, sir. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karl. COMMISSIONER FRY: Norm, would another benefit to Tuscany Cove and Bent Creek if they went forward with an interconnect be that they then have also quicker access to the activity center, the commercial uses without having to get out onto the main road? MR. TREBILCOCK: That's what I really see is really the overwhelming benefit to, yeah, and I think that's always the intention why Collier County does have that requirement for interconnection to do exactly what you're saying; let's keep the vehicles off the arterials. COMMISSIONER FRY: In this case Tuscany Cove has an additional benefit in being able to access a signalized intersection to get onto the road rather than wait for a break in a stream of traffic to 95 1, correct? MR. TREBILCOCK: Correct. Well, they have a directional but, yes, exactly; yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of the applicant's team? Go ahead, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Well, I'll start with Norm since you're here. My main concern really is traffic on this one and, in particular, sections -- segment, rather 43.2, which is Immokalee from Logan to Collier. According to the AUIR, which it is my understanding, is addressed to levels of service and assesses levels of service and what is one should measure levels of service against, I believe, and also impact on level of service. It turns out that that segment has got capacity for only 188 more peak p.m. trips. And your -- this trip cap you've talked about would be about a third of the I,159, 35O-some-odd additional peak p.m. trips on that segment. MR. TREBILCOCK: No, that's not correct. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, what is correct then? MR. TREBILCOCK: Let me see. I'll show you that. I'm sorry. Let me get that for you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, aren't you saying that the additional trips -- MR. TREBILCOCK: Here's that segment. I apologize. I can just cut to it for you in terms of -- so you can see that segment on our table. The one you're saying is 43.2? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yep. MR. TREBILCOCK: So that would be the second one down, 43.2, it's 3,200, and we're showing eastbound 173, because you look at the peak direction of trips, and to your point it puts it right close to the capacity, and we do show that as a significance as well, and so, yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, you've got -- you're adding 1,159 peak p.m. trips going in all Page 34 of85 , April 18,2019 different directions and coming from all different directions. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And you say that 30 percent of those are going to travel that segment. It doesn't matter which direction they're going on. MR. TREBILCOCK: It does, because what the -- the whole peak capacity analysis that Collier County does is based on the peak direction. That's why you see, like, in parentheses -- and I probably didn't explain it as well as I should. That EB, that means it's the eastbound direction, because the true capacity of the road, if you add up both directions, it would be 6,400, you know, if it's a two-way, but that's not how we analyze. We really want to look at that peak direction, because there's always a disparity between directions, but -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Hang on a minute. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm looking at the AUIR" Attachment F. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And under the segment,43.2, and then you go over in the spreadsheet to Column 68, and it says, remaining capacity 188. and it doesn't specifi eastbound, westbound, or any.thing else. It just says 188 is the remaining capacity. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. If so you look in that map, the number of columns over there's a thing that says peak DIR, D-l-R, that's the direction of the roadway, and that's -- it's peak direction of travel because, again, the capacity is based on peak direction, peak volume of traffic, because the other direction will typically be lesser, so you're trying to focus on the worst case, the worst peak volume. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Right. So you're saying you're telling me -- and you may be correct -- MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- that this Attachment F AUIR, the 188, even though it doesn't say it in that column of the AUIR, is to be considered peak direction? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. That would be the volume that that can accept, yes, because it's all analyzed based on a peak direction, and transportation staffmay be able to veriff. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. So there's 188 left. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: There's also a trip bank for people who've paid impact fees, right? MR. TREBILCOCK: The trip bank is included in that remaining capacity. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I understand, I understand. My question's going to be, you don't own any of those trips in the trip bank, do you? MR. TREBILCOCK: No, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. So it's 188 is the maximum in one direction, and you're going to be at 170 something? MR. TREBILCOCK: One seventy-three, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. And, again, the AUIR also talks about 94.1 percent of capacity, and it is expected to become deficient in2021, which is just less than fwo years from now. MR. TREBILCOCK: So the trip bank that is put into that number, if you look at the 2018 volume, the trip bank is -- I believe it's 900 -- over 900 trips in the bank, so there's -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Seven forry-one for the -- MR. TREBILCOCK: There's a lot of trips to be added -- well, I'm sorry, including then -- I was putting us in the bank. I shouldn't have done that. So there's a lot of trips you're putting in the bank, and, you know -- so that's kind of a key thing to understand is will they come online or not, and I think there's some -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: But the 741 is not for your advantage. (Simultaneous speakers speaking.) Page 35 of 85 April 18,2019 MR. TREBILCOCK: No, you're right. I'm sorry. I was including that volume in that. That's why -- I'm sorry. I picked that up. COMMISSIONER FRYER: All right. Then -- CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: You guys -- Norm, slow down on your response, so you're not over talking. She's got to try to get this. And I'm usually the one guilty of that, but now it's you two guys. MR. TREBILCOCK: I'm usually not a fast talker, but okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: There was reference to guidelines. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And the dictionary definition of -- Webster's, not Black's Law or anything, but Webster's defines guidelines to mean advice, but it's never considered to be mandatory. Will you accept that definition? MR. YOVANOVICH: I probably -- I think it was -- did I say "guidelines"? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Norm did. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. I think what he meant to say was "standards." Those are the standards by which you measure each project. COMMISSIONER FRYER: All right. Then the -- let's see. Well, the scenarios that you've created -- MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONERFRYER: --which,bytheway,werenumbered T,2,and2again,butIknew what you meant. MR. TREBILCOCK: Well, 2 is what we use for the analysis, yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. But you've got Scenario l, then Scenario 2, and below that Scenario 2. MR. TREBILCOCK: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER FRYER: The compilation or examples of uses that you used on the commercial side seem to include a lot of very low-intensity uses. For instance, the 90,000 square foot mini warehouse and self-storage, that's preffy darn low intensity. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Is there any plan for such a use? MR. TREBILCOCK: Not specifically, no, but it allows -- the key in a Planned Unit Development is to try to have some flexibility depending on market conditions and things, so that was the only idea behind this is to illustrate that exact point, you know. COMMISSIONER FRYER: There are other uses that have -- that are, I think, more typical, maybe not in this county, but as typical, to be seen such as -- and then there are only -- in your requested permitted uses, which we'll talk about, but including, for instance, a l6-screen mini cinema, bank branches, social organization, drugstores, liquor stores, grocery stores, photocopying services, physical fitness facilities, religious organizations, and the many open-space uses you're also seeking. It just seems to me that focusing on a mini warehouse is a little bit unrealistic. MR. TREBILCOCK: Well, the shopping center really captures a lot, and in the traffic study I identiff, like, a broader range of SIC codes that a shopping center would typically have, and oftentimes we'll use a shopping center as a catch-all for a lot of different uses. The key, though, with the warehouse, the instructive point there is really it's a large square footage but doesn't generate a lot of traffic. And so we see those, you know, the Goodlette Corners, you know, when you strip (sic) through there, you have a strip center, and then you have about -- I think it's a 70- or 80,000 square foot Lock Up Storage there. So what you're trying to do is have that ability to do something that isn't really impactive that can be a decent thing, but a lot of it's market conditions that drive it, too. MR. YOVANOVICH: If I can add one thing to that. When we do the TIS, we provide the -- we showed you the scenario that we believed to be the likely scenario, which is how we came up with our Page 36 of85 April 18,2019 1,159 peak-hour trip cap. Staffwants us to also analyze scenarios that gets me to the total max of everything I'm asking for in the PUD assuming that that's somehow going to happen, and that's what this analysis is is we can't get to 370,000 square feet by this one scenario. We didn't use the lower trip-generation scenario for our analysis of impact. We used the higher likely trip-cap scenario in the analysis. If I had my druthers, just as an attorney, not as a transportation planner, I would just show you the scenario that's likely. I could, theoretically, get to those other numbers, and then if I underestimated my trip cap, then I've punished myself in the long run. We don't want to over -- we used to overestimate by analyzing as if -- we would max out everything because you can't fit it, so we went to the trip-cap scenario. COMMISSIONER FRYER: No, I do understand that, and it makes sense. MR. YOVANOVICH: I just wanted to make sure, kind ol the public understood that. We do this pretty frequently; they don't necessarily. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I got it. My concern, though, remains focused on the 188 remaining trips against your 170 something and some change. So it's not going to be 2022 or, rather, 2021 when that road's deficient. It's going to be sooner than that. MR. TREBILCOCK: And that's an issue that we deal with in terms of the concurrency. So when you go on to the next stage, site development or plat, the county checks in on that concuffency as well. So it's -- you know, it's a zoning thing, and then also it's actual real time on what's happening because things, do -- you know, in the 2017 , the things were looked at differently than now at 2018, so that's why they do that real-time capture of that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I understand. So the flyover. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Am I to understand that your client's going to be paying for all or part ofthe flyover? MR. YOVANOVICH: No, no, no, no, no, no, no. MR. TREBILCOCK: Even I could answer that. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I'm the one that said it, so I've got to defend myself. I said there are certain things we are giving for free to assist the county in building the flyover: Right-of-way, water management, extra easement for FP&L to relocate. But make no mistake, the county I'm assuming is going to use the impact -- some of our impact fees and other people's impact fees to build that actual flyover. But what we're doing is we're reducing their cost to build that flyover here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to clarifu that because it sounded a little different. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm not that -- I would not be here right now if I'd actually said that, I'm pretty sure. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well,I might have misheard it. So what is the time frame, if you know -- and we can always ask the county folks -- for completion of the flyover? MR. TREBILCOCK: I'd defer to staff. I think they'd have a better handle on that. Where is staff? Do you have a sense? COMMISSIONER FRYER: We can come back. We'll come back. CHAIRMAN STRAN: We'll bother staffafterwards, because we've got quite a lengthy list for you today. So when you get done, we'll frustrate them. MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. But it's a further-off item. Again, that's why I didn't rely on it at all. But I think they're planning ahead and doing a great job of that, so, yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Now, the -- I understand that there's been a change in consideration of or the definition of multifamily occupancy so as to include together both renters and Page 37 of85 April 18,2019 condo owners. Wouldn't it be fair, though, to assume that condo owners would have more automobiles than renter? Do you think that would be a fair assumption? MR. TREBILCOCK: I wouldn't necessarily opine that. It can depend on the condo owner, whether it's a retiree that's just coming down for the winter, that they may just have one vehicle for the two of them. It can vary, so I wouldn't tend to opine per se. I mean, ITE, you're right, the previous edition had apartments as a separate land use code, and then it did condos as a separate. What they've done now in the revision is they did -- they've combined them together, but they have different categories of the multifamily. It's a multifamily low rise, mid rise, and high rise. And so the low rise is one to two stories, and mid rise is 3 to 10, I think it is, and then high is I I and above. And so what you see in the ITE numbers -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: May I respectfully intemrpt you just in the interest of time? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. Sorry, okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: lnteresting what you're telling me, but I've got lots more to ask. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, okay. Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: The permitted uses, which we're going to talk about, expressly states that guests may use the amenity areas; however, you're assuming that it's members only. MR. TREBILCOCK: Well, guests of any facility will tend to be -- you know, I'd have people invited over, and they would be my guest, but you'd have a member there. You know, you don't just, hey, come on over when I'm not around. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, with respect to internal capture -- MR. TREBILCOCK: Well, it's incidental. Most recreational facilities that we do, that recreational facility really has a function of kind of holding people into the community and doesn't release them off to the street networks. So, yeah, I mean, where I live, we have that, and I'll have guests come over, but they're coming over and being captured at my community, so... COMMISSIONER FRYER: Will this be gated? MR. TREBILCOCK: Excuse me? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Willthis be gated, the residential part of the PUD? MR. YOVANOVICH: It will not be gated. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. So will there be a -- well, I won't pursue this, because I don't think the numbers are that significant. MR. YOVANOVICH: Is your question about can anybody just get into the amenities? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: I will tell you that the current plan for the amenities -- but we didn't analyze it this way, but the current plan for the amenities is actually the amenities will be within one of the buildings, so it won't be a stand-alone clubhouse. The amenity itself will be within -- actually, we'll have a pool, but the amenity itself will be within one of the buildings. So I don't think we're anticipating a lot of neighbors coming in using the amenities. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Let me see what else I have on traffic. I know I have something that I picked up from the NIM. Oh, I know what it was. Norm, at one point you referenced that you had done a traffic count in season. That's what was stated at the NIM. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. That's the intersection analysis we did. We did that in 2018 in early February, late January, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. So what you're saying is that you only did an actual count on the intersection? MR. TREBILCOCK: On the intersections, yes, because we rely on the county data for the analysis we do. That way it's always apples to apples. But for the intersection analysis, you really want to have that real turning movements that are occurring, and we did that in peak season, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. It appears that I have completed my questions related to Page 38 of85 April 18,2019 traffic, but I've got lots of other things to ask other people. How do you want to do it, Chair? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not going to go until all of you finish, like I usually do. So when you're done, I'll go forward -- I'll ask mine, because I probably have more than you do. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRY: I can ask one more traffic question while -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's what I'm saying, before -- if you guys are holding off thinking it's only traffic we should be asking questions of, the applicant did a complete presentation, so all of the elements are on the table now. COMMISSIONER FRY: Another theme in our packet, of course, concerns that were expressed by neighboring communities, even the ones that are not adjacent, is that there are a lot of approved communities out east that are not fully built out adding traffic all the time. As Commissioner Fryer pointed out, that one segment of Immokalee is -- will be -- after yours will be 15 trips shy of capacity, which I would assume we can equate to failure -- MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- or very unpleasant reality. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Tell, please, for everyone's benefit, how have the trips that are approved but not yet generated by those already approved communities factored into this equation? MR. TREBILCOCK: So that's a good point. The trip bank did include that significant volume. Some of those were the trip bank numbers, and your staff identifies two potential solutions as well. You know, the extension of Vanderbilt Road is really one key solution that they've identified that will potentially relieve things significantly, because it's a parallel facility. And if that goes out, as it -- and it's been passed, so it really is in the works to be done, would make all the difference in the world. COMMISSIONER FRY: So the trip bank, it includes allthose trips that are anticipated but not yet built out? MR. TREBILCOCK: The ones that they've identified, yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Just a reminder to the Planning Commission or the public, we are going to stop at 12 o'clock for one hour, and before we go Joe, if you don't mind, I just want to ask a thought of the Planning Commission. I know there's a lot of members of the public here who have taken time away from their jobs and families and everything to be here, and possibly -- there's usually an advantage for the public to go last, because then you hear everything that's on the table, including the questions ofeach one ofus. But I know not everybody has every day, and you might not find it exciting to sit here all day long. When we get back from lunch, I might want to suggest to my other Planning Commission members, if we agree, to hear the public first, and then we can wrap up, because my stuffs going to go on for a long period of time. I have -- Norm is going to have to get a chair to sit there for the questions I have. And we may not finish this today; that means the public's going to sit here today, and they may not be able to make it back for the next meeting if we don't hear them. Do you guys have any problem if we go to the -- COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- public when we get back from lunch? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I think we should accommodate the public. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: When is this set? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it's June. Okay. Joe, do you want to go forward? We'll break at noon. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The only question I had, since you brought up the public, is do we want to offer opportunity now before lunch if anybody's not going to -- Page 39 of 85 April 18,2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I doubt if we'll get much in in seven minutes. So let's just -- if you had a question, let's just get that on the table. We'll start clean with the public at I o'clock when we come back. . COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'll ask my questions with regards -- you have 168 -- going back. Excuse me. Just moved it -- 168 uses in the SIC codes, I believe you showed. Have the neighboring communities pretty much reviewed this list, and do they have any issues with the uses? I have several I'm going to question. I just was wondering if there's been any pushback from the -- during the meetings with the community in regards to some of the uses. MR. ARNOLD: Wayne Arnold again. I don't recall any specific issues with regard on our list of proposed uses. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Number 82, hotel and motel. There's nothing planned now, but that is an identified use. MR. ARNOLD: That is correct. It is one of our proposed uses. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Which, at times, can be fairly significant. MR. ARNOLD: (Nods head.) COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Lumber store. And this is the one I asked Rich about when we spoke on the phone. Lumber and other building materials. So that's a Lowe's or Home Depot or maybe a smaller community type of hardware store. But any plans right now for that? MR. ARNOLD: I don't believe there are any contractual obligations with one of those lumber -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But it is a use that -- MR. ARNOLD: We believe it's a potential viable use for the property, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Now, big box, membership warehouse club. So that could be, what, a Costco or a BJ's or some other type of membership type? MR. ARNOLD: Yes, that is correct. That's what that refers to. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Sporting good stores, bicycle shops, which could be large big box or small? MR. ARNOLD: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Just for clari5,. And the only one was a tire retreading and repair shop but tire repair only. Would that be full service tire store or similar just a -- MR. ARNOLD: I think -- and I might defer to Ray, but I think we've been trying to clariff this for several years -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: 7 534, for years. MR. ARNOLD: Yeah. I think there are several that take in the Tire Kingdoms or Firestone centers where they're selling you tires and they need to do installation, and they do other incidental service on vehicles. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: My only concern on those ones that I just discussed, that they be located as far as possible from the neighboring areas. So, I mean, it would be in a -- certainly, it can be a rather noisy -- if there's a tire service or Tire King (sic) or one of the other tire service centers. But right now there's -- and I'll be interested to hear what the public has to say during their presentation in regards to the uses. So I just raise those as certainly going to be -- they could be significant in that activity center. MR. ARNOLD: In the PUD, Mr. Schmitt, we have a section called special conditions, and that's where we have things that you find typically. No adult-oriented sales one of those uses. Staff also requested that we add one that says service bays related to automobile service and repair shall be located so that they do not face any external residential district within 1,500 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes, okay, good. Thank you. Mark, that's all I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does anybody have a quick question for four minutes before we leave? Karl- COMMISSIONER FRY: I do, for Wayne, if you don't mind staying up there. Wayne, I think it Page 40 of85 April 18, 2019 kind of may be preview questions for the public speakers also in terms of density. You had an activity center that comprised the westem part ofthis piece of land, and you reorganized it so that it took more ofthe top part closer to Immokalee, and you left a non-activity center part toward Tuscany Cove. What is the -- I know the activity centers allowed density is l6 dwelling units per acre. The density band around an activity center, I believe, was seven. MR. ARNOLD: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: Conect? It looked like your apartments or multifamily are three buildings on your ERP, which is not set in stone yet, but it's kind of a best guess at this point. Three buildings down there. Is that 400 units between those three buildings? MR. ARNOLD: Those three buildings represent probably about 50 percent ofthe marimum density that we're asking for. And I guess if I - I will -- it wasn't your question, but I guess for the general public's benefit, yes, activif center, 36 acres allows us to obtain l6 dwelling units per acre, seven units per acre on areas outside the activity centers. This project, in total, qualities for over 700 units. We're seeking 400. We're seeking less than the number of units that could be built in the activity center itself. COMMISSIONER FRY: What is the density proposed for the area that's not within the activity center? You've got a lot ofthe residential; 50 percent of it you said is down there. So is that a couple hundred units on 15 acres or 20 acres? MR. ARNOLD: I think it's about l6 plus-or-minus acres or l9 acres. I'm trying to remember the math. (Simultaneous speakers speaking.) COMMISSIONER FRY: A couple hundred. So it's about 12 or 13 units per acre that's not formally within the activiry center? MR. ARNOLD: I'm going to let our engineer do a quick calculation for you on that. I may have to give you that answer after the lunch break. COMMISSIONER FRY: I guess my only question is -- my main question really is, you've got the activity center, which is now toward the north, but you've got more than this allowed seven units in the area that isn't activiry center down toward Tuscany Cove, and they're looking at possibly looking at some taller buildings. I'm just curious how you reconcile that when speaking with these people or getting ready to present. MR. ARNOLD: And I'lljust tell you in round numbers offthe top of my head, and I'll get you a more specific answer. But I think when you do the calculation ofthe area outside the activity center versus what's in the activif center, I think we come up withjust under 180 units that are the non-activity center allowed using the seven-unit-per-acre calculation. So, you know, we're not seeking a great number above that. It's probably closer to a -- yeah. And I think, as Richjust mentioned to me, that's how we're allowed to calculate the density for the activity center and the densiry band for mixed-used projects. COMMISSIONER FRY: Is to spread it - distribute it across both areas? MR. ARNOLD: Yes, correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Well, I gave you a minute to spare. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Karl, thank you. And with that, ladies and gentlemen, we'll retum at l:00, and at that time we'll start conversations with the public. (A luncheon recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody. Good aftemoon, and welcome back fiom the lunch break. And as we had said before we left, we're going to start offwith the public speakers just so you-all won't be sitting here until 4 and then going without speaking, so - and in regards to that, based on the Page 41 of85 April 18,2019 quantity of questions we still may have and the length of time public speakers, we may go past today before we can even put this together for a vote. And if we do, before any of you leave, I want to make sure you know the tentative date that we're looking at if we don't finish by 4 o'clock. And I'm suggesting to this panel, based on what I've seen right now, let's just count on finishing at 4 o'clock today, and then we'll move to the May 2nd meeting that we don't have anything scheduled for. If we have to continue, assuming we do, does anybody have any problem with that? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Just a question for Ray. Do we have anything on for the l6th yet? I'd have to check. I believe we do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I will not be here for the 2nd. CFIAIRMAN STRAN: Well, when we get into the -- we get into making a motion, I'll ask for the applicant's input and the rest of the Board, and we'll either establish it the 2nd or the 16th based on how many people we can have attend. I won't know until later today. If you guys stay around, you see it before you go. At least if you leave after your discussion or -- after your discussion with us, you'Il know to keep watching or look forward to another date. If we can finish it today, we will, but I honestly don't think -- how many speakers do we have, Ray, anyway? MR. BELLOWS: Twenty-one registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's see. Twenty-one times five, yes, we're probably not -- and then we've got questions, so -- and some of you may take more than five, so -- and we're here to hear all of you. We're not trying to rush anybody. We just want to make sure everybody's aware of what the schedule's going to be. So with that, as each of you are called -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Strain, I messed up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: About what? MR. YOVANOVICH: My consultant can't be here May 2nd, so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which consultant? MR. YOVANOVICH: Wayne. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He's not important. MR. YOVANOVICH: Sorry, Wayne. That's my fault. That's my bad. That's my bad. CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So more than likely, then, you'd want to continue to the l6th? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: I messed up. CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: Ladies and gentlemen, if we continue today, it will be to the 16th, and that will also make it available because every member of this panel is going to be here on the l6th, so... We won't know, though, until we get closer to 4. With that, as your name is called, if you could come up to one of the speakers. If your last name has got a twist to it as far as spelling goes, please spell your last name so we get it accurate. And with that -- and as we've said before, we'd like you to stay at about five minutes. If you're representing a group, obviously, and you have more to say, we'll certainly be glad to listen to you. We are here to hear what you've got to say, after all. So with that, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: The first speaker is Robert Pritt, followed by Greg Stuart. MR. PRITT: Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the Planning Commissioner. My name's Robert Pritt. I'm with the law firm of Roetzel & Andress. I've been retained as the legal counsel for Tuscany Cove Property Owners Association with regard to this land-use matter. I have met with -- started with Maureen Hibbard, who's the property manager. Just raise your hand there, Maureen. I don't know if she's going to testifu or not. But the board vice president, Gary Boutin, is here in the front row, and the regard to treasurer, Jane Taglietta, is also here. Our planning consultant is Greg Stuart, as indicated, and he will also make a presentation today. Page 42 of85 April 18, 2019 The position of the Tuscany Cove homeowners association -- properB/ owners association board is that the proposed residential use as depicted in the revised master plan, which is a bubble plan only, submitted on March -- revised on March I l, 2019, that would allow multifamily structures up to 65 feet in height to be next to preexisting single-family one-story houses -- and our belief is that this is, indeed, incompatible with the Comprehensive Plan, your GMP, and also inconsistent with sensible planning and zoning principles. Additionally, the proposed density and development intensity may be too great for the site given the above constraints on the Tuscany Cove side ofthe property. It may not be a problem if the buildings were moved further away or if some -- a proper accommodation were made for Tuscany Cove and its property boundaries. But first and foremost, the PUD master plan places residential multifamily units next to a substantial number ofproperties in Tuscany Cove. The proposed structures, as I said, could be as high as 65 feet overall, and that would allow five stories. Tuscany Cove's preexisting development plan with virtually all the homes already built - it may be all of them. I'm not sure -- and occupied is single-family one-story. When the residents attended the neighborhood informational meetings, they were shown plans, and some ofthem may testi! today, but it was their understanding that the plans depicted lake buffers along the boundary line between Tuscany Cove and this property to be developed. Even the master paving and drainage plan that was submitted - it should be in your file. It was submifted dated February 2019, C 1- I I shows lakes on the borders. Although, they are not consistent with what were shown to the neighbors at the NIMs, if anything was shown. But \ryorse yet, the revised master plan dated March I l, 2019, depicts residential all along the property line and lakes to the north ofthe structures. Could I use the visualizer? This is a document that's in your file and I think was on -- thank you. And was in the PowerPoint. I don't think there's any question about that. But this is what called everybody to arms. You see the R's on the bottom, that's residential, and the lakes are put in between the residential properties and the MU area. That is what is before you, technically, today. No matter what anybody else says, that's what -- that's the bubble plan that's before you today. So it shows the residential along the property line and lakes to the north ofthe structures with only a l5-foot-wide Type B landscape buffer between the homes in Tuscany Cove and the residential structures, which we know will be multifamily, on the subject property. To that extent, the development as now proposed is incompatible with the existing Tuscany Cove neighborhood and is not complementary to Tuscany Cove. Your county's GMP policy, FLUE policy requires new developments to be both compatible with and complementary to the surrounding land uses. Now, PUDs are useful planning tools. You use them all the time; however, when they are used to maximize -- only to marimize the use of the subject development at the expense of preexisting neighborhoods immediately next to their district, to their zoning district, they frustrate their own purposes and become a near nuisance to the other neighborhoods. Your GMP recognizes that and hence the policy that I referred to. The very essence of zoning, and the only reason that it's a lawful exercise ofthe local govemment's police power is to provide compatibility ofuses and structures in between various zoning districts. It'sjust common sense -- and that common sense has been expressed in the U.S. Supreme Court law, at least since 1926, and is in Planning 101 - it's the first thing Planning Law 101, the first thing you leam is the whole purpose for zoning, and that is, you do not put incompatible use or incompatible structures next to each other. This is really basic. Compatibility is also a defined term in state law. I think Mr. Stuart is going to talk more about that, and I think that Mr. Yovanovich talked about it also, but ifs a defined term. And I believe Mr. Fryer had asked a question about that or made a comment about that. Page 43 of 85 April 18,2019 So, anyhow, procedurally, as a matter of due process, we feel that a post NIM substantial change of this nature should have triggered another NIM, another neighborhood information meeting. And the PowerPoint that we saw today we're seeing for the first time, and I'd like to put the other one up, if I may. I believe that this is a blowup of the paving and the master plan study that is in your file. Half of it was on the PowerPoint this morning, only the bottom half, showing the lakes. Anyway, we got this from Wayne Arnold after we had a meeting with Rich and Wayne and their team, and what we got is -- we think is not consistent with what we were discussing when we were trying to discuss working things out. And, specifically, the most specific thing that I'd like to point out on this is that the buildings here -- and if I point to them -- I have to point to them here, I guess. Am I on? I think so. We like the idea -- and I'm talking about the Board. We tentatively like the idea of having the lakes along here as a buffer. That's good. However, you'll see that two of these buildings, and one building in two parts, actually goes down into the buffer in between the lakes. This is not scaled, I do not think, and I don't think we have and I don't think you have a scaled drawing of this, but supposedly this is what is being submitted to South Florida Water Management District. They can clariff that if they want. But what our problem is, the main problem that brought us here today -- there are other issues, but the main issue is that these buildings are now creeping down towards the single-family dwellings, and we thought that we had an understanding that that would not happen and, obviously, the developer has a different opinion on that. We think that that is way too close to the property boundaries of Tuscany Cove. Just for the heck of it this morning I paced the building here, the hallway here, and I came out with about somewhere around 65 to 70 feet, you know, in the hallway. We're not talking about a whole lot more than the length of this hallway if we're talking about buildings that are even 100 feet out. And so we think that that is unreasonable under the circumstances and is not compatible with or complementary to the neighborhood. It was interesting to see the sight -- line-of-sight PowerPoint today. I noticed that it was all done from the top. I guess it was done from a drone, but it was done from a top looking down, which is all well and good. But I like mountains better than valleys because on a mountain I can see down, but if I'm in a valley and I have to see up, it's not nearly as good, and I did not see anything here today that showed what it is likely that my clients are going to be looking at if this is approved as it stands today. Now, we think that the Board of County Commissioners gets it because -- and I know this is not the Allura hearing, although I thought the last one might have been. But at the Allura hearing the Board of County Commissioners in the Growth Management Plan under very similar circumstance as this required that the buildings be no more than three stories. This is after a 4-2 decision by this board to approve it. So we're pretty sure that the Board of County Commissioners understands the concept of all of a sudden having to live in the shadows of a large multifamily building when you are in a single -- a single-family, one-fl oor structure. I don't know that the -- well, it's obvious that the developers haven't heard yet -- I'm not sure about the staff, but I would submit to you that this is something that is going to have to be dealt with at all levels. It's nice to have people down here and giving their input, but they wouldn't be down here giving their input and being upset and angry if things like this didn't happen, and it's time for it to stop. This is not like an infill development in a downtown area. Here there's plenty of space for a good and profitable development. The only plausible reason that there's a reluctance to move the structures away from the Tuscany Cove boundary is the desire to maximize every inch of space on the property. It gives no consideration to the neighbors. And, yes, Rich, you did use the word "guidelines" several times this morning, and I think that's correct. When you read your code -- your codes, it is always in terms of a maximum height, a maximum density, a maximum development intensity, minimum setbacks, et cetera. You do not have to grant the Page 44 of 85 April 18, 2019 maximum, and they are not entitled to the maximum every single time they meet a standard or a guideline or a criteria. Remember, this is a PUD. A PUD is something where they get to write their own ticket within reason, but some things are given in exchange for what is being obtained. So you are under no compulsion, no legal compulsion whatsoever to grant all ofthe ma-ximums that are being requested. As to interconnects, there's a policy, 7.3, under the FLUE, and Transportation Policy 9.3, they do encourage developments to connect the interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods. The proposed master plan Cl shows a potential interconnect with Tuscany Cove but only is a stub-in. Tuscany Cove -- and Mr. Yovanovich, I think, did indicate or somebody indicated, that there had been discussions about that. And that's true, Tuscany Cove had understood from disclosures a year or so ago that the developer would construct or reimburse Tuscany Cove for the cost ofthe gate or the access; however, developer's plan does not show an inclination to do so. And something was stated to you that they were willing to do i! but what was not stated to you is that they were willing to put the gate in providing we agreed to every,thing else, and we just cannot agree to the setbacks as they are proposed to you. For one thing, we don't have the ability, the easy financial ability to put those in on our own, and we had hoped that the developer would do that. But, anyhow, in summary, the county is not required to provide the maximum height and square footage requested in a PUD. We request that the developer be required to re-establish the lakes along the boundary ofTuscany Cove and to keep the structures no closer than even with the setbacks from the lakes. And I'm not sure what the setbacks are. They're not really spelled out in the application, but we certainly ask that that occur. We ask that the counlr reduce the number of stories to three and reduce the maximum building height accordingly. Now, it may not be that all ofthose are required, that the reduction ofthe building height is required if things are moved back far enough and there's a decent enough buffer that's put in but, ifnot, then we would ask that that happen. And, again, another perfectly lawful action that is seldom taken is to make a recommendation of rejection to the Board ofCounty Commissioners ofthis application. There's no automatic right to any particular PUD criteria. I was reading the newspaper this morning about a city close by next to you, the City of Naples, and I have some familiarity with that. But I thought it was kind of interesting - ifthe newspaper article is right. I dont know if it is. But it had indicated that a 200-foot buffer to provide a buffer between that subject property and buildings on it, which could only be 30 feet high, there was still a 200-foot buffer, and the buffering was from condominiums of some height, I believe. I'm not sure. Mr. Yovanovich was on that case and -- but I'm just telling you what I read in the paper today. So it's - while I realize - COMMISSIONER FRYER: It did not involve condos. MR. PRITT: I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER FRYER: It did not involve condos. MR. PRITT: Okay. Did not, okay. There was a homeowners association there. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Single-family dwellings. MR. PRITT: Okay, thank you. So you have the authority to make reasonable requirements as to the setback as to the buffers in a P[JD. And my last comment is that some of these things we saw for the first time today, I'm not sure that they're in the application and, Iiom a due process point of view, they're -- in my opinion, there should be either another neighborhood informational meeting or further -- perhaps even a continuance to a point where we, you know, can actually have a reasonable discussion. I'll be glad to try to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Mr. Schmitt's got a question. Page 45 of85 April 18,2019 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. Bob, I have several questions. You stated for the record that you find that multifamily units are incompatible with single-family units, and it's being -- that it's incompatible with the Comp Plan, yet throughout Collier County there's several communities where there are multifamily units adjacent to single-family. So would that be deemed incompatible as well? MR. PRITT: It depends on the height. It depends on the intensity of the units. Could be. And I think -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But it was your general statement for this, because of what you've seen, that the multifamily units as shown are incompatible with the Tuscany Cove community? MR. PRITT: Yes, 65-foot high, potentially five-story buildings on a property line -- and I'll put it up here -- right next to Tuscany Cove in my opinion is incompatible. And I think that the Board agreed with us at least to some extent in the recent Allura matter. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You had met with -- and you stated I believe you have met with the developer -- MR. PRITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- on previous occasions. MR. PRITT: On one occasion, and we've had -- I've had discussions with Mr. Yovanovich. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: What accommodations have been made? And I thought they mentioned something about complying with 1O0-foot setback requirement. Are you saying that is not now the case? MR. PRITT: We don't know that 100 feet is appropriate. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, what would be appropriate? What are you asking for? MR. PRITT: Well, what I'm asking for is that it be clear that they move them here. Again, it's hard -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For some reason that doesn't work all the time, so -- MR. PRITT: Again, it's hard to scale this, but this is what we got, and these buildings here, right here, portions of building here, portions of building here, the portion of building here are tucked in. We were told by Wayne, and Wayne can tell you what he really means, but that the lakes had to be at least 100 feet wide by South Florida Water Management District requirements. So -- and I think they have to be at least 10 feet off of the property line. And I'm not sure if they have to be back further, but we'd like to get those buildings back behind those lakes and make sure that those lakes are least 100 feet. (Simultaneous speakers speaking.) COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And if I recall from Mr. Arnold, he mentioned that this plan was a plan that was submitted as a preliminary plan to the Water Management District for their environmental resource permit. MR. PRITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'll classifl, it as a preliminary plan. It's not the plan that they're actually going to build. Is that, in fact, true, or you believe this is the plan that they're going to build? MR. PRITT: Well, I don't know -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Because, again,I want to get clarity for the record this 1O0-foot setback. I thought I heard Mr. Yovanovich state that they will meet the request for 1O0-foot setback, and you're now saying that, no, that's not the case, so where are we? MR. PRITT: He may have said that today, but let me show you what plan you have in front of you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. That's the bubble plan, and that's the plan that shows residential. MR. PRITT: And it has lakes, and they're not where the lakes are shown on the preliminary plan, so they do not intend to build according to their master concept plan that they've submitted to you. And we think that they should tell you and us where that's going to be, because that could cause a lot less fuss Page 46 of85 a April 18,2019 if we knew that those buildings were back tucked behind those lakes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So with what you're saying is, you believe this is a misrepresentation of what they intend to build? MR. PzuTT: What is up here is not the correct representation of where they're going to put the lakes. See the R's on the bottom there? That's where they're going to put the buildings. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. I'm just asking the question. MR. PzuTT: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So you believe that -- it's your position, then, that this should not be accepted and that they should come back to this commission with an appropriate bubble plan that represents what they intend to build. MR. PRITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. I got that. Now we're straight. MR. PRITT: Except for the word "bubble." That's part of the problem. It's too much of a bubble, and that's what's causing us a problem. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But let's -- well -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else, Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, I do. I mean, because I -- because Mr. Pritt made some statements, and I just really -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they're saying that they could -- they would be better off if the lakes were to the south of the property. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I got that. I hear that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I understand what they said. And I think Wayne even said in one of his that they're going to do that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's what I thought as well. So where's the disconnect? MR. PRITT: The disconnect is that they're showing the -- they're showing -- for this third time they're showing buildings too close. (Simultaneous speakers speaking.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The plan in our packet wasn't consistent with what they're now saying today because they've reached a different agreement. I think we just ought to take that and go with it, and we can stipulate for that and be done with it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, that's what I thought. That's what I'm trying to get at. I thought there was an agreement of 1O0-foot setback and that there would be lakes, and the residential would be north of the lakes. MR. PRITT: It was represented to you by Mr. Yovanovich, perhaps, that there was an agreement, but there was not an agreement -- I have to take anything to my board, and we didn't even have time to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you, please -- Rich, would you take seat. I know you want to say something. MR. YOVANOVICH: I was just answering a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll get your chance when everybody else finishes. We've got a right, too. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm moving on with this that for right now this does not accurately represent the plan. The plan that I had heard, the petitioner -- would be that it would be lakes and then residential north of the lakes and that they would meet 1O0-foot setback. That was what I thought they said. If that's incorrect, I'll wait for Mr. Yovanovich to clarifu. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Well, you can wait for rebuttal, and he can clarifu then. And what we'll do is if we feel that's a clarification, it can be stipulated. So let's just handle it that way and go on with -- ask the rest of your questions. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The other question is, your statements -- because Tuscany Page 47 of85 April 18,2019 Reserve was built first -- or Tuscany Cove, thank you. We have too many Tuscanys. Because Tuscany Cove was built first, therefore, the activity center -- and I believe the activity center has been identified as activity center for probably well over 25 years on the Comp Plan -- that the activity center now is forced to comply with your position from a zoning perspective versus the fact that Tuscany Cove was built with the understanding that there would always be an activity center. That's the reason I asked the question about the stub-out, because at one time it was my belief that Tuscany Cove had fully intended to connect to the activity center and that it always was identified as an activity center, which meant it was going to be a mixed-use of commercial and other rather intense uses. Are you saying now that that is, in fact -- should not be done, and they have no right to build anything in this area because Tuscany Cove was built first? MR. PRITT: Well, in the first place, not all of it is in the activity center. In the second place, even if so, the development pattern has been for single-family on Tuscany Cove. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. MR. PRITT: And that doesn't mean that the activity center cannot be built upon, but it must be built in such a way as not to put large-scale, tall buildings right next to single-family homes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So large-scale, tall buildings to you are four story, rather than three story. MR. PRITT: Well, you even heard somebody -- one of the experts said the difference is two stories, and then I think medium height is three through 10. So, yeah, these are fairly -- these are fairly substantial. And if you can visualize just for a second, if you're sitting out in your lanai and you're looking across to Tuscany -- or to the activity center and you see a building close by, it totally blocks your view, and that is -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I understand that, but the zoning, though it was ag, was always identified in the Future Land Use Map as going to be -- eventually be an activity center of some sort, which meant some kind of commercial development; is that correct? MR. PzuTT: That's correct, but it didn't mean that they were going to put residential uses right up against the Tuscany Cove side of the project. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Maybe I'm mistaken, but I would think that residential next to residential would be far more favorable than commercial next to the residential, but -- MR. PzuTT: Now you're talking about uses. But incompatibility is not just uses to uses. It's also strucfures to strucfures. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the issue here is not residential to residential. It's the height of the new residential versus the height of the old. I think that's what the whole point is. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And I understand that, and we can address that in our stipulations. My last question is, is from a standpoint -- you're representing the homeowners. What demands -- what list of demands do you have? I mean, you went over the demands, as I heard, is 1O0-foot setback, or you want it more than 100-foot setback and you don't want anything more than three stories; is that concise? MR. PRITT: Those are part of the demands. I hate to use the word "demands," but what we think would be fair. And on the interconnect -- and we're not really against an interconnect, so we -- but we don't know what-all it going to be involved in that interconnect. One of you asked a very good question. I think it was one of you. It might have been you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, I did. MR. PzuTT: Does this mean that others can go in and use Tuscany Cove? Well, we don't know what's involved, but we hope not, because we'd like to have Tuscany Cove be able to get to the activity center, which I think everybody would like, but we are a little worried about having -- for security. I Page 48 of 85 April 18,2019 think you said it. For security, we're worried about having the entire world be able to use that same gate and get into Tuscany Cove. That's all. So that's not -- you know, it's not really a big deal, and we're willing to work on that, but we'd kind of like to have the idea that they would put that gate up for us as they once told our board that they would do. Again, I'm not sure they agree they told our board they were going to do that, but that's what our board was given to believe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, again, I'll leave that for the rebuttal, because I thought that I heard the petitioner state that they would put that access in, and I believe -- I thought they said something about they would build it - it would be gated. MR. PRITT: If we would come in and tellyou that we're okay on the setback. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MR. PRITT: And that didn't happen. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. No other questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else got any questions? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I may have more later, but... COMMISSIONER FRY: Is there -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we go -- anybody else have any questions of Bob? I don't care how many later. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER FRY: Is there a minimum setback you have in mind? MR. PzuTT: No. I think that's up to the planners. I don't know enough about your -- the details of your buffers. There are a lot of ways of buffering, and that's why I had suggested that maybe we continue this and continue talking, give us enough time. Remember, this staffreport came out April 3rd, I think it was, and that's not much time to hire an attorney and a planner and all of that. It could be that some talks would be fruitful, but I was told that, no, that they're not going to budge on that so there's no sense for any more talks. But if there were, then we'd be happy to -- if there's a continuance, to try real hard to work it out with them. COMMISSIONER FRY: One of their -- in the conceptual plan, they had the narrower part of the building extended south, the narrower part of the building rather than the wider part of the building. I just wondered if that's another - if the shape of those buildings is another point of contention for you. MR. PRITT: Well, you're still looking -- there are a number of homes that would still be looking at a wall. If that could be avoided, that's what we're looking for. If you're looking at a wall, make sure it's far enough way and buffered enough so it's not an incompatibility. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Could you go back to that conceptual plan, the one that shows what Karl was talking about? As I look at that part of the building that sticks out in between the lakes, there seems to be a sidewalk between that and the rest of the building. What is that little thing with the X in it? Is that a building? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I looked at it as the part they want to chop off. I don't know what that is, but that's a good question. MR. PRITT: Yes, I think one of our people -- I got this from one of our board members, I think. I think that's what they were concerned about, those two X's down there on the bottom, that those are the areas where the buildings are too close. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But we could solve that as part of our stipulation on setbacks. CIIAIRMAN STRAN: Joe,let Stan finish. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: That's okay. Who drew this? Did you guys draw this? MR. PRITT: I believe it came from Dan of Peninsula. Is that right, Dan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: What is that, Dan? Or, Rich. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't know if we're allowed to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Honestly, this is getting way off track, but we'll try to resolve it. I'm Page 49 of85 April 18,2019 used to that with Stan. So go ahead, Dan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Because that's -- I've been gauging off the parking lots to see where 100 feet is, roughly, for scale. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to have hours of discussing with the applicant when this is done. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Oh, yeah. I'm in no rush. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You missed my point. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: These guys don't mind. That scales to be I 00 feet from the property line, but the rest of it would be, like, 160, 1 70 feet away. What is that thing with the X on it? Is that a part of the building? MR. WATERS: Yeah, that's correct. Yeah, I think that's part of the building. And for the record, Dan Waters with Peninsula Engineering. As Mr. Pritt indicated, that's part of the building that I think they've drawn an X through that they would like to see go away. In terms of what you're seeing there, that's our ERP plan that has been submitted, Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Oh, okay. So that sidewalk is going to go there if that part of the building goes away? MR. WATERS: No. I don't think that's a sidewalk, Mr. Chrzanowski. I think that's just a dark line where somebody said this is where we want the wall to be, would be my guess. This is the first time I've seen that, though. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. It's just confusing. That's all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm with Stan on this one. I know what -- I believe it represents the portion of the building they want to remove. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of Mr. Pritt? I have one. Could you show me the master plan that was used for the most recent NIM. Can you show me the master plan that was used for the most recent NIM, that neighborhood information meeting that you have alluded to. MR. PzuTT: I can't. I don't know. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Nancy, can you show it to us from your packet? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you mind -- see the date on the bottom, would you mind zooming that in? Yeah, the date down at the bottom. See the date,4l4l20l9. The NIM's records show they were held on 1011612018. That's the document that was in our packet that reflects what was provided at the NIM. It couldn't have been. So do you have one that was provided at the NIM? Well, I've got several that were provided in addition to that one in our packet, none of which correspondence to anything that I can figure out how we got there. And I'm curious, because whatever the public saw at the NIM we should be seeing in regards to what their expectations were at the NIM. See, we don't know what they showed at the NIM. MS. GUNDLACH: Oh, I thought you just said it was in your packet. CHAIRMAN STRAN: No. I've got others, but they don't match up. Nothing matches up to the packet that we received. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: For clarification, the one from October at the NIM is what we're looking for. We don't have that. MS. GLTNDLACH: I have whatever was scanned and provided to you. If it's not in those documents, then I don't have it with me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll save you the trouble. I'll show you want three -- last four pages. MR. YOVANOVICH: I can put it up for you, Mr. Strain. CHAIRMAN STRAN: No. I've got it taken care of with Ray. Thank you, though. This is the Page 50 of85 April 18,2019 transcript that was received to the Planning Commission. The transcript was finished on October 24th of 2018. Could you go to the next one. That's the cover page. The NIM was actually October 16th. Now go to the one after that. This is one of the renderings or pages that was in the NIM in as backup to the NIM as what was distributed. And the difference here is, look at the C's versus the M -- what is it? We have we got today, MUR, or whatever it is? And then we've got C down below and CR and, of course, the lakes in the south. Now, this is supposedly one that was provided at the NIM. Can you provide the next one, Ray. This is another but it's a black and white. Same kind of situation. It's not showing mixed use along any of this. Now, in the NIM minutes, the applicant did say that where the C and the R are on the center they were going to put residential in there and one of them potentially mixed use. But none of these called out as a mixed use in all the peripheral locations along both the main highways. And, Ray, is that the last one, or do you have one more? That's the one we're now working off of which shows the date. Now, this is the one that was attached as part of the NIM backup. The one prior to it I pulled offof CityView as one of the records. So I'm still trying to find out which one was actually distributed to the folks at the NIM, because this was the one that was in our packet, as it's referred to as a bubble plan, as a NIM distribution, but it's physically impossible to have happened. So I don't know how to resolve that, but when we come back and talk about this project, procedurally wise, it would be good to know what the public saw at the NIM versus what we're seeing today so the NIM is then consistent with what we're doing today, so... MR. PRITT: Thank you. I thought it was just me I couldn't make -- I couldn't make out what was at the NIM except -- and I think somebody here was there and will testifu what they understood they saw at the NIM, but I couldn't find that either. CHAIRMAN STRAN: When we get back for another meeting, I would appreciate it if we got an accurate disbursement of what was actually at the NIM. So it would help explain to the people why we're talking about one document that they may have received as different, and I would like that clarification as well. Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Just for clarity, what was represented at the NIM for the residential area shown here as the R? Was it multifamily? MR. PRITT: I don't know. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Or was it single-family? What was the intent? Or is it just R? MR. PzuTT: I don't know. MR. YOVANOVICH: Are we allowed -- can we answer? Multifamily. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everything was multifamily. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's what I thought. Yeah, okay. MR. PRITT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Nancy, could you pull a couple of those plans off of this. Let me show you what was -- one correction for the record. Go to the one -- the other bubble plan that's just black and white but not the one that was just on top. Okay. Now, this is where I discovered the error. Focus down on the date on this one. All the way to the bottom. There it is. So this is 10130118. This plan couldn't have been used at the NIM. That's what caused me to take a look at this enough, and I couldn't figure out why it was in the packet as backup to the NIM, and that's the only thing I'd like to have clarified. MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I do that? CHAIRMAN STRAN: What do you have? MR. YOVANOVICH: I have the actual one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Put it on the overhead. That's the one I showed previously. That was -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Look at the date. Page 51 of85 April 18,2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, 914. All I'm saying is the bubble plan that was presented doesn't appear to be consistent on its date with what could have been presented at the NIM. MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Strain, I don't control the packet. I'm just -- your question was what's the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I thought we got the packet from the applicant. Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: What the -- there's no way I could have given you that packet of the NIM with a master plan I just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The packet that's distributed to us usually comes in by electronic document, it goes to Judy, she splits it up and sends it out. Now, they're all packed together when it comes in in a bunch of electronic files. MR. YOVANOVICH: All I can tell you is the question was, what was presented at the NIM. This is what was presented at the NIM. You can see it September 4,2018. Obviously, when we meet with people at the NIM, we then make revisions to documents that occur. But one thing you will see as consistent is the C and the R, and in the description of what we can do under this C and the R we obviously said we could have multi -- we could have commercial or we could have multifamily residential when we described what could happen on the property. But the important thing is it's always been an R with this lake configuration that we presented to the residents of Tuscany Cove. I just want to clariSr the record. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Important thing is, too, Richard, this plan that you've put in front of us shows C's and R's, not MU/R. MR. YOVANOVICH: What ended up happening is staff decided since we could have residential and commercial together, the better phraseology would have been "mixed use" instead of "commercial." That's how -- CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: But at the NIM you said you were going to limit your mixed use or residential to that core area in the center. You weren't going to necessarily apply it to those outlying parcels. Now, in the new plan, all of those are going to be mixed use as well. That's a lot different than what was previously relayed. That's what I'm trying to show. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. But when we described what could happen -- for instance, we could have residential above a commercial use. Staff decided instead of calling that commercial it should be mixed use. CHAIRMAN STRAN: And there was a question in the NIM specifically about that. You guys did address it, and when we get to my part of today, I will show you that language in the NIM transcript that limited it to that center core area. That's why I don't understand how it grew to all the outlying areas as well. I don't think that's what you want, but it doesn't read that way. We'll get to do it on another time. MR. YOVANOVICH: I just want to make sure we know what the people saw. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Go ahead, Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Just for clarity. This plan is as now represented -- not this plan, but in the packet, the 414119 is the current plan. That's the one that was in my packet. That's the one that is part of the zoning application. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct, subject to what I said earlier on in the meeting about flipping the lakes like they asked us to. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Subject to flipping the lakes, yes. MR. PRITT: Which means no. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's just go on, Mr. Pritt. That's fine. Ray, next speaker? MR. BELLOWS: The next speaker is Greg Stuart. MR. STUART: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Greg Stuart of Stuart & Associates Planning and Design Services at7910 Summerlin Lakes Drive and 97 Riverfront Drive, Cashmere, Washington. Page 52 of85 April 18,2019 I have two questions: One relates to entering in my qualifications and the second relates to cross-examination. It has been years since I've actually done a presentation in front of the actual Collier County Commission, yet last year in front of the Hearing Examiner during the appeal of the administrative interpretation, I think it was 1233 case, I did present a current and updated copy of my resum6, and I entered my qualifications. Shall I enter my qualifications as an expert in planning and design? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not -- I mean, I know you from other previous occasions. I'm not needing that. I don't think this -- we're going to put the weight on yours based on the way you describe and how you, you know -- MR. STUART: Okay. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: -- provide yourself, so... MR. STUART: Thank you. And then my second question is, with the date, because obviously this will be continued, I was looking at my calendar, I am going to be in Washington for depositions that week. So would it be possible for counselor to cross me after my presentation? That way -- I mean, because he will want to cross me and, certainly, if I'm in Seattle, it's going to be very difficult for me to come back if it's continued. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We don't mind if it's difficult. No, of course he can. If he wants to, he can. We do allow cross. We try -- it's not something we do routinely, but it is allowed, so absolutely. MR. STUART: I'm sure he will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not sure he will, but we'll see. MR. STUART: I'll try to make this brief but succinct. You all have a copy of my April I Oth, 20 1 9, correspondence to staff and the applicant. If you look on Page 5 on the first paragraph, the intent ofthis correspondence -- and I'lljust quote that there are a number of growth management practices that may be used to ensure compatibility in a complementary built environment next to Tuscany Cove for, in this case, in addition to new amenity center proposal standards, two alternatives are proposed. I point that out because there are many alternatives in planning and design to ensure multifamily tall buildings to low single-family building compatibility. I have presented two specific options. There are other options, as Mr. Pratt pointed out -- Mr. Pritt pointed out, a reduction in height across the board. I just finished a case in Woodinville, Washington, where we approached it and had a wedding-cake-type building form where the top floors were set back. So there are a number of ways to ensure compatibility, but my concern, along with my client's concern, Tuscany Cove, is to ensure a compatible suburban built environment because I hold the professional opinion that a 65-foot multifamily building to a 2O-foot single-family building presents incompatibility and complementary problems. I believe that staffs conditions with a SO-foot setback don't resolve those compatibility and complementary problems and, therefore, the project cannot be found consistent with Policy 5.6. And then, you know, going into that, it cannot be -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Excuse me. Is it5.6 or 5.4? MR. STUART: It's 5.6, I believe. Staff, 5.6? Growth Management Plan, Future Land Use Element? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I thought it was 5.4. All right. Go ahead. MR. STUART: Okay. I thought it was 5.6, according to the -- CHAIRMAN STRAN: I don't have the plan in front of me. MR. STUART: I will stand corrected. But then also, because of this issue of -- staffs findings on Page I 1 to l4 regarding the rezoning findings, the legal basis for your work, it's not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, so it is not -- it does not comply with Paragraph 1 and Paragraph 6. It does -- or it potentially does affect and adversely affect Tuscany Cove. Nine, it will potentially reduce light and air to adjacent areas, Tuscany Cove. Fourteen, the Page 53 of85 April 18,2019 change is out of scale. And then in terms of PUD legal findings, the suitability, it's not consistent nor does it comply with that paragraph, again, the Comprehensive Plan Paragraph 3 and internal and external use compatibility. And I say "potentially," and that really is the heart of the issue here because it's very difficult to determine how this thing's working based upon a bubble plan. As I've pointed out in my memo, typically in the projects that I've been involved with in Collier County, and in Lee County and in other counties throughout the state, they require much more specificity. They require footprints, you know, that also show the scale and the massing of buildings. In some cases, with mixed-use developments, architectural elevations for multifamily buildings are required, such as in Lee County. My point is, there's an absence of information that makes this thing very difficult to review, and that's one of the reasons why I'm rendering my professional opinion that is in disagreement with staffand disagreement with the applicant. Now, if you look at the framework of this project, I have to point out -- and they can tell me if I'm wrong, and I'll stand corrected. But the applicant is not the end-user. I say that for two reasons. One, when I drive by the property, there's a big for-sale sign, you know, on the residential tract. I mean, the applicant is a land owner. Then the second thing, staff presented a conceptual ERP. A conceptual ERP plan is just that; it's conceptual. And my point on this is that it's not good or bad. It's the reality of the industry. I know Wayne and I represent clients all the time that have no intention whatsoever to develop the property. They're selling the property, and they're building value through zoning. But the reason why I'm pointing this out is that we are going to and I'm going to encourage you to enact more specific and more appropriate conditions. These conditions will not hurt the applicant's economic interests. It will somewhat reduce -- somewhat reduce the flexibility that they desire, but I have to point out that the flexibility that they have in front of you right now is massive. So when you look at this massive flexibility based on a bubble plan within the context of, you know, you have to protect Tuscany Cove's right to privacy and spillover effects, the additional conditions that I'm proposing or that you can deliberate and craft up or maybe we can meet in the corner and figure something out, they're not going to cost the applicant anything because they're not the end user. They're selling the property. Now, again, the 65-foot to 20-foot issue really is the key thing when determining compatibility because fiom building height you get into scale massing orientation and the like. 'This project is being proposed to be the tallest project in the Collier Boulevard, Immokalee Road activity center quadrant. Currently, I believe the Addison Place multifamily apartment project on the northwest quadrant is being built at four stories. So this is, you know, five stories, five-and-a-half stories. So it is the tallest project in that quadrant from my observation. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Would you mind if I intemrpted you? First of all, I want to apologize. Your citation was correct. Mine was incorrect. It is 5.6. MR. STUART: Oh, thank you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: But the thing that I wanted to ask you on that about is how proximate to Tuscany Cove is a building that is as high as 65 feet? MR. STUART: I don't understand. How prox -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: How far would you have to walk or drive in order to get to a 65-foot building right now from Tuscany? I realize there's an activity center there, but I'm just curious to know. MR. STUART: Oh, in terms of 65-foot -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. MR. STUART: -- building in the activity center? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Anywhere. Page 54 of85 April 18,2019 MR. STUART: Well, I don't think there is a 65-foot -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no. Let me give a hint. Diagonally across the intersection there's a new project that's just developed. It's all condominiums. It goes up several stories. It might be close to that height. It's where the new Aldi's -- it's right behind where the new Aldi's is going to go. MR. STUART: I was under the impression -- CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: It's four stories. MR. STUART: -- that that was four stories. So I'm not sure 65-foot -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: So buildings that are approximately 65 feet in height are near by. MR. STUART: No. I disagree but, again, sir -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: That was the question. Not a statement. MR. STUART: Okay. I do not believe that there are 65-foot buildings that are actually being constructed and in existence or will be in existence in that activity center quadrant. That is my opinion but... COMMISSIONER FRYER: We don't know -- and this is also a question. We don't know, then, how proximate the current -- any current building of 65 feet in height is to Tuscany Cove. What is it; four miles? Two miles? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No. There are buildings in Heritage Bay. Is that the communi[z across the street? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, they're across the street, but they're not -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: They well back into Heritage Bay. There's four-story and five-story buildings back there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ladies and gentlemen, I've got to ask that you don't communicate amongst yourselves because it is distracting up here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: How far away would that be? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Probably a mile and a half or so. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. So a mile and a half from Tuscany Cove, there is already a 65-foot building. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: In the back of Heritage Bay, yeah. I could -- Stan's good. He'll pull up the aerial photography of it and measure it on Google Earth, because I trust you. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I can't find any yet, but -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Sorry to interrupt you, sir. MR. STUART: That's all right. COMMISSIONER FRYER: We'll get the answer. MR. STUART: Thank you. To continue. So, basically, within the context of a lack of regulatory information built into the submittal master concept plan, in my review is the April 2019 review. And I will comment on Wayne after counselor did show me their engineering plans. I believe it was the conceptual ERP, and I'd like to speak to that in just a second. But my comments relate to what is in front of you, and that is what I reviewed. So when you look at a 50-foot setback, I mean, just visualize, go out to the parking lot, basically five-plus parking stalls. That's what we're talking about. It's not that much width within the context of a very tall building -- or a very tall building within the context of a 20-foot single-family home. Now, getting into the performance standards and getting into Commissioner Schmitt's question where you -- I think you're asking -- or counselor, where is the break? You know, where is the split? Now, if you look at -- and, again, my April correspondence, the Alternate 2, the split is as follows: We're showing -- there goes my correspondence. The split is as follows: We're -- in order to achieve a degree of compatibility, we're asking for a minimum 1O0-foot-wide continuous lake. I mean continuous. And what I saw in Wayne's conceptual environmental resource plan and also that was displayed, they had areas where you had the lake, and then it narrowed down to, I believe, like, 45-foot. Page 55 of85 I April 18,2019 And so that 45-foot area is going to be wet -- a wet lake for detention and retention, but the planning issue is as follows: By having a narrower area and the associated littoral plantings around that lake, when you compare that configuration versus having a continuous 1O0-foot-wide lake, those littoral plantings are placed closer to the activities, closer to the buildings and such so, therefore, they provide for better sound, noise-type buffering. So it's a matter of where you're placing the associated plantings around the lake, and my concept when I was proposing these various alternatives was, okay, if you have a lake, not that undulates from 40 feet to 100 feet, but have a 10O-foot lake, and then within the littoral shelf and so forth you have your plantings, that also helps to tap down potential noise like glare impacts. Now, in regard to impacts, I find it interesting that the plan that I'm reviewing, the April plan, doesn't show the activity center. The October 2018 plan shows the activity center. The activity center location is very important, and the reason is as follows: You have no regulatory ability to condition this for ownership. This could be an ownership condo, this could be an apartment complex, and I do a lot of apartment complexes. I'm doing one right now, and it's crazy. But the apartment complex issue for compatibility is that because of socioeconomic differences between an ownership versus a rental, you have different degrees of impacts based upon lifestyle -- lifestyle considerations. You have different degrees of amenities, recreational facilities, and the like. So part of the concept -- whatever you decide in terms of setbacks and performance standards, we have to make sure that this activity center, both the building itself and the outdoor recreational facilities, are pushed back. And I personally appreciate counselor's verbal agreement about the conditions that I'm recommending in terms of no amplified sound and the external recreational facility lights will be turned off at 10. So that goes a long way. But to answer your question, Mr. Schmitt, the issue is to have that complete width so then you have the plantings closer to where the impacts are, which would help tap down the impacts. That's the big break. And then the other break, of course, is that in my suggested performance standards in both Alternate I and in Alternate 2, I'm suggesting that we, you know, get real about the appurtenance height so we have a disagreement about the real versus zoning height. I don't believe -- I don't believe counselor has agreed to that, but that's a minor issue compared to the configuration of the lake. So to conclude, you know, as I stated in my letter, you know, our objection really is -- relates to the unknown. Because, again, when you do have tall buildings, absolutely, I've been on both sides of this, and they're clearly, you know, a degree of privacy loss when you have bigger buildings looming over smaller buildings, so set the buildings back. And you also have -- depending on the type of usage and ownership patterns, you will have light, noise-related spillover impacts. The lack of location and specificity in the service areas are important, you know, if you have service areas with -- you know, with recycling trucks and dump trucks coming or in dumpsters coming in, you know, that makes noise and so forth. The homes that we're dealing with along Tuscany Cove's northern boundary, it's important to point out that, you know, most of those people, you know, have pools or outdoor patios, so they will be subjected to potential harm without additional performance standards such as what I am suggesting. And, finally, getting into the line-of-sight exhibit that was submitted by the applicant, that's the first time I saw it. But there are a number of errors in that. I can't take that exhibit too seriously. As an example, the building height was measured at the top of the peak, you know, at 65 feet rather than the midpoint. I think the oak tree was completely out of scale. I mean, our oak trees -- I've been out to the property, and I've looked at it. There's oak trees around 40 feet. The way they were down, they were much more than that. And Wayne's correct, there are a number of oak trees that are diseased andlor hurricane damaged. The line-of-sight also doesn't deal with where these activities are for the single-family homes. They're Page 56 of85 April 18,2019 pools. Because their pools are set back 20 feet from the beginning of the buffer. So you do have closer proximity to where people actually use and enjoy their homes, so ['m not really going to -- you know, I'm not going to rely on their line of sight as really a point of an expert-type piece of documentation. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I think the 65 feet that was mentioned was represented as being actual height, which is a term of art. MR. STUART: Well, then I thought that actual height was actually -- then that's also wrong, because actual height relates to appurtenances, air-conditioning units; whereas, zoning height is at the midpoint. So, again, that's wrong, because that was just a roof line. So it's not -- it's not a -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, maybe they don't have appurtenances above the roof line. MR. STUART: But then it's not measured correctly on their line-of-sight exhibit. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well -- but the concept is actual height measures to whatever is at the very top of the roof, whether it's the rooftop itself or an air conditioner unit or something else. MR. STUART: Well, I disagree, because I'm looking at from a strict Land Development Code definition perspective. But staff can speak to that and, again, if I'm wrong, I'll stand corrected. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. The Land Development Code has a definition for zoned height and actual height. Actual height was at the request of the Board of County Commissioners to make sure that they have a good understanding of actual building heights that take into account flood elevations and/or appurtenances on top ofthe roof. COMMIS SIONER FRYER: Embellishments, everything? MR. BELLOWS: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRYER: It's the tippy top. MR. BELLOWS: Tippy top. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yep, got it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: One question. ln regards -- Mr. Stuart, did you receive any response to your letter from the applicant? MR. STUART: Well, I did from Wayne in the context of, hey, we're going to look at it, thank you very much, because, you know, Wayne's a -- you know, we've worked together in the past. But I was not involved in any discussions with their counselor and our homeowner associations. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You make two -- you had Alternative l, Alternative 2. You submitted it. It's under consultation. But you've not gotten any specific feedback to either recommendation? MR. STUART: I was not involved in any meetings or discussions, no, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you familiar with -- did you look at the Growth Management Plan maps? MR. STUART: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do you know where the activity center is supposed to be on this site? MR. STUART: Yes. CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: And why isn't it? MR. STUART: Well, it's a major interstate -- it's a major -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no. Why isn't it? Why isn't it where the Growth Management Plan says it's supposed to be? Because the applicant has testified earlier that they didn't change the Growth Management Plan, but if you look at our Growth Management Plan, the quadrant is squared off in that corner. They've changed the comer and moved it a little bit to the east and taken the south and made it non-activity center. Page 57 of 85 April 18,2019 Basically, they've now changed the zoning uses that could be available on the lands to the east that previously were part ofjust the yellow area of our GMP, which was generally residential. So I'd like to know what process you validated that told you that this change to the activity center was okay. Did you -- did they go through a process? Did they do anything to get there? Because I couldn't find any.thing. MR. STUART: Actually, I was going to ask -- I was going to ask Wayne the same question because -- CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, when were you going to do that? Because today's the great day to have done that. MR. STUART: Well, these things are moving again. But, again, I was under the impression that you cannot arbitrarily change that line. That clearly is a land-use plan map amendment process. CFIAIRMAN STRAIN: Because the question I just asked you I'm going to be asking staff to respond to, and I need references from the GMP or the codes that allow that change to have been made, because they did change the master plan. The master plan clearly outlines that reddish pink area where this activity center goes in the previous square that was there. Most likely, that was why the interconnection to Tuscany Cove counted on it. Now that it isn't commercial, it seems awkward to have an interconnection running through another multifamily complex to get to a right or left turn lane like they're trying to do here. I mean, everybody seems to be agreeing to it, but I'm not sure that's necessary since they were counting on an activity center to be there, not a residential. And that's what that interconnection was probably there for originally. So, anyway, I don't know how they got there, but we'll find out before this whole thing's over with. Anybody else have any questions? Go ahead, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I believe you alluded to the situation about lighting after 10 p.m. and maybe noise after 10 p.m. MR. STUART: For the activity center. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Was that the position of your clients, then, that the 10 p.m. is the right time for cutoff of that? MR. STUART: It's my understanding that they agreed to -- that they agreed to that type of performance standard, yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: At that hour of the day? MR. STUART: 10 p.m., yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Did you want to do some cross, Richard? MR. YOVANOVICH: Just a little bit. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I did have one more. I'm son1,, Mr. Chairman. You offered -- you offered two alternatives, one involving the stair step and then the other one. Is it your view that the applicants have not yet met the substance of either of those? MR. STUART: Correct, but here's why -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Correct what? MR. STUART: Correct, because they've made -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Is it your view that they've been -- the standard have been met or not? MR. STUART: They have -- correct in -- okay. Let me restate that. They have not met the performance standards that I'm suggesting on Alternative 2 or Alternative 1, for the reasons I described in terms of the continuous lake and the building height. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I just wanted to be clear of your point on that. Thank you. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Stan. Page 58 of85 April 18,2019 COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: What distance would a 65-foot building have to be away from a 20-foot building for you to consider it compatible? MR. STUART: You know, that's a really good question, because everything -- and I'm sure Wayne's going to agree with this. Every'thing is contextual. And in this particular case, yes, there's a -- there is a mature -- a line of oak trees and a tall hedge, so you have to take that into consideration. There's no rubber stamp rule of thumb. I've done projects. I'm doing a project right now where we have, similar to Alternative 1, single-family outside and then a two-story 35-foot height to a 45-foot height. So it's different on all contexts. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: What's the closest you've ever seen it and considered it compatible? MR. STUART: At 65 feet? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Twenty to 65. MR. STUART: In a suburban context, not an urban downtown context, correct? Because urban's different. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. MR. STUART: In a suburban context, and in Florida, not in Washington state, you know, I'm just thinking, probably a four-story; four-story, 45 feet. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: The distance set back between the two buildings. MR. STUART: Oh, I misunderstood. I was talking about the height. 50 feet for a 45-foot story (sic) building, and that was -- excuse me, 5O-foot setback on a 45-foot, four-story apartment complex off of U.S. 4l in Lee County - I just forgot the name of it. It's just opposite of where Alico Road ties into u.s. 41. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: That's still not what I asked. From the 20-foot building to the 65-foot building, from building to building -- MR. STUART: Yes. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: -- what distance would have to be there for you to -- the least distance for you to consider it compatible? MR. STUART: I see. From building to building, with a 25 -- it would probably be 75 feet minimum width and using -- using a Type F buffer, which would be, you know, an 8-foot wall with a double staggered hedge and tall trees. So 80 feet with a substantial buffer. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. Thanks. COMMISSIONER FRYER: But they're offering 100, aren't they? MR. STUART: It's my understanding that they're offering 1O0-foot setback. But, again, just to distinguish, I'm talking about having the lake being the -- a continuous lake. So the 100-foot setback on the other side of the lake for the additional buffering along the lake sides, for that reason. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How does it different -- how does it make any difference whether it's a lake or land? Because the sound travels -- we even had this problem down in Lely. Sound travels greater and seems faster across water because there's no barrier. At least with land in between, and they plant it as their littoral zones, they could get bulrush or other material that would grow up enough to give them even a better buffer. And the idea that they would plant littorals up closer to the activities isn't really accurate, because the projects that we've planted littorals on, we've tried to be away from where you're selling buildings because people don't want to look out and see a bunch of weeds. They want to look out and see the lake. So I'm just trying to figure out why it would be advantageous to have this lake solid across there when I think the idea of even having some land infill in between where they've got a higher material would be just as good. MR. STUART: Well, again,I stand by my testimony, Mr. Chairman: Plantings closer to buildings provide for more effective sound barriers. So what you'll have is you'll have your code Page 59 of85 April 18,2019 edge-of-building general landscape trees, then you would have your lake plantings, and then you'd have your regulatory buffler. So you have three zones of vegetation versus if you don't have that, you're pushing one of those zones closer and, therefore, the sound waves will transmit easier over those -- over that middle zone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And while we didn't need your CV to start with, could you just leave it with the court reporter so it's on record when you leave today? MR. STUART: Yes, I brought one. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Richard. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm more confused now than I was before I came up here. Okay. MR. STUART: We try to please. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, you did a good job. I mean, so I just want to make sure I got this right. First of all, I just kind of want to know what you looked at before we got here today and before you gave your what I -- is it fair to say you don't have an opinion on incompatibility because you don't have enough information in your opinion? MR. STUART: No, on the contrary. I think my opinion's very well spelled out in my April 1Oth memo. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Well, let's see what you looked at to come up with that opinion. Did you look at the plat for Tuscany Cove? MR. STUART: Yes,I did. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. What's the buffer required between Tuscany Cove and the southern boundary ofthis proposed project? MR. STUART: I had a 15-foot Type B, I believe. MR. YOVANOVICH: And if I were to tell you it was a 25-foot buffer, would you question whether I'm right or wrong? MR. STUART: The plat - so you're reviewing the plat -- (Simultaneous speakers speaking.) MR. YOVANOVICH: Tuscany Cove. Tuscany Cove plat? MR. STUART: And I was reviewing -- I was reviewing the actual plat, not the development order drawings. MR. YOVANOVICH: The actual plat? MR. STUART: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. So -- MR. STUART: Because it showed a -- MR. YOVANOVICH: -- if it was a 25-foot-wide landscape buffer adjacent to a 15-foot-wide landscape buffer, that would be a 4O-foot-wide landscape buffer, correct? MR. STUART: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: And now what's the setback on Tuscany Cove from the platted landscape buffer before you even get to your first, let's say, pool? MR. STUART: From the south landscape buffer edge, from that south line? MR. YOVANOVICH: From your south landscape buffer -- MR. STUART: Twenty feet. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- of Tuscany Cove. MR. STUART: Seventeen to 20 feet. I taped it. MR. YOVANOVICH: How about we do 15? Ill go to the -- we'll go with 15. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I looked it up. It's 20 in the -- and you can go five with amenities, so... MR. YOVANOVICH: So 15, am I right, if we said closest would be -- so the closest pool would be 15 feet from the 25-foot landscape buffer. Am I right, Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the way it reads is you can go back -- you can be 20 feet with the Page 60 of85 April 18,2019 principal structure and up to five feet to the rear line, which would be five feet off the 25-foot line with your amenity. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thirty-foot separation from the pool before you even get to our properry line, correct? MR. STUART: Well,I just -- MR. YOVANOVICH: You have a -- MR. STUART: Your math is wrong. MR. YOVANOVICH: Twenty-five-wide buffer. MR. STUART: Correct, and then a -- MR. YOVANOVICH: And then your pool can get within five feet of that 25-foot-wide buffer. MR. STUART: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Math's not my strong suit, but I think that's 30 feet. MR. STUART: I misunderstood. MR. YOVANOVICH: Are you with me? Is it 30 feet? MR. STUART: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: So I'm 30 feet before you get to the property line? MR. STUART: Correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: Then I have a 1S-foot-wide Type B buffer on my PUD master plan, correct? MR. STUART: Correct, yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: What is a l5-foot-wide Type B buffer in Collier County? MR. STUART: Well, it's a double staggered hedge at six feet, single line of trees. I forget the actual height, but basically, I believe, five trees per -- they're not -- the trees are not double staggered, and no screening wall, if I can recall. MR. YOVANOVICH: So now I have -- I add that to my number, correct? MR. STUART: Fifteen feet. MR. YOVANOVICH: So I'm at 45 feet? MR. STUART: Correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: And we've agreed to go another 85 feet from my building setback, correct? Because I said 100. MR. STUART: If you say. MR. YOVANOVICH: I say 100. Check my math. Check my math. I mean, I'm really not trying to confuse you. I just want to make sure I understand the distances. So I've got 100 feet on my side before the closest building could be on the property, and then I've got another 30 feet on your side. So I'm 130 feet away from the nearest pool to my first building, correct? MR. STUART: From a regulatory perspective and from the issues that we're dealing with right now, no, you're not correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I said earlier on today we would agree to a 100-foot setback, correct? MR. STUART: No, but you're not correct in that the -- and this is what I stated to you in the hall. The burden is on the applicant. You're a PUD seeking a series of entitlements. The burden is on the applicant to provide buffers. The burden is not on my client, you know. And my client has a buffer, but you have to have a buffer, too. So, consequently, we're Iooking at a regulatory consistency from 5.6 based on what you're doing, not on what my client is doing or has done. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, this all factors into, quote, compatibility, correct? You take the circumstances as you find them, correct? MR. STUART: Correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: You said that? Page 61 of85 April 18,2019 MR. STUART: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: So as I find them today -- are you saying that the drone shots that we showed are not an accurate representation of the trees that exist today in your buffer? MR. STUART: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: They're not? Their drone shot's not accurate? MR. STUART: Drone shots are simular to line-of-sight -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Members of the public, you really can't interfere. It's going to really mess things up. So please refrain. Thank you. MR. STUART: Yes. And I'm not trying to be confrontational at all because I -- what you're saying is that, hey, look, you've got a mature buffer, and that should ameliorate some of your compatibility impacts. I mean, that's the thrust of what you're saying, but my point is that the line-of-sight graphic cannot be depended on nor the drone shot because ofthe angle. You don't have a firm registration because, again, I had really no idea where it was actually shot nor the height. It's very -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Yovanovich, what was the date of the drone? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yesterday. Yesterday. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yesterday. MR. STUART: So it's very misleading. I can't rely on that. CHAIRMAN STRAN: You might want to move on to the next -- MR. STUART: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. I'm going to try to. I have a feeling I'm going to have a hard time getting answers, but that's okay. I'll keep trying. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Should be -- you do this a lot, so it wouldn't surprise me. MR. STUART: I'm trying, sir; I'm trying. MR. YOVANOVICH: So I want to be fair to you, Mr. Stuart, because I really want to know what you actually reviewed in issuing your opinion. MR. STUART: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Were you provided copies of our -- first of all, I want to correct for the record they're not conceptual ERP plans. They're the actual construct and operate ERP plans. Were you provided copies of those when you formed your opinion? MR. STUART: No. The first I saw them was today. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. So now that you've seen them and you have seen that we are committed to at least at 100-foot setback -- let me ask you this question. I wanted to ask Mr. Pritt this, but I guess since he's a lawyer, he's not really testi$ing. If we were to agree to that ERP plan as our plan, would that be compatible in your mind? MR. STUART: If the ERP plan was modified to show a continuous 1O0-foot-wide lake along with the building height reductions, yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: So what is it -- so, okay. So you testified, I think, that75 feet building to building is okay with a Type F buffer. How wide is a Type F buffer in your scenario? MR. STUART: Well, with the wall, too, with an 8-foot -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand. Just tell me how wide it is first. My question was how wide. MR. STUART: Excuse me. The Type F that I'm referring to would be Lee County Type F, so that would be 3O-foot, 8-foot screening wall, double staggered hedge, and I believe 10 trees per hundred linear feet. I think that's the standard. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. So it would be, basically, 30 feet of vegetation between the two buildings? MR. STUART: Between the two buildings? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. You told me 75 feetwith vegetation between the two. That equates to 30 feet in width. Page 62 of85 April 18,2019 MR. STUART: Okay. You just threw me when you said -- just to be sure, what two buildings are you referring to? MR. YOVANOVICH: The ones you referred to. You told me it's okay to have single-family next to a 65-foot-tall multifamily building as long as they're separated by 75 feet in -- separate by 75 feet and a landscape buffer, which I'm understanding to be a 30-foot-wide landscape buffer. MR. STUART: In this particular case? MR. YOVANOVICH: ln the case you said was acceptable. I'm trying to understand. MR. STUART: Well, that question, if I could call on -- we can ask the court reporter to play back the question, but there was a generalized conceptual question, not hyper -- it was hypothetical, not specific to this case. And again, my testimony in my letter is specific to this case. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm just curious as to your socioeconomic diversity comment. Are you saying that there is a lower quality of person that rents than actually buys? I didn't say socioeconomic diversity; you did. MR. STUART: Oh, no. Please -- thank you for the correction. I did not mean to imply that whatsoever. When I said economy in a socioeconomic sense, I was really referring to lifestyle. Usually what you have in condominiums, especially in Southwest Florida, are the more affluent type andlor empty nesters versus apartment renters where -- and, again, I'm doing workforce housing, and they're typically in the 30- to $45,000 combined range. So it's a matter of lifestyle. It's not a matter of who's superior to what. MR. YOVANOVICH: So tell me about that person's lifestyle that makes it incompatible with your client's property. MR. STUART: Well, that's another -- see -- and that's another issue, because we cannot educate -- we cannot make any type of performance standards based upon, you know, is it going to be rental or ownership? Is it workforce housing or condominium upscale, low-scale? We can't do that. So the issue that I've been struggling with is the bubble plan that had basically no information, it means that for protecting my clients, Tuscany Cove, we have to take -- I hate to say it, but the worst-case scenario. So the worst-case scenario would be a rental complex, and a rental complex historically has more outdoor recreational facilities that are more active and, you know, more barbecue areas that are active and that type of thing. Again, it's not a class thing. It's just the reality of what that market section -- segment desires. MR. YOVANOVICH: So now that you know the definition, that we have two different definitions in Collier County between zoned height and actual height -- MR. STUART: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- how does that affect your opinion? MR. STUART: Well, I think knocking down the amenity center five feet and the multifamily five feet is not that big a deal because, again, you're still looking at a very tall structure that -- it was my opinion that it's going to be the tallest structure in this quadrant. And, again, I may stand corrected based upon what the Chair finds. MR. YOVANOVICH: What's the setback required in the RMF-16 zoning district in Collier County? MR. STUART: I can't testifo to that. I'd have to pull up the code. MR. YOVANOVICH: Let me ask you a question. Would RMF-16 zoned property immediately -- and that's 16 units per acre, I'll define it for you. I believe it's 75 feet in height, and I believe Wayne testified that it's half the building height minimum of 30 feet would be the setback immediately adjacent to RSF-1, which is one unit per acre zoned properfy -- be compatible? That setback that I just described for you which is -- in this case would be half the building height would be 37-and-a-half feet. MR. STUART: And, again, this gets back -- this is a hypothetical question. MR. YOVANOVICH: No. I'll put one up on the screen if you want me to show you where it Page 63 of85 April 18,2019 exists in Collier County. MR. STUART: I mean for this site. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm just asking you as a professional. MR. STUART: How about this, then. If you could show me a site plan and a location map, I could render testimony. MR. YOVANOVICH: How about I do that. Mr. Chairman, can I have two minutes to grab that, an exhibit to show him, since I'm not where I would normally be to do that? CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. That's fine. Tell you what, Iet's take a break for 10 minutes for the court reporter, because every hour and a half we're supposed to. We're just about there. So let's come back at 2:35 and resume the discussion. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to resume the meeting. One comment, I did have a discussion with the zoning director, the Comprehensive Planning director about the GMP issue. They are under the process that they use is that the GMP allows flexibility in this particular activity center -- I think there's five of them maybe they do -- and that the zoning process suffices for that flexibility. I'm going to do some research between now and the next time we come back, but that's currently the way we operate, and I just wanted to make that acknowledgment for everybody. So with that -- and how much time do you need to finish what you're doing, Richard? MR. YOVANOVICH: Depending on how quick the answers come, five minutes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ask short questions, you'll get short answers. MR. YOVANOVICH: I thought they were short. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Lightning round. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. If you can, because I'd still like to get to the folks that have been waiting here all day. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I do as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Stuart -- MR. STUART: Yes, sir. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- you would agree with me that the subject property is within the urban commercial district as provided for in the Future Land Use Element? MR. STUART: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: You would agree with me that the urban commercial district is intended to accommodate higher densities for properties not located within the urban coastal fringe or urban residential fringe? MR. STUART: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: And this property is not located within the urban coastal fringe or the urban residential fringe? MR. STUART: That is correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: You would agree with me that the residential development in mixed-use developments is encouraged by the GMP, and density is based on the gross acreage of the activity center? MR. STUART: Yes, that's why I said we don't object to the density, intensities, so forth, correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: And you would agree with me that the subject property is Iocated in Activity Center No. 3, which is a master planned activity center? MR. STUART: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: And you've reviewed the GMP provisions that allows for the boundaries of that master planned activif centers to shift, correct? MR. STUART: Actually, I missed that, but I just was informed that that is correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: You would agree with me that -- and I showed this section earlier under Page 64 of85 April lE,2019 the statutes -- that Section 163.3202 -- and I can provide it for you if you need it -- Subsection 3 encourages the use of Planned Unit Developments? MR. STUART: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: You would agree with me that the LDC must be consistent with the Growth Management Plan? MR. STUART: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: You would agree with me that zoning must be consistent with the Growth Management Plan? MR. STUART: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'll help orient you, because I'm assuming you're not very familiar with Collier County -- MR. STUART: No, I'm familiar with -- MR. YOVANOVICH: -- zoning? MR. STUART: -- Collier County zoning, yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: You are? Okay. Are you familiar with the Pine Ridge subdivision? MR. STUART: (No response.) MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Stuart, are you familiar with the Pine Ridge subdivision? MR. STUART: Specifically, no, in terms of uses, intensities, zoning districts and the like. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I'm going to represent to you that this is part of the zoning for the Pine Ridge subdivision, okay. It's located on U.S. 41, which is to your west, and to the north is Vanderbilt Road. You with me? MR. STUART: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Do you see the section of zoning entitled RMF-I6? MR. STUART: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Do you see what zoning is immediately adjacent to RMF-I6? MR. STUART: Yes. To the east it's RSF-I. MR. YOVANOVICH: And what's to the south? MR. STUART: C4. MR. YOVANOVICH: To the south? MR. STUART: To the south. MR. YOVANOVICH: Of RMF-16. MR. STUART: I'm sorry. The C4 is along 4l . To the south of -- there's no -- MR. YOVANOVICH: No, no. I'm sorry. Maybe it was a bad question. The zoning district RMF-16, what's to the south of that? MR. STUART: I assume it wiII be RSF-I. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. So you would agree with me that it is -- zoning is required to be compatible, and it's perfectly compatible to put RMF-16 immediately adjacent to RSF-1 property, correct? MR. STUART: I'm sorry. Could you repeat the question? I'm sorry. I wasn't paying attention. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, you agreed that all zoning must be consistent with the Growth Management Plan, correct? MR. STUART: Yes, by law. MR. YOVANOVICH: So it is consistent to have RMF-I6 zoned property next to RSF-I zoned property? MR. STUART: That is a difficult question to ask (sic) in that it depends on sometimes the historic patterns. I see across the state where you have older subdivisions with older zoning next to commercial areas and so, therefore, there is a predetermined finding of compatibility. PUDs are a different beast entirely. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. So let's talk about that. Have you reviewed the entire Future Land Page 65 of85 April 18,2019 Use Element for Collier County? MR. STUART: I've reviewed it on a number of times over the years as it's evolved since the late '90s, yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. So let me ask you: Have you reviewed the consistent -- the zoning by consistency determination provisions in the Growth Management Plan? MR. STUART: Yes, both the Collier County and the state statutes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. So those are intended to address the scenarios where you have existing zoning but would no longer be consistent under the new Comprehensive Plan, correct? MR. STUART: Yes, because the state mandated consistency compatibility requirements a number ofyears ago. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. So when you adopted your Comprehensive Plan, every jurisdiction had a period of time by which it must determine what is inconsistent with the new Comprehensive Plan, correct? MR. STUART: Well, the statute mandates a definition. It doesn't really get into the actual performance standards. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Did you -- do you know whether or not this RMF-16 zoned property was deemed consistent with RSF-1 under the process of determining those consistent-by-policy provisions in our Comprehensive Plan? MR. STUART: No, because you just showed it to me five minutes ago. MR. YOVANOVICH: If I were to represent to you that they weren't, they were -- they didn't go through that process and it -- then it would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, correct? MR. STUART: Go through the process? MR. YOVANOVICH: It's not -- would you agree with me that this is not grandfathered zoning? MR. STUART: I have no idea, but if you say it's not, honestly, I will certainly take your word for it. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Well, I'm going to tell you it's not. So let's go back to the LDC development standards are statutorily required to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, correct? MR. STUART: That is correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: And the statutory sections I took you through -- took everybody through earlier requires that the Land Development Code provisions be adopted to ensure compatibility, correct? I could put it back up if you need me to. MR. STUART: No. And that's correct, and then above and beyond that there are Planned Unit Development provisions that basically serve as customized zonings that can go above and beyond your minimal requirements. MR. YOVANOVICH: But if you meet the minimal requirements in the Land Development Code, you're compatible, correct? MR. STUART: No, you're not. Nope. MR. YOVANOVICH: And in what sense? MR. STUART: Especially within the context of Planned Unit Developments and planned developments. Throughout Florida. And, for the record, I've practice d in 25 local governments throughout Florida and a bunch in Washington state, and you meet the minimum requirements does not then automatically mean that you're compatible in any way, shape, or form, especially in planned developments, because planned developments are set up to provide that extra measure of assurances for not only compatibility but infrastructure improvements, pedestrian linkage, open space drainage, and the like. So just because you meet minimum standards does not mean it is compatible or, in this particular case, complementary. MR. YOVANOVICH: Are you -- that's an interesting concept to me. What does complementary mean to you from a planning standpoint? Page 66 of85 April 18,2019 MR. STUART: Well, from a planning standpoint -- and this is -- and I could have raised this, counselor, but, you know, when I read "complementary," I refer -- I would refer to it -- in this specific context it's the type of building, not just building form, but type of building. So a complementary building would be single-family to single-family. And if you took a strict interpretive position on that, this PUD -- or mixed PUD should actually have a single-family transition before it gets into a mixed -- to a multifamily. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's what complementary means to you? MR. STUART: A complementary would be -- a single-family building is complementary to a single-family building. A single-family building is not necessarily complementary -- complementary to a multifamily building. MR. YOVANOVICH: Is commercial property complementary to residential property? MR. STUART: Is commercial properly complementary to residential property? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. MR. STUART: No, it is not. MR. YOVANOVICH: Are you telling me that the activity center as it's currently drawn that's immediately adjacent to Tuscany Cove, that commercial uses in an activity center is not consistent with our Comprehensive Plan because it's not complementary? MR. STUART: Well, I have to point out that my testimony in no way, shape, or form has gotten into any of the commercialportions of this mixed-use planned development. So I know where you're trying to go with leading me, but I'm not going to go there, sir. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. I know you don't want to go there, but isn't zoning supposed to be consistent with the Growth Management Plan? MR. STUART: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Isn't the Growth Management Plan itself supposed to be internally consistent? MR. STUART: The elements, yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Now, the Future Land Use Element identifies this quadrant as activity center, correct? MR. STUART: Yes. We've already gone through this. MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand. But I just want to understand how you can give the opinion that the activity center that says commercial should be there is not complementary to the single-family immediately to the south. MR. STUART: That wasn't my testimony, sir. Your question was relating to complementary uses, and I stated very clearly that a complementary use, as an example, would be a single-family to single-family. And in this particular case, if you took a very strict interpretive approach -- which we are not, by the way, we're being very generous -- you would have a single-family to single-family interface, then you would have multifamily, then you would have commercial. And that is a traditional planning approach established decades and decades ago. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yet we also agree that the activity center is where your higher density projects are supposed to be? MR. STUART: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: When were you retained to work on this? MR. STUART: Not long ago, counselor. Probably three weeks ago, plus or minus. MR. YOVANOVICH: Three weeks? Okay. That's all I want to ask him right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mr. Stuart, thank you. We'll move on to our next speaker. MR. BELLOWS: Gary Bromley, followed by Judy Bromley. Page 67 of85 April 18,2019 MR. PRITT: Mr. Chair, he needs to leave; is that okay? CFIAIRMAN STRAN: It's okay with me. I don't know if Rich wants to try to override that or not. MR. YOVANOVICH: No. I'm huppy to let him go. MR. PRITT: Well, the last time I had somebody leave, and Rich wanted to cross-examine on another matter, so I wanted to be sure we're okay. CHAIRMAN STRAN: We're okay, thank you. Good morning, sir. Afternoon now. MR. BROMLEY: Yeah. Good afternoon, Commissioner Strain and Commissioners. Thank you for the opportunity. I stand here as a humbled man. I feel like I'm on a grade-school baseball team trying to play in a pro stadium here with all the back and forth with the professionals. I have a 'Just a regular guy that lives here" point of view, and that point of view is that Immokalee Road -- I should state for the record, I'm sorry, that my name is Gary Bromley, B-r-o-m-l-e-y, and I live at95lT lronstone Terrace inside The Quarry. I've lived here for four-and-a-half years, and what I've noticed is a steady growth of traffic flow on Immokalee Road to a point where now there's what I would call considerable congestion at different times of the day, different times of the year. And I hear the Baumgarten properry is going to be developed. My concern is is all the other communities around in that intersection area are going to soon be putting a lot of additional traffic into that intersection. And I rode around for, I guess, a mile-and-a-half, two-mile radius of The Quarry where I live, and I saw lots of gated communities being constructed that you can't see from the major afteries. So you go on the side road, you see them, and those communities are anywhere from entry level of buildout to midway buildout. But there's a lot of cars that are going to be coming down those side streets emptying out onto Immokalee. So I also have learned from county staff that there is a solution to mitigating the traffic level on Immokalee, and it's called Vanderbilt Road extension. And the prediction at this point, the forecast for completion of that project is the fall of 2022. So I talked to a staff planner this past week on the phone, and I was picking his brain trying to understand, well, if there's no holdbacks from the state or the county on approvals for this particular property, Baumgarten, how quickly could shovels hit the ground. Now, this is this man's opinion, but I was kind of stunned by it. He said four to six months. So if that's true, you know, that's going to start the ball rolling for completion prior to when the Vanderbilt extension will take place so; therefore, I'm hoping that this commission, along with the developer, who I believe is Collier Enterprises, can try and get more synchronicity into the timing of when Baumgarten progresses and the completion of the Vanderbilt extension, try and time that a little bit more closely so that the staff opinions, of whom I've talked to, have said that this is going to be a major impact on the amount of traffic on lmmokalee Road. And if that's the case, then what we don't need to do at this point is put another community into this intersection that is going to create a lot more challenge and safety issues for the residents that live here. So, again, my hope is, is that, in your tool kit there, there's some way of finding a middle ground and that we don't have Baumgarten take off like a rocket and, you know, start adding more and more congestion to that intersection. And I have also -- if I could add, I've ceded my time to a gentleman called -- named Jerry Solomon. He's the board member from The Quarry. So I'm switching my extra time over to him. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't think you had any extra, but that's fine. We'll still listen to him. You only have five minutes starting here. MR. BROMLEY: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Page 68 of85 April 18,2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we generally don't -- MR. BROMLEY: And I submitted a slip for my wife; I'm sorry. She was going to give to me, and I'm passing it over. I'm sorry, I didn't make that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray didn't say anything, but that's probably because we are pretry flexible with our time unless someone goes on too long about a redundant issue, so... MR. BROMLEY: Hopefully I didn't go on too long. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, you did fine. Thank you very much. In fact, the court reporter loves hearing you. Next speaker, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. Judy's no longer going to speak, Judy Bromley. So we'll go to Gregory -- MS. BROMLEY: Yes, I did actually cede my time for myself. I would cede it to Jerry Solomon. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: Gary Paquette. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Gary Paquette? There we go. LINIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Greg Paquette. MR. BELLOWS: Gregory. MR. PAQUETTE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. My name is Gregory Paquette. I live in Tuscany Cove. I live right on the border with this proposed development. My house is right here. And I had a prepared text, but I've changed considerably after listening to everything. I have two recommendations. I agree with both Mr. Pritt and Mr. Stuart that if you approve this proposal as is, it will severely affect our quality of life, the enjoyment of our property because I will be looking up at a 65-foot building as little as 50 feet offmy property line. To get a sense of that, and I've done this, walk outside this building, pace off65 feet, look up to the fifth floor. You're looking like this. That's what we're going to see from our lanai. And those 45-foot oak trees that -- I forget the landscaper's name. First of all, both of mine are gone from the storm, so I have nothing. Secondly, they're not 45 feet. At best they're 20 to 25 feet. And I see right through them. Also, Mr. Yovanovich keeps saying that this plan, all the buildings are 100 feet from the property line. They are not. First of all, this is not the plan you're voting on. It's the bubble plan, which has a 50-foot setback. He's saying -- he's saying he submiffed this plan. As far as I understand, this is not what you're voting on unless he requests that this be part of the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Different agency. It was submitted to a different agency. That's why. MR. PAQUETTE: Okay. The south water (sic), yeah. But it's not part of your offrcial record. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: No, sir, it's not. MR. PAQUETTE: Okay. If you look at this space right here, from the end of that building to the property line is approximately 60 feet. He keeps saying it's 100 feet. It is not 100 feet. He keeps saying it's 100 feet, because as he explained earlier, when -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think he's agreed to go to 100 feet, just so you know. MR. PAQUETTE: Well, this is the plan he says is 100 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if he agrees to go to 100 feet, if this plan showed zero or 10, it still would be 100 feet. We would stipulate that. MR. PAQUETTE: Good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So from that perspective, I just wanted to make sure. If he has -- he has stated he would be 100 feet. If this project gets approved, one of the stipulations would be -- a minimum would be 100 feet from the south properfy line. So that -- just to give you that ease. That's how we would approach that. MR. PAQUETTE: Good. So I'm glad to hear that, because my sense was in listening to Mr. Yovanovich this is the plan, and that's what he's saying is feet. It is not 100 feet. Neither of those Page 69 of85 April 18,2019 buildings is 100 feet from the line. There's a very simple win-win solution here. I don't see that this is overly complicated. The Board should not approve this unless the developers agree to put 1O0-foot lakes across the whole length. They can take some of the big lake over to the east and put it down on the southern border, and that gives you about 1 40, 1 5 0 feet if you add in the setbacks and the 20-foot easement for that. That's about the only thing, I think, that solves the problem of not impacting the quality of life and potential property value of the residents of all of Tuscany Cove, not just us on the northern border. But if property values go down anylvhere in that community, they're going to affect the entire community. So I agree with Mr. Pritt and Mr. Stuart, this plan as proposed is neither compatible or complementary to Tuscany Cove. And if you approve it, it's going to be very detrimental to the residents of Tuscany Cove. So I strongly urge you not to approve this as is. You should only approve with modifications that either put the lakes the entire southem border, which does not affect the amount of buildable land the developer has. You're just shuffling the lakes around. You've still got the net amount of property. So to me that's a win-win. He's still got -- the developer still has the same amount of land to develop for their 400 residential units, and yet they have given Tuscany Cove a 150, approximately, foot buffer against these 65-foot mega-buildings. These will mega-buildings. This is not Addison Cove, which is four stories; this is Naples Square which is five stories. I don't want to be looking up at Naples Square 50 feet off my properly line. And if you approve this, that's what potentially you will be doing. So I strongly urge you not to approve that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: It's 100 feet. MR. PAQUETTE: He's saying 100 feet but this -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Sir, let me explain something to you. If we approve this, I think the Chairman has represented and has correctly represented that this commission is going to insist that it be 100 feet. So that -- I mean, you've got a sure thing on that one. MR. PAQUETTE: But I don't believe that's adequate. I think with a lake and with the setbacks you need with a lake, you get about 140, 150 feet. Even at that, we're still going to see this mega U-shaped 80-unit apartment building. You know, I didn't buy property down here -- I would have bought in the Bronx if that's what I wanted. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Do you take issue, then, with your expert's testimony that7S-feet buffer would have been enough? MR. PAQUETTE: Well, I don't believe, as Mr. Stuart mentioned, is what -- he was asked a conceptual -- he was asked a hypothetical question. His letter to you is very clear. Put -- either do one of two things: Put lakes across the entire length, which gives you approximately 150-foot buffer, or do the step-down. You know, if the houses are going to be within 100 feet, those buildings shouldn't be higher than three stories. I believe he calls that the step-down approach. But either of those, I think, would be acceptable to the residents ofTuscany Cove. And, again, I don't think you're asking that much. This does not harm the developer in any way. He still has the same amount of buildable R area to do his 400 units. He's just not doing it on our property line. And that was alluded to several times by county staff. And I was a little surprised when I sought the final staff report that said, okay, 50 feet or maybe 65 feet is adequate. I don't know how you consider putting a 65-foot, five-story, 80-unit building 50 or 65 feet off of a community of single-family homes as compatible or complementary. So I agree with both Mr. Pritt and Mr. Stuart. I think Mr. Stuart's recommended two possible solutions to this, particularly the lakes, does not harm the developer's ability to develop the properfy in the way he'd like. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I don't see any dimensions on this. How do you get at 60 feet? MR. PAQUETTE: Again, there are no dimensions. And, again, this is not the plan you're Page 70 of85 April 18,2019 evaluating. I don't believe it's been submitted to you. But he did -- Mr. Yovanovich did submit it to us in negotiations, so I assumed you had it. (Commissioner Dearbom left the boardroom for the remainder of the meeting.) COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'm just curious, because the only dimension I can veriff anyrvhere on here -- I'm used to seeing parking lots. So I've made a little scale. And the way I scale it using a parking lot, that's 100 feet, not 60. MR. PAQUETTE: You think that's 100 feet? It is not 100 feet. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: From your property line to the face of that building. MR. PAQUETTE: From this property line to this road is 120 feet. I have paced that out about 10 times. So if this is 120 feet that is not 100. Apparently they're saying that's 100. But what I see this is is the camel getting its nose under the tent. (Simultaneous speakers speaking.) COMMISSIONER FRYER: If you don't mind, that image has been superceded by the testimony. MR. PAQUETTE: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So it's no longer -- that aspect of it is no longer relevant. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Moot point. MR. PAQUETTE: Well, I would still stick to both Mr. Pritt and Mr. Stuart's position that that setback -- the only way to get those buildings far enough back, including these two with their noses sticking through -- under the tent, is to put the lakes there. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, if you're talking compatibility, I think your expert conceded that75 feet was enough -- MR. PAQUETTE: I don't believe he did. COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- in his opinion. I mean, I was here in the room, and maybe that's how I interpret it. Maybe you interpret it differently. But I'm just telling you, that's what I heard him say. MR. PAQUETTE: I heard him -- well, I heard him answer a hypothetical question, not specific to this. And when that was raised, he said, you're asking me a hypothetical that does not apply to this. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One thing I do like to comment on, you and your group, rightfully so, you live in Tuscany Cove, so you're concerned about the border to the south. MR. PAQUETTE: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We as a board have to be equally concerned about everybody. MR. PAQUETTE: Oh, sure. CHAIRMAN STRAN: So the Bent Creek project to the east, if we were to take that lake out and put more buildings there, we might end up pushing more onto them than we have onto you. So whatever settles for you is going to have to be settled for everybody. I just want to keep that in mind. We've got to be fair with everybody involved. MR. PAQUETTE: No, I agree. But that section to the east there where Bent Creek is, most of that is preserve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I was just there yesterday. And see those subdivided lots? They've got houses on them, and they're all single-story. MR. PAQUETTE: They do, but south of that is preserve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But that's not -- but that's where the remaining lake would probably go, and the buildings would be pushed to the north, which is closer to the subdivided homes and closer because the lake got moved to benefit you and not them. So we've got to find a balance so everybody's fairly benefited. MR. PAQUETTE: And there's probably a way to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what we're hoping. Thank you very much, sir. MR. PAQUETTE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next speaker, Ray. Page 71 of85 April 18,2019 MR. BELLOWS: Jerry Solomon. MR. SOLOMON: Good afternoon. My name is Jerry Solomon. I live at8966 Quarrl, Drive. I'm here as a resident, although I am a board member at The Quarry. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak. I want to focus a little bit differently on traffic, and what goes with increased traffic is decreased safety. So mine are more in terms of questions and clarifications for the traffic study. I appreciate the traffic study; however, anyone good with numbers can make numbers come out however they want them to come out. Believe me, I'm very good with numbers. I know how that's done. So I assume the traffic study had numerous assumptions, and I would just like to know what those assumptions are. And if we change any assumption in any way, what impact does it have? Because I think someone on the dais up there said we're 15 cars from reaching capacity. How sensitive is that traffic study to those 15 cars? In other words, what is the margin of error? Because there is no study in the world that comes out and the answer is one unique number. So that's what I'd like to know. The second thing is the traffic study was based on one study done about 15 months ago. I assume we've had natural growth since then. I don't know what percent, but it does grow. When that was done, we didn't have Addison Place; we didn't have Racetrac; we didn't have the senior center or the senior housing that's going up there; we didn't have the activity center built out on the northeast quadrant. All of that, I would think, if you bake it in, I can't believe that we wouldn't add the 15 cars that it would take to be over capacity. And I'd also like to know if the traffic study took into account any of the proposed improvements that are on the board for Collier County whether or not they take place, when they take place. Because if they don't take place in time, we're going to be in trouble, okay. Lastly, relative to that is let's say the traffic study came out, and instead of being 15 cars shy of capacity, we were 15 cars over capacity. What would be the implications of that? Would they have to tone down the density? Would they have to come up with some other win-win solution? But I'd like to know, because I imagine if we change some of those assumptions, that might happen. It was also stated that a traffic signal would be added on Pebblebrooke, and the developers will contribute their fair share, the assumption being that Collier County is going to then pay the rest of it to get it done. Has Collier County agreed to put in the funds necessary to get that traffic signal so we know what happens? And, lastly, I'd like to ask how do -- cars that are going to be exiting from Immokalee from this PUD onto Immokalee Road, how do they head west? It seems the only thing they could do is make a right-hand turn, and there's going to be a perpetual line of cars making U-turns. How is that taken into account in the traffic study and the delays and the safety factors that come into play? So, again, I said I was going to ask questions and ask for clarifications. I'm not an expert in this area. I'm an interested citizen. And the time I've lived down here, I know it's just taken longer and longer, the number of accidents have gone up, and I wanted to make sure that we're accounting for the safef of the community. And I also realize that when I moved down here, I never expected a door to close behind me, and I never do expect that to happen. Development will go on. I just want it to go on considering everything and we do it in a safe and efficient manner. Thank you. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, your questions, one of the decisions we had to make earlier was to accommodate the public that was here today as best we could before we have to continue to May. Part of the downside of that is normally the public is heard after we ask our questions, because I can assure you my questions are going to be and include a portion of what you just asked, and you-all would have probably benefited from the information that we'll have -- you'll hear when we start asking more questions that we have held off on to accommodate you today. So if you can stay tuned in, we'll try to get to your questions. MR. SOLOMON: Thank you, Mr. Strain. And I hope to be back when you do ask those Page 72 of85 April 18,2019 questions. COMMISSIONER FRYER: For what it's worth, I share your skepticism frequently over what strikes me as alchemy in photographic studies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next speaker, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: Andrew Maguire. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Followed by Marion Maguire. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are the Maguires here? MR. MAGUIRE: We're here. We weren't scheduled to speak. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. BELLOWS: Connie Walters? MS. WALTERS: Good afternoon. My name is Connie Walters, W-a-l-t-e-r-s. I have lived with my husband here in Naples since 1976. Our four children were born here. They went to school here. They still live here. They're married; have families of their own. So when we moved here, I used to be able to see a family of quail walking in a line across my yard. No longer. We used to have plenty of green space. Now it is gone. We knew so many people living here that I couldn't even go to Publix without seeing somebody that I knew. Now it takes me I 0 minutes to get out of my community of Tuscany Cove onto 95 I , which back then was only 951. It was never called Collier. Today I can sit on my lanai and enjoy watching the birds, the squirrels, the rabbits. Pelican plant nursery was in my backyard. And this project that's being discussed today to be built, I will now have a four- or five-story apartment building looking into my lanai or I will have its parking lot with the lights, when they're parking, shining into my bedroom and my living room. Because the drone pictures that they showed and that nice beautiful drawing of that big tall tree, I don't have that big tall tree. I can see directly from my lanai to Immokalee Road. When you see that drone picture, what you're seeing is the trees on Tuscany's side of the fence that are hanging over the fence. So it looks very deceiving as to where the line is that they were pointing to. The rest of the vegetation they said they were going to remove. So there's going to only be our vegetation remaining, not the ones that have naturally grown and provided more greenery. So the serenity, the beauty, and the charm of Naples and our county is being chiseled away, and we are in danger of becoming a disaster like the East Coast. If this development goes through, please, please require them to keep the vegetation, to add more trees, more vegetation, a berm, a wall, a lake along the whole property, not lake, ditch, lake, because that's what it will be is a ditch. And I've seen several of their plans. I've been to several of their meetings. They've changed every one every time I've been there. So I want you to require them to do things, because it seems like they can say to us what we want to hear but in the next meeting it's changed to what they want to have it as. So please be aware of that; not just what they're saying, but make that required that they do follow through. If they do provide all of these walls and berms and trees, we'll be thankful, but years from now I don't want to be sitting out on my lanai and say, Naples and our county used to be beautiful and now it is not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just a moment, ma'am. Karl. COMMISSIONER FRY: I just wanted to ask you one question. You live on the north side of Tuscany Cove. I mean, I think we're all homeowners. I think it's easy for us to put ourselves in your position and what you're looking at now versus what you foresee you might be looking at. It was -- as I read the packet, that area north of you was designated an activity center in 1989. So that's before Tuscany Cove was built. What were you led to believe, or what were your expectations of Page 73 of85 April 18,2019 what you might get there knowing that an activity center is a dense -- it's a major corner. There's going to be a lot of intense development there. Just what are your expectations? MS. WALTERS: I was never told that it was zoned an activity center. If you had told me it was zoned an activity center, I would have thought, oh, great, they're going to out in parks, recreation facilities. This is what it would communicate to me. When I moved in there, the nursery was there, and I bought it because the nursery was there, because I loved to see the vegetation. I love to see Collier County in its natural state. So I wasn't told. I didn't know. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I've been here since'81, and I know what you mean. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, miss, I have a question for you, because I've heard it again from you and others, and I'm trying to understand it. MS. WALTERS: Yes. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: If you have a combination or parts of, let's say, a berm, a wall, and landscaping. You're certainly going to have landscaping. Who knows about the berm and wall; we'll see where that goes. What does it -- and you've got -- and, you know, those buildings will be back at least 100 feet, let's say. Let's say, that's a given and you got those two things. What do you care if it's a lake or a ditch full of plants between you and the building? You're not going to see it. You're not going to know it's there. And I'm just wondering why everybody's insisting they have a solid lake, because from a development perspective and a noise perspective, a solid lake's going to give you more noise than any kind of -- and you call it a ditch, but if it's the required littoral areas they're required to have, they've got to maintain it as a viable plant community. So I don't know -- I don't see the downside to having less than a solid lake as long as you've got the distance, because the solid lake's going to transfer more sound than probably an alternative. And is that -- I mean, I've heard it from so many people, I can't understand why. MS. WALTERS: Right. As far as the areas between the two lakes that they have drawn on there, I've lived here through many, many dry seasons and many, many rainy seasons, and when there's a dry season, that ditch is going to be downright mud dry, cracked, ugly, you name it. It's not what you're picturing. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Well -- and I've been here as long as you, ma'am, and -- MS. WALTERS: And a lake would be much more attractive than dried up mud with dead leaves. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you're not going to see it. MS. WALTERS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, there's no way you're going to see it. That's why -- I keep hearing this. So I'm wondering what -- MS. WALTERS: But they didn't say wall, so I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. If you had a berm and a wall -- MS. WALTERS: If I had a wall -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Our objective would be, if this were to pass, that you'd have some kind of protection that would be solid. I mean, you wouldn't see through it. So if that's the case, I just don't know what the issue is about the lake so much because, honestly, I have actually put these facilities in, and I've watched when people have bought in those neighboring homes, and you know what -- the complaint I've gotten? The plant material's growing too high; we want to see through it. And we can't see through it to the lakes, because they're called littoral areas. Well, here they're just long littoral areas. So they have to maintain it. Developers have to keep them viable. That's part of the requirements, and we do inspect on that. So I don't know. I'm just not sure if the lake being there is as important as just being the I 00 feet is what I'm trying to say. MS. WALTERS: The reason I wanted the berm or the wall or the very, very thick vegetation was because of the cars pulling into their parking lots. Page 74 of85 April 18,2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See, that issue we've heard very little about. I mean, we've heard the idea of a buffer and everything, but I haven't heard many folks say we want a wall. In fact, I think the cuts that I saw done by, I think, some letter I received -- I was surprised it didn't show a wall or berms. It just showed landscaping. If I was you and I was up against higher intensities, I'd be looking for a combination of wall and berm and landscapingjust like others have requested. MS. WALTERS: I agree. I would love to have a wall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're the first person I heard mention it, though. So anyway. Thank you. I appreciate it. Next speaker, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: Craig Shemon. LINIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Not here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Not here. MR. BELLOWS: Jolton Sawka. MR. SAWKA: John. MR. BELLOWS: Or John. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You must write IiKe I do. MR. SAWKA: Left-handed. Just for the record, it's John Sawka, S-a-w-k-a. Mr. Chair, Commissioners, thank you for letting me speak. Before we begin, I'd just like to mention that it actually only took my wife and 125 minutes to get here today from the corner of Immokalee and 951 as opposed to the other day it took us 45 minutes to get to I-75. So let's just keep that traffic perspective in mind. I've been involved in real estate for most of my life, and for the last 15 years as a realtor here in Naples, but you don't have to be a real estate professional to realize that building a factory or an office building or a 65-foot building in the backyard of someone's home is going to affect their property values. Some years ago in Marsala, which was a community in Tiburon, they had -- on the southernmost street they were building these million-dollar-plus homes, and I was involved with this whole thing. And so everything was fine, then suddenly through the process they built that first assisted living building on the corner of Livingston and Vanderbilt Beach Road. The place looks like East Berlin. Well, subsequently the homes on that southern street, they were all facing south onto the golf course, but the homes on that southern street, the homes that were on the west end facing that building, even though that building was hundreds of feet away, but just that building itself, and it's ugliness, their resale values fell as compared to comparable properties that were to the east of them that continued to face across the golf course into the woods. So don't kid yourself, it does have an affect on real estate properties; values, I should say. And I think it's just so unfair and so unjust to infringe on these homeowners' views and privacy with these buildings, you know, staring into the lanais, pools, bedrooms. It's so unfair and unjust to infringe on the quiet enjoyment of the homes that they have enjoyed for years. There must be a reasonable alternative that, indeed, complements and adds, not subtracts, to the liveability of this area. There's not a person in this room, there's not one of you that would like to have a 65-foot building stuck in your backyard. No one. Okay. And this plan may be right legally, but that doesn't mean that it's right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Stephen Cronin. MR. CRONIN: Hello. I'm Stephen Cronin. Last name is C-r-o-n-i-n. I'd just like to ask the commissioners to -- or thank them for listening to all of us and, as this thing goes forward, that you'll seriously consider the traffic, the, you know, impact it's going to have on our community in terms of traffic and, with whatever tools you have, that you'll, you know, make sure that Page 75 of85 April 18,2019 the buffer between our communities is reasonable so that we can have development where it should be and we can maintain our community. Thank you. CI{AIRMAN STRAN: Just out of curiosity, since you don't have a red shirt on, you either got left -- the memo didn't get to you or something. You've got a maroon. Do you live in Tuscany? MR. CRONN: I live in Tuscany Cove. I live -- if I can point it out on the map. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's okay. I just wanted to. MR. CRONIN: Right there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. MR. CRONIN: I don't have any red shirts. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right nearthe -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It's a kind of red. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Yeah. Thank you. Next speaker, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: Brian Gorla. MR. GORLA: Hi. It's Brian Gorla, G-o-r-l-a. And I'm from St. Louis, so I thought we were celebrating the Cardinals here today. Thanks for the opporhrnity to be able to speak. I'm going to interrupt the Tuscany Cove portion of the meeting to talk about Bent Creek Preserve, which I'm a resident of. And somebody had asked a question earlier about Bent Creek on the visuals, and they said they would cover it, and they didn't cover it. All the visuals that I saw covered Tuscany. So what I can tell you, when you do look at that map and you look at the northeast section of it, there's retail -- what I would call retail. I'm not in this line of work -- that goes all the way up against the eastern portion of Bent Creek, and it also -- the residential comes up against Bent Creek. The way I understand it, there's 15 feet of boundary there, and some of the solutions I'm hearing this morning is to move the lake and push it down to, you know, so that we're going to have even more exposure in our neighborhood. And what I'm asking is is that we have a wall between our neighborhood and that we have the same kind of bufler that's being discussed over at Tuscany Cove. We feel that those are also going to be looking down at us. And so that's what we're asking. There are a number of people in the neighborhood. I'm representing -- you know, I'm just myself from the neighborhood. We've had a number of people from the neighborhood send in comments to you-all and get that information into Nancy. So I know that there are a lot ofpeople that are concerned about that. You know, one of the things that it says in the special conditions is there will be no outdoor amplified sound between the hours of 10 p.m. and 8 a.m. weekdays and 12 a.m. and 8 a.m. on weekdays (sic). But another way of saying this is there will be amplified sound up to 10 p.m. on weekdays, and up to midnight on weekends. Well, I don't know about you -- you had, I think, asked a question earlier about how loud is too loud. Well, if I was to show up with my trumpet and start playing Herb Alpert songs outside your house and you told me to just keep moving away, we'd probably figure out how loud was too loud; until you didn't hear me anymore, and that's what we would be experiencing with a 15-foot setback over along Bent Creek. So we just want that to be addressed with this development over on the eastern boundary as one of the areas that's being addressed on the Tuscany side. So that's number one. The second thing is with regard to the interconnect. And, again, speaking for myself, but I talked to the neighbors in the neighborhood, and I think that, again, what they said they were writing in in terms of their emails is they're not opposed to an interconnect. And, again, everybody that I've spoken to within the neighborhood, we're in favor of an interconnect. Page 76 of85 April 18,2019 So we understand what it does for the community. We also understand what it does for our community to have access to this development. We see this as a good development, and we want to have access to it. Now, if you're going to put in storage units, then it's not going to be that exciting, but if it's restaurants and things like that that's proposed, we see that as great. We've got people saying they're going to buy golf carts, you know, and go use this faciliry. And so what I would say to you is is if it's a pedestrian walkway, that's great. We'd like to connect to that. If it's a drive through, we're a gated community. We expect to have a gate with a guards area there, that that would be controlled, that only our Bent Creek residents would have access to. We're a little bit different than a number of the communities in the area in that we're mostly year-round residents. There are some snowbirds that will be leaving shortly, but we have a lot of year-round residents, a lot of school children in there, and that gate's extremely important within our neighborhood because children are going to the school buses, and if that gate wasn't over there and it became a cut-through over to Woodcrest or out to Immokalee, then it would become quite dangerous for the families in the neighborhood. So we're excited about interconnecting. We would want it to be for our residents only. And we look forward to the development. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm curious, sir. Were you in attendance at the NIM? MR. GORLA: I was. And I walked away from that meeting as -- I would tell you the top three concerns atthat meeting were traffic, traffic, and traffic. Those were -- those were the top three items that I heard atthat meeting. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Are there other Bent Creek people here today? MR. GORLA: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay, good, good. Thank you. MR. GORLA: And there were some here earlier that just needed a timeout. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Enough's enough. Got it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, before you leave, a couple points. MR. GORLA: Thank you. CFIAIRMAN STRAN: I would think this board would be hard pressed not to treat allthe residential boundaries the same. MR. GORLA: Great. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So from that perspective, I think we're obligated to do that, at least in my personal opinion. So the second thing is the interconnect. There's an interconnect shown on your developer's master plan. I'm not sure it lines up with the one they're proposing. MR. GORLA: It does not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, see, that's the little piece I'm trying to figure out, because I don't know how it got approved by Collier County to have houses where the interconnect is supposed to go or if that did happen. I don't know. But between now and the l6th of May, we'll have to look into that, because if your developer was obligated to do it, and they're obligated to connect to it, we'd to have look at that as an issue to resolve, so... MR. GORLA: Yeah. Where their road shows on this plan, there are villas being built there right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was there yesterday, yes. I was looking at that thinking, I wonder where they think they're going to put this interconnect. MR. GORLA: But the stub -- so that road would have to be moved a little bit to the north in order to connect with it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, see, your project was in first. Theoretically, it should have aligned a potential interconnect somehow, and then they should be lining up to that since they're the second parly in. Page 77 of85 April 18,2019 So I don't know how all that's going to work yet, but we will flesh that out on the l6th of May, probably. MR. GORLA: Yeah, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: It looks like it goes to their lake. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. We'llhave to get all that - these are the details we haven't -- we would normally have gotten into before we got this far. Go ahead. MR. BELLOWS: David Caldwell. MR. CALDWELL: Good afternoon, Chairman and Commissioners. My name is Dave Caldwell. I'm actually a manager of HOAs with Lennar Homes. We're the developer of Bent Creek. But I'm also the president of the Bent Creek Preserve Homeowners Association, and I'm trying to represent their interest here at this meeting. So many of the speakers -- Brian, one of our residents, sort of summarized what I was going to speak to, and I don't want to reiterate all of that, and plus the Chair has already expressed that you were going to treat Bent Creek similarly in whatever you decide. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm going to strive to get there, and I'm sure the rest of us will, but it just remains as the conversation goes on how it finals out. MR. CALDWELL: Well, I appreciate your reflection that Bent Creek would be treated in a similar fashion. I do have an exhibit that you haven't seen, if I could put it on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Gee, they don't line up. Surprise. MR. CALDWELL: Actually, they do. I used the Bent Creek site plan. The orange on the Bent Creek side is the road connection that we were required to do for the PUD approval, and it terminates right at the property line, which is a common line with Baumgarten and, of course, you see the orange on the Baumgarten doesn't line up with anything. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's not our interconnect. MR. CALDWELL: So, obviously, you just mentioned how you were trying to reconcile that at some future meeting, but the point -- and I just want to agree with Brian Gorla who spoke moments ago. It's not that we have an objection to an interconnect. The residents see it as a benefit to the community for them to use the shopping or whatever services are available over in Baumgarten as well as getting over to 951 or Collier Boulevard. It's just that as a gated community, Bent Creek Preserve, we would install gates that would restrict the access from the public to come back into Bent Creek. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that would be expected. And we ran into the same issue with Pebblebrooke and the project that they're next to, and it worked out fine in the end for them, so it would be something -- MR. CALDWELL: Right. And your planners who I spoke to said that was probably an expectation, and they didn't think that was a problem. So -- but the other points I was going to raise if they hadn't come up earlier were just on the buffering along our common property line between Baumgarten and Bent Creek. It's a Type B buffer, but a landscape by itself wouldn't be sufficient. We believe it needs a masonry wall along that side where it interfaces the residential components. At the very south end of Bent Creek is a conservation area. Obviously, that doesn't require a wall itself, but that seems to be adjacent to a lake area for the Baumgarten development, so that -- and that's pretfy much it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Karl. COMMISSIONER FRY: I would just point out we have an exhibit in our packet. lt'sPage 426 of the large packet, and it's the master -- it's kind of the master plan that we saw conceptually. But they show a stub-out, and it might be handwritten in the diagram, but it shows it not as far north as that major Page 78 of 85 April 18,2019 road that you had highlighted on yours but farther south. Still not in alignment with yours, but much farther south on the properfy. It's kind of -- it's in the middle of that lower R section on the original master plan. So I just want to clariff that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it still won't work is what I think it boils down to. They have a completed road butting up to their property line, so at some point it's got to be coordinated with theirs, and we hopefully will see that or better understand that on the 16th. Anybody else? COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. MR. CALDWELL: Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: Would you like us to clarifu that now? CHAIRMAN STRAN: No, we'll wait till the -- we have got enough to -- we've got a lot to work on between now and the 16th. Next? MR. BELLOWS: Linda Miller. MS. MILLER: Good aftemoon, Chairman and board members. My name is Linda Miller, and that's Miller just like the beer. And I'm a long-time owner at Tuscany Cove which abuts the new proposed development. Our community of 294 single-story homes had its first residence in 2005 and was built out by 2007. We bought into that community as a secured gated community, and we want to make sure it stays that way with any new gate that comes about for us. We've been there a long time. We love our beautiful community and are very proud to call Tuscany Cove our home. We are not against the build of the point. We know that it has to be developed, but we are against the build of 400 multi-story rental apartments and a multi-story hotel, which would tower above us and block our views. We are totally in shock, though, about this proposed hotel. This area is no place for hotels. Hotels should be near the expressway ramps, the beaches, Tamiami Trail, not amongst residential communities. On the east side of Collier Boulevard, there are all well-established residential communities from Immokalee Road all the way south to Saint Agnes Catholic church at Vanderbilt Beach Road. Going east of Collier Boulevard on Immokalee Road there are all residential communities there also. We see there is the new hotel being built across from Walmart on Juliette Boulevard near the expressway and is slated for another one on Pine Ridge Road in the area where the Harley Davidson dealer was. This is where hotels should be built, where there are long-established commercial businesses. There are also already existing hotels in both ofthose areas for years. At Commissioner Burt Saunders'town hall meeting on April 9th at the Vineyards, he stated that more hotels are slated to also be built on the south end of Collier Boulevard near the I-75 Alligator Alley campus where there are already a number of existing hotels. That is where hotels should be built, which is amongst a huge commercial area. For those having a security background like I do or follow the news closely every day on the radio, TV, and in the newspapers, you'll know that hotels breed a lot of crime, be it in car invasions, drug dealing, prostitution, or human trafficking. Florida is rated the No. 3 state in the country for human traffrcking. Just recently there was a huge human trafficking bust in Collier County at the hotel area near Alligator Alley. When First Sergeant Neal Bohannon of the Collier County Sheriffs Department spoke to our Tuscany Cove community on March 20th, he told us that we have one of the safest and low-crime communities in the area. That is why a lot of us bought at Tuscany Cove, and we don't want to see that change. We want to keep our children safe and protected from this type of crime that a hotel breeds. I'm sure you'd feel the same way about wanting to protect your families. Thank you for your time. Do I have any time left? There's some comments that were made earlier in the day that I'd like to Page 79 of85 a, April 18,2019 add a little bit to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, ma'am. Go right ahead. MS. MILLER: Okay. So first of all, when they talked way earlier in the morning about the Immokalee Road flyover that would go with Collier underneath, now at Burt Saunders'talk on April 9th, he said that is slated in the plan first for 2040. That's a long ways off. A lot of us are going to be gone and dead. And there's no funding put in place at this time for that even. I was going to address about Bent Creek, but I'm glad we have representatives here from them, because I personally went over there and spent a long time with their liaison in their communif center, but I'm glad somebody showed up from there to address that. When they talked about that stoplight going at the area where it's coming out of Pebblebrooke shopping center, I'm still puzzled how you think that's going to solve our problems trying to get out of Tuscany Cove because right now it backs up so far from the stoplight that's heading north on Collier Boulevard to either they're going to go straight ahead to go to the CVS, or they're going to turn left to go west on Immokalee, or they're going to turn right and go east on Immokalee. Now that backup's going to go even further in front of our community. We will never get out of our community, much less get across three lanes to be able to turn left to go into Pebblebrooke ourself or to be able to do a U'y to go south on Collier Boulevard like I have to do to get to work. The overhead projection that was shown earlier today with the number of units that were proposed showed only 220 units for build of the apartments. Now, I don't know -- we've always been shown 400, so it would be great if it would be 220. But we did see it up there. I know a lot of us commented about that. So I don't know where the disconnect became 400 versus 220 that was in the original plan that they had on the overhead. And also, one last thing. Talking about the impact with our congestion of traffic. When you're heading south of Immokalee Road, if you look to the east, just as we speak today, there is a huge parcel of land being cleared. We were in shock as we traveled here today that they cleared all those trees. So we know it's another gating community going there. I don't know how many people. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's called Twin Eagles South, and it's 853 units already platted. MS. MILLER: See? Now, what is that going to do to us and our intersections there? It's going to not only impact the intersection of Immokalee Road, but also Vanderbilt Beach Road. And even if they do put that down by the -- let's see. That would be close to -- well, it would be where the expressway overpasses Vanderbilt Beach Road. They're talking about a possible slider, to get a slider in there. I don't know where they're going to find any room to build a slider to get into there, but that's what Burt Saunders talked about on April 9th at -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just don't know what a slider -- what was meant by that. MS. MILLER: He expressed it as a short little fast ramp to get onto the expressway, because he said that would help relieve some of the congestion on Immokalee Road. And there was some other place, too, in Naples, not real close to us that he talked about another slider. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to stay tuned for the 16th, because our transportation planner is smiling -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: There they are, transportation;there they are. You can ask them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we'll have answers -- some of that will be discussed, because it's going to be something else to explore to help our system. So, thank you. MS. MILLER: I think that's it. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're welcome. Next speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Robert Banse. (No response.) MR. BELLOWS: Ronald Koldjeski? Pardon for the pronunciation there. Page 80 of85 April 1E,2019 MR. KOLDJEKSI: Good afternoon, Mr. Strain and commission members. Thank you for the opportunity to voice this opinion today. I'm from Bent Creek. My last name is K-o-l-d-j-e-s-k-i. It's pronounced Koldjeski. I live at 9327 Woodhurst Drive in Bent Creek; been living there over ayear, been in the Naples area over three years. And when Mr. Sawka, I believe his name was, he mentioned about a term we use in the real estate business called externality, which is something that's outside of our purview as homeowners. It has to deal with what happens in our neighborhood. The creation of 65-foot buildings is an externality to everybody who has single-family dwellings in Collier County and in Bent Creek and in Tuscany Cove. I don't want to get far afield here. Just as a little background, 35 years in the real estate business as a broker, as a certified appraiser, certified property evaluator, from Pennsylvania. My concern is not only traffic, but my concern is means of ingress and egress. I don't know, after sitting here all day, what map you folks have to look at because the one I looked at shows an interconnect road that goes into the residential area of the Baumgarten subdivision, and I don't think the people in the Baumgarten subdivision are going to be very happy with the people from Bent Creek going through their area, as we wouldn't be so happy with the people from Baumgarten development coming through Bent Creek. So I'm here to say a few things: One, regarding traffic. Now the road, Woodcrest Road, all the way down onto Massey Road going into Vanderbilt Road is open, and along that road there's four or five different subdivisions. There's Mockingbird, and there's Calusa Pines, and there's La Morada, and Richland, and there's the back gate to Bent Creek. So that road is getting quite a bit of traffic now. It's taking some of the traffic off Immokalee, taking some of the traffic off of Collier, but I don't think it's enough because of the subdivisions that are now in there. And I missed a couple. I'm just going off the top of my head. I'm trying to speak here not from paper but from my heart. So traffic, I think, is a problem, and I think you folks are going to do the best you can to try to address that. My other problem outside of the one I just mentioned about the externalities of the 65-foot buildings which, in appraiser's lingo, any externality that is like that in a residential single-family to a residential single-family community does potentially cause a decrease in property value. So that's another one of my concerns, and I think it's concerns of the people in Bent Creek. Finally, when I sat here all day today and listened to you acquiesce, basically, to the 1O0-foot setback on the southern part of the Baumgarten development, no one mentioned about the setbacks or the vegetational berm on the Bent Creek side, on the east side. I'd certainly like you to consider that also to be much more than l5 feet as well as possibly the construction of a wall and certainly a gate for ingress and egress. That's really all I have to say. Thank you again for the opportunity to express the opinion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: The last registered speaker is Warren, and I believe it's pronounced Fratturola. MR. FRATTUROLA: I'll pass. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's the last registered speaker? I.INIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No, no. MR. BELLOWS: I have been given a Iist of about 20 others that but with the note that they're just here attending. CFIAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's assume -- let's call those out, and if those -- we'll start those first. And as we usually do, we'll see how far we can get. But we've got about l5 minutes, so those of you that want to speak, we'll try to fit as many in as we can. MR. BELLOWS: Michael Buccino. Page 81 of85 April 18,2019 CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike Buccino, if you're here and want to speak, please come on up to the front. If not, we'll move to the next one. Okay, Ray. The next one. MR. BELLOWS: Conrad Catalando? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Catalando, if you're here. If not, next one. MR. BELLOWS: Margaret O'Rourke? MS. O'ROURKE: Pass. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next one. MR. BELLOWS: Salvatore Barcia? (No response.) CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: Next one. MR. BELLOWS: Robert Kortabass (phonetic)? MR. KORTABASS: Pass. CFIAIRMAN STRAIN: Next one. MR. BELLOWS: George Fahmy. MR. FAHMY: Pass. MR. BELLOWS: These are the ones that they didn't want to speak. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Usually we don't get -- we're not -- ladies and gentlemen, it's okay. We're not ignoring you. I'm just saying usually we get speakers who want to speak on speaker slips, not who don't, so that's a first. So let's start back, and whoever has not spoken who would still like to speak, let's get as many of you tonight done as we can, and we'll move on to the rest of you on the 16th. Yes, ma'am. Do you want to come up and speak? If so, come on up. MS. FAHMY: Yes, and I should be in that packet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's okay. It doesn't matter. We're good. We're here to listen to you, and we'll do it whether it's registered or not. One way or another, we'll find out. MS. FAHMY: I mean, I'm just curious why my name's not in the package. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The first thing we want to know is when we asked everybody to be sworn in, did you stand? MS. FAHMY: Yes,l did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good then. Okay. MS. FAHMY: My name is Ruth Fahmy. My last name is spelled F-a-h-m-y, and I live in Tuscany Cove. And, you know, I tried to practice this, but I listened to a lot of stuff today, so I'm just going to kind of speak out, you know. I don't want to be too redundant, and I know that you have a serious concern about traffic here. So I just want to mention some of the things that had not already been said. One is we had a fatal traffic accident early this January at the intersection of Immokalee Road and Collier Boulevard. It resulted in serious injury and two facilities, a young mother and a young toddler. I don't believe that's the only fatality. I believe there was one a few years ago where the vehicle went into the parking lot by Bank of America on Collier Boulevard, and I don't know what else there is. My neighbor Linda mentioned that we had a Collier County Sheriff come out to address our community about safety. And when he was asked about traffic in Collier County, he basically reiterated what others have said, which I want to mention in a minute, that Collier Boulevard and Immokalee Road is the busiest intersection in Collier County. I know, geographically, Collier County is larger than the entire state of Rhode Island. So for this to be the busiest intersection and at the same time that the accident took place -- and it was tragic. It was heart moving for any mother, any human being. Page 82 of85 April 18,2019 And the articles had stated that there have been 202 accidents at the intersection of Collier Boulevard and Immokalee Road in a two-year period. So I did the math on that really quick, mainly because I kind of do math stuff with my 11-year-old grandson, so it kind of makes me want to go there sometimes. And that comes out to almost one accident every three-and-a-half days. The other things I want to mention is is that when Commissioner Saunders had his public hearing on April 9th, I think Linda said it was, and we got the pleasure of meeting Trinity back there -- I recognize her here today. And I don't know who Mr. Mike Bosi is, but I know now that this is Nancy Gundlach. We really appreciate what the people in the counf are trying to do to keep this county beautiful and safe and moving well. And I called Mr. Bosi quite a while ago. I was concerned -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's him back there. MS. FAHMY: Hi. Nice to meet you -- a while back because I have a daughter who's a school teacher. She leaves Tuscany Cove, and every morning it's like she'll call and say, can you get the local news on? Was there afatality? I have to call in. I'll be late for work. That's how much the traffic is. And I know from Ms. Trinity Scott in traffic they're going to be doing a congestion report this summer. But why is somebody going to go from Logan Boulevard to Livingston? I don't understand that. Because there's so much building goes on in the east. And when our development put together our petition letter, I think we counted nine developments. But there's so many more than that now. So I don't think -- you know, I understand why this properly is very valuable to anyone, the busiest intersection in all of Collier County. But I think that that, just so much more, makes it so important for all of you to really do your homework, don't rush to approve or disapprove this. And I'm going to go back, and I'm going to say the confusion I listened to today, which map? What's the most current? What's before you? Who's got what? All of this, that's evident in all of the people's notes in Growth Management. They've been confused as to what to have as a problem or an issue or approval or resolve or go back to this exhibit or that exhibit. I think everybody's got to get on the same page. And the only thing I found disappointing from Growth Management was when Ms. Gundlach -- I think it's one of her assistants or her associates, her peers in that department, they have to do their due diligence and then fit the definition of "legally sufficient." But I'm hearing here today that you gentlemen also have to take into the definition of compatibility and complementary. So I think if you can not make this like such a tunnel vision -- here it is on the map. It's a pod -- and look at it in the whole entire bigger picture, past, present, and future, and what's going on with growth -- and I agree with my neighbor, Linda, when she said that the funding is not there for the flyover. So, I mean, I think it's nice that the developer's offering whatever if they do that, but in the meantime we still have to go to work; we have to go to the doctor; we have to go to church; we've to go to school; we have to do these things. We really need just to really weigh this out carefully, put all these great minds together, and make it be a win-win for everybody. And it's late. I'm going to tell everybody have a blessed holiday season, be it Passover, Easter, whatever, and thank you so much for your time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And we have time for one more speaker. And does anybody else wish to speak tonight? Sir, come on up. MR. WALTERS: I'll be brief because what I had prepared to say has been heard before. But I just wanted to share a few things. I thank you for the time -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Were you sworn in earlier -- MR. WALTERS: My name is Dale Walters. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- when I asked everybody to rise and -- MR. WALTERS: Yes, I did. My name's Dale Walters. I live on Cortona Way, which is right there. So that's right where I'm concerned. Anyway, the Collier County Strategic Planning workshop in2017 states, the County will focus Page 83 of85 April 18,2019 on growth management. Collier County will focus on ways to create and maintain communities that are vibrant, attractive, and safe. A strategic goal is to preserve and enhance the safety, quality, value, character, and heritage of our neighborhoods. The plan states that Collier County is a rapidly growing community. The countli's growth is managed to prevent inconsistent, undesirable, and unattractive growth. What I've just stated came from this document of a workshop from2017. At this time there are three home developments: Bent Creek, Richmond Park, and Romana, all of them within one-half mile to the east of the property being discussed. These communities are being developed right now. The addition of the proposed property does not seem to conform tothe2017 plan to have desirable growth within close proximity. For 43 years I have been a golf course superintendent. I take care of the Moorings Country Club in Naples. I've purchased plants at the Pelican Nursery, which is the propert5/ we're discussing, for many years, so I was quite comfortable to find that for my homesite. My wife and I, as I already pointed out, Iive directly behind this properly, and we are of great concern because we have serenity right now on that property, and that's hopefully what we can keep. I'd like to reiterate that the county's strategic plan states that the goal is to preserve the value, the character, and heritage of our neighborhoods. We desire a significant buffer zone to be established along our border. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. And with that, that's about as close as we're going to get to hearing everyone we can today. We are going to continue this until the May -- Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm sorrlr, but -- we're going to continue it, but I have a request at that continuance. I would ask that the applicant bring back a representation of what they intend to propose, as best they can by that meeting, what they intend to build. We had several different renditions. And if they're going to change the bubble diagram as part of the PUD, that they coordinate with staff and we get an accurate representation for that meeting. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, this meeting will be continued to May l6th. We're going to vote on that right now. So those of you that can come back, we will have additional public input then, but we're going to go back to the style where the Planning Commission talks first, and then we go to the remaining public speakers. We've heard quite a few of you tonight. We've got some ideas, but I think a lot of your concerns and questions might be addressed in the questions that we will ask from our experience sitting on this board. So with that, is there a motion to continue this until the May 16th meeting? It will be the first item. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I make a motion we continue. COMMISSIONER FRY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? Motion made and seconded. All in favor, signifu by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. With that, we'll see everyone on that particular item on the 16th of May, and that takes us -- there's no new business listed, no old business. Is there any public comment? Any other issue? Page 84 of 85 April 18,2019 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Move to adjourn. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Stan. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second. COMMISSIONER FRY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Seconded by Ned. All in favor, signiff by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: AYE. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAN: We're out of here. ****f** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:58 p.m. COLLIER COI.INTY PLANNTNG COMMISSION ATTEST CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT & COMPTROLLER These minutes approved by the Board on 5- ll- 11 , as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BE}IALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT,INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. -tflk^ Page 85 of85